Turbo vs Supercharger

[Maximus]

I found this old HotRod magazine article on LS2.com from a buddy.It suggests that a turbo is better than a supercharger and explains why they think so.I just thought it might atleast show some of the pros of a turbo.SupercharedZQ8 DON'T ready any further,because I know it will get you going lol.

TURBOS VS SUPERCHARGERS

" Given equivalent vehicles, the turbo would easily motor away from the centrifugal in an acceleration contest......The turbo offered massive midrange torque production, the only system to exceed 600 lb-ft. Need more convincing? At 4,000 rpm, the turbo was more than 100 lb-ft. stronger than either the Roots or centrifugal." - Battle of the Boost , Hotrod Magazine, August 2003.

Turbocharging vs. Supercharging


http://www.turbochargedpower.com/images/turbo-housing.jpg http://www.turbochargedpower.com/images/Centrifugal%20Type.jpg http://www.turbochargedpower.com/images/Roots%20Type.jpg Roots-style Supercharger

Turbocharger Centrifugal Supercharger

Similarities

Turbochargers and superchargers are similar in that they both compress air to higher than atmospheric pressures. Normal or standard atmospheric pressure is about 14.7 psi (pounds per square inch or "psi"). The job of the compressor common to both turbochargers and superchargers is to increase air pressure so that more air is forced into the cylinders ("forced induction"). This increased air volume ("boost") is mixed with a proportionately increased fuel volume which, when burned in the combustion cycle, results in increased horsepower and torque production. However, this is where the similarities between the two types of systems ends.

Differences

Power Curves

Because they are belt driven from the engine crankshaft, centrifugal superchargers build boost as rpm increases in a linear fashion. As engine rpm increases, the supercharger compressor speed (and boost level) increases to the point of peak boost occurring at peak engine rpm. For example, a supercharger designed to produce 8 psi at 6,000 rpm may produce as little as 2.5 lbs. of boost at 3,000 rpm. Turbochargers, on the other hand, because they are exhaust driven, come up to speed very quickly (almost instantly if properly sized), and will reach the same 8 lb. peak boost level as low as 2,500 rpm. The result is much more horsepower and torque being produced earlier at lower rpm levels with a turbocharger vs a supercharger.

Efficiency

Just like the air conditioner compressor on a car, all superchargers require horsepower to turn them. This "parasitic" drag is always present, even when the car is being driven normally, and can rob 20%-30% of the power being produced by the engine. The result is a significant decrease in fuel economy and less net power produced. Turbochargers, however, are exhaust gas driven and don't require any horsepower to spin the compressor. When driven normally, a turbocharged car will not consume more fuel and, in fact, gas mileage can actually increase. Even when under full throttle, a turbocharger system will produce as much horsepower at 9 psi as a supercharger at 12 psi.http://www.turbochargedpower.com/images/Turbo%20Cutaway%201.jpg

Reliability

Both superchargers and turbochargers require high compressor rpm to compress the air. This ranges from 30,000-65,000 rpm in superchargers and can be even higher with turbos (over 100,000 rpm). In order to achieve the high rpm levels required to compress the air to the psi required, superchargers must have a step-up mechanism (gears, belts, pulleys or a combination thereof) consisting of numerous moving parts, to convert 6,000 engine rpm to the 40,000+ rpm necessary to build boost. Turbochargers need no step-up mechanism and have only one moving part, the compressor/turbine wheel assembly. The simplicity of the turbocharger is therefore less prone to mechanical problems. Superchargers must have a belt to drive them, and belt slippage or breakage is a common problem. More serious problems include crankshaft, bearing and engine damage caused by belt tension forces on the crankshaft. Turbochargers have no belt and no direct mechanical connection to the crankshaft, thereby eliminating these problems. It is interesting to note that many automobiles and nearly all large over-the-road trucks use turbochargers that regularly log in excess of a million miles of reliable performance.

Maintenance

Some superchargers have a separate lubricating system that must be maintained, but turbochargers are lubricated by the engine oil and require no additional maintenance beyond what is normally required for a naturally aspirated car.

Streetability

Superchargers are always connected to the engine, they are always producing some level of boost and cannot be "turned off". Because turbochargers only produce boost when under load (as in full throttle acceleration), performance under normal driving conditions is no different than if the engine were naturally aspirated. Turbocharged cars exhibit excellent driveability characteristics.

Upgradability and Adjustability

Superchargers are generally not upgradeable. When higher performance is required beyond the capabilities of a specific supercharger system, the entire system must be replaced. Turbocharger systems, however, are usually upgradeable by simply upgrading or installing a larger turbocharger without requiring replacement of the entire system. Further, adjusting the boost levels on a supercharger requires removing and replacing pulleys, idlers and belts. Adjusting the boost levels on a turbocharger may be accomplished with a simple turn of a boost controller knob from the comfort of the inside of the car.

Conclusion

What does this all mean? Basically, an 8 psi turbo kit will produce more peak power due to the fact that a supercharger is using a fairly large amount of power just to get it spinning. What is more important for a street car is "power under the curve" meaning the average horsepower produced. This is where the turbo really shines since you can have full boost at as little as 2500 rpm! This will make the turbo car feel like it has 50% more cubic inches (or more). The difference in torque at low rpm's can be as much as 100 lb ft in favor of the turbo due to the additional available boost....now that's performance!

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

Turbo vs. S/C. . . There's a debate I've never seen! LMFAO!

Um, I must counter. . . Soooo. . .

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

This is taken verbatum from SuperchargersOnline.com (sole credit belongs to them, and only them) -- the link to the actual article is HERE (http://superchargersonline.com/content.asp?ID=19).

FEATURES :: SUPERCHARGER TECH
Turbo vs. Supercharger
4/3/2002 11:31:00 PM







It's one of the most common questions we are asked - the answer to which is almost impossible to find


"What is better - a supercharger or a turbo?"



We only wish the answer were that simple, but unfortunately it is not. The simple answer is:
"It depends."
But don't worry, we'll go into more depth than that here. Both superchargers and turbos have distinct advantages and disadvantages. Selecting the right kind of forced induction for your vehicle will depend upon your particular vehicle, your driving habits, your power preferences, and your needs.



Clearing Up Confusion


According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a supercharger is defined as:
"a device (as a blower or compressor) for pressurizing the cabin of an airplane or for increasing the volume air charge of an internal combustion engine over that which would normally be drawn in through the pumping action of the pistons".

A turbocharger is defined as:
"a centrifugal blower driven by exhaust gas turbines and used to supercharge an engine".


According to Webster's, a turbocharger is included in the definition for superchargers - it is in fact a very specific type of supercharger - one that is driven by exhaust gasses. Other superchargers that do not fall into this category - the kind that we are all used to hearing about - are normally driven directly from the engine's crankshaft via a crank pulley. So in reality, it is not fair to compare all superchargers to turbochargers, because all turbochargers are also superchargers. For the purpose of this discussion, however, a supercharger will be considered all superchargers that are are not driven directly by the engine, while turbochargers will be considered all superchargers that are driven by engine exhaust gasses.



Similarities


Both superchargers and turbochargers are forced induction systems and thus have the same objective - to compress air and force more air molecules into the engine's combustion chambers than would normally be allowed at atmospheric pressure here on Earth (14.7 psi at sea level). The benefit of forcing more air molecules into the combustion chambers is that it allows your engine to burn more fuel per power stroke. With an internal combustion engine, burning more fuel means that you convert more fuel into energy and power. For this reason, supercharged and turbocharged engines normally produce 40% to 100%+ more power (depending on the amount of boost - check out our horespower calculator (http://superchargersonline.com/hp_calculator.asp)) than normally aspirated engines.




How They Work


A supercharger is mounted to the engine and is driven by a pulley that is inline with the crank (or accessory) belt. Air is drawn into the supercharger and compressed by either an impeller (centrifugal-style supercharger), twin rotating screws (screw-type supercharger), or counter-rotating rotors (roots-type supercharger). The air is then discharged into the engine's intake. Faster crank speed (more engine rpm) spins the supercharger faster and allows the supercharger to produce more boost (normally 6 to 9 psi for a street vehicle). Typical peak operating speeds for a supercharger are around 15,000 rpm (screw-type and roots style superchargers) and 40,000 rpm (centrifugal-style superchargers).


A turbocharger operates in much the same way as a centrifugal (internal impeller) supercharger, except it is not driven by pulleys and belts attached to the engine's crank. A turbo is instead driven by exhaust gasses that have been expelled by the engine and are travelling through the exhaust manifold. The exhaust gas flows through one half of the turbocharger's turbine, which drives the impeller that compresses the air. Typical operating speeds of a turbocharger are between 75,000 and 150,000 rpm.




Head to Head Comparison


Now it's time to evaluate the turbocharger versus the supercharger according to several important factors.




Cost

The cost of supercharger and a turbocharger systems for the same engine are approximately the same, so cost is generally not a factor.




Lag

This is perhaps the biggest advantage that the supercharger enjoys over the tubo. Because a turbocharger is driven by exhaust gasses, the turbocharger's turbine must first spool up before it even begins to turn the compressor's impeller. This results in lag time which is the time needed for the turbine to reach its full throttle from an intermediate rotational speed state. During this lag time, the turbocharger is creating little to no boost, which means little to no power gains during this time. Smaller turbos spool up quicker, which eliminates some of this lag. Turbochargers thus utilize a wastegate, which allows the use of a smaller turbocharger to reduce lag while preventing it from spinning too quickly at high engine speeds. The wastegate is a valve that allows the exhaust to bypass the turbine blades. The wastegate senses boost pressure, and if it gets too high, it could be an indicator that the turbine is spinning too quickly, so the wastegate bypasses some of the exhaust around the turbine blades, allowing the blades to slow down..
A Supercharger, on the other hand, is connected directly to the crank, so there is no "lag". Superchargers are able to produce boost at a very low rpm, especially screw-type and roots type blowers.




Efficiency

This is the turbo's biggest advantage. The turbocharger is generally more economical to operate as it as it is driven primarily by potential energy in the exhaust gasses that would otherwise be lost out the exhaust, whereas a supercharger draws power from the crank, which can be used to turn the wheels. The turbocharger's impeller is also powered only under boost conditions, so there is less parasitic drag while the impeller is not spinning. The turbocharger, however, is not free of inefficiency as it does create additional exhaust backpressure and exhaust flow interruption.




Heat

Because the turbocharger is mounted to the exhaust manifold (which is very hot), turbocharger boost is subject to additional heating via the turbo's hot casing. Because hot air expands (the opposite goal of a turbo or supercharger), an intercooler becomes necessary on almost all turbocharged applications to cool the air charge before it is released into the engine. This increases the complexity of the installation. A centrifugal supercharger on the other hand creates a cooler air discharge, so an intercooler is often not necessary at boost levels below 10psi. That said, some superchargers (especially roots-type superchargers) create hotter discharge temperatures, which also make an intecooler necessary even on fairly low-boost applications.




Surge

Because a turbocharger first spools up before the boost is delivered to the engine, there is a surge of power that is delivered immediately when the wastegate opens (around 3000 rpm). This surge can be damaging to the engine and drivetrain, and can make the vehicle difficult to drive or lose traction.




Back Pressure

Because the supercharger eliminates the need to deal with the exhaust gas interruption created by inserting a turbocharger turbine into the exhaust flow, the supercharger creates no additional exhaust backpressure. The amount of power that is lost by a turbo's turbine reduces it's overall efficiency.




Noise

The turbocharger is generally quiter than the supercharger. Because the turbo's turbine is in the exhaust, the turbo can substantially reduce exhaust noise, making the engine run quieter. Some centrifugal superchargers are known to be noisy and whistley which, annoys some drivers (we, however, love it!)




Reliability

In general, superchargers enjoy a substantial reliability advantage over the turbocharger. When a a turbo is shut off (i.e. when the engine is turned off), residual oil inside the turbo's bearings can be baked by stored engine heat. This, combined with the turbo's extremely high rpms (up to 150,000rpm) can cause problems with the turbo's internal bearings and can shorten the life of the turbocharger. In addition, many turbos require aftermarket exhaust manifolds, which are often far less reliable than stock manifolds.




Ease of Installation

Superchargers are substantially easier to install than a turbos because they have far fewer components and simpler devices. Turbos are complex and require manifold and exhaust modifications, intercoolers, extra oil lines, etc. - most of which is not needed with most superchargers. A novice home mechanic can easily install most supercharger systems, while a turbo installation should be left to a turbo expert.




Maximum Power Output

Turbos are known for their unique ability to spin to incredibly high rpms and make outrages peak boost figures (25psi+). While operating a turbocharger at very high levels of boost requires major modifications to the rest of the engine, the turbo is capable of producing more peak power than superchargers.




Tunability

Turbochargers, because they are so complex and rely on exhaust pressure, are notoriously difficult to tune. Superchargers, on the other hand, require few fuel and ignition upgrades and normally require little or no engine tuning.




Conclusion



While the supercharger is generally considered to be a better method of forced induction for most street and race vehicles, the turbo will always have its place in a more specialized market. Superchargers generally provide a much broader powerband that most drivers are looking for with no "turbo lag". In addition, they are much easier to install and tune, making them more practical for a home or novice mechanic.

[Maximus]

Now see just shows how good and healthy a debate is.Look at all those pros and cons of both and the diagrams and so on.This might spark a thought in someones brain who wondered what was the difference between the two lol.I must say I am not "pro turbo" or "pro supercharger" I just thought the article was interesting.I also found SuperchargedZQ8's article very interesting.I knew he would have a counter even though I said DON"T read lol.So there ya go boys and girls two different takes on the Turbo vs Supercharger debate.I for one would buy a supercharger"which I am a Wynjammer when available" for the simple fact they are cheaper to buy hands down and there is less involved to install one.Go price a Turbo kit and then a Supercharger kit.The Turbo kits are always more expensive.And look at all the needed equipment is to add a Turbo.But both are awesome power adders and neither would be a bad choice at all.I love getting Supercharged all pumped up LMAO!!

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

Just remember the important thing:

Supercharger=American Muscle

Turbo=Import Crowd

At least that is MY opinion.

[Maximus]

True very true.

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

True very true.
I rest my case.

ROTFFLMFAO!!

[T Man]

All Throttle No Bottle Baby!

[Matt 4.3 TBI]

No one's mentioned how turbos can overheat if you drive for a long distance uphill under steady load, or try to tow or haul very much. Remember the advertisement with the Syclone towing the boat, and how GM had to release a warning telling ppl not to do it? It can tow about 1100 lbs, and a Typhoon can't tow anything at all.

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

No one's mentioned how turbos can overheat if you drive for a long distance uphill under steady load, or try to tow or haul very much. Remember the advertisement with the Syclone towing the boat, and how GM had to release a warning telling ppl not to do it? It can tow about 1100 lbs, and a Typhoon can't tow anything at all.
Exactly. And, to my best recollection, superchargers are often specifically listed to IMPROVE towing capabilities.

Hmm. . . I think the choice is obvious. No turbos here, thank you. . . Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Maximus]

Yeah the Ford Lightning actually could tow more than the regular F150 could.And that was even with the sport suspension.Say what you will those Lightnings are bad a** trucks.

[importmaster1300]

Turbos have been on Muscle cars way before Imports. The one I can remember is the Buick Grand National (i think).
If I had it my way it would be a Supercharger and a turbo!!!!!

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

Turbos have been on Muscle cars way before Imports. The one I can remember is the Buick Grand National (i think).
If I had it my way it would be a Supercharger and a turbo!!!!!
I will need to differ on that. Porsche has been using turbos since the 1960s, as have the rice-burners -- if not longer than that. American vehicles have generally been supercharged -- with a few exceptions.

1) Gen 2 F-body -- Firebird -- I know that there was the 301 turbo, and I believe there was also a 403 turbo as well.

2) Grand National, GNX, and T-Type -- 3.8L V6, turboed. This motor was also available in a limited production Firebird as well.

3) SyTys -- most of us here are at least a little familiar with them.

4) Most diesels. Diesel fuel does not ignite under combustion the way gasoline does -- it ignites under compression, and turbos are the way to increase the compression in the cylinders to increase that compression. For the diesel tech here, forgive me if my info is incorrect, but that is my understanding. I am not a diesel tech, nor do I claim to be -- that is simply my understanding.

The other Domestics that have been turbocharged (Eagle Talon, Dodge Stealth, etc.) have been Japanese designed and built, but under an American label -- but no matter what logo you put on them, they're still rice-burners.

No -- turbos are a relatively new arrival to the Muscle scene. For the most part, with the exception of the handful of vehicles I mentioned, American cars either run N/A or S/Ced. And virtually ALL of the domestic turbos that have been produced are termed "made of glass." SyTys are cool, and they're fast and all that, but they are the most maintenance-prone, care-intensive vehicle you can imagine -- they're as bad as Jaguars. And the Buicks (GNs, GNXs, T-Types) are equally twitchy -- they require a lot of tweaking and tuning -- you can't just jump in and drive them any time you want (trust me on this one -- I've known a number of people that have raced them -- and still need to jump in and help one particular friend with his).

They may produce "more power" and run "better times," but if you need to FIX them more than you run them, what good are they? Most factory turbos have a longevity of around 80K miles, for one reason or another -- the motors are mostly OK, but the turbos are usually shot. And even aftermarket turbos aren't much better -- unless they're improved GREATLY in the last 2 years.

Plus, turbos only run well for the first few passes, and then they're so heat-soaked, that you lose almost as much power as the turbo gives you -- at least until you let it cool down for a couple hours -- and then you have the problem of oil getting baked onto everything in the turbo and polluting it.

No, American manufacturers have tried the "turbo thing" and have found it lacking. That's why you'll find only S/Cs as (factory) power adders any more. For good reason. Whoosh whoosh might sound impressive, but it still doesn't beat the sound of nice 4" ribbed belt whirring away that you can hear two miles down the road! (Roots blower, for those that aren't familiar.)

There are THREE S-Series right now with turbos on them. . . The MP Blazer -- but, the last I heard, the turbo kit was NOT still on it. A member of a couple of the other sites (whom I will keep nameless, although Jedi Master probably knows to whom I refer) that owns a Blazer X -- and the last I heard, he was having more issues than a publishing house. And then our own Sy-Clone/Tony. Tony has a different situation: bad vendor not getting parts out in a timely manner, as well as others.

Any how. Sure, power is good, but if you can't use it whenever you want, then what good is it? If you need to constantly tune and tweak it, then what good is it? I like to ADD NEW PARTS, not re-hash the ones that I've already got because they are too hard to fool with. I want to stab the key home, turn it, and burn off down the road, and not worry about how much life is left in the turbo or how hot it's going to get.

Tell me this: anyone ever been brave enough to TOUCH a turbo after it's been run hard for an hour? No? I didn't think so. You know why? They're FREAKING HOT! Third degree burns HOT! And all that HEAT is going into your intake. Heat kills power. Now, I had my truck out for 4 hours just running errands last weekend. I ran it hard for almost two hours straight. Got it in the garage and laid my hand on the blower and left it there. It was a little warm (made a nice hand warmer -- about as warm as a cup of fresh coffee), but was not, and I repeat NOT, hot.

I'll stick to the thing that is part of my screen name. . . Turbos have too many issues for my tastes. I may run slower than a turboed vehicle, but I'll have mine for a LOT longer!

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

Yeah the Ford Lightning actually could tow more than the regular F150 could.And that was even with the sport suspension.Say what you will those Lightnings are bad a** trucks.
Yep -- the original reason for superchargers was to allow WWII airplanes to achieve higher altitudes and more power.

The original reason they were used on cars and trucks was to increase towing capabilities. It's only a recent thing (well, recent in the Grand Scheme of Things) that S/Cs have been used for racing.

Yes, those Lightnings ARE badass trucks -- and they take to mods relatively nicely too! But, I've got a little white secret weapon just for them. . . It just needs a better fuel system (which is on the way)!

[Maximus]

little white secret weapon elaborate if you will

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

elaborate if you will
OK -- Is this enough elaboration?
LMFAO!

http://www.geocities.com/akhilleus_187/truck.jpg

[chesspirate]

I want to ask a question about something posted a little earlier.
It was mentioned that chargers were better that turbos in towing conditions, but if a vehicle wasn't goin to be towing that much, wouldn't the increase in mileage with the turbo rather than the mileage loss with the charger make the turbo the better option for a daily driver?

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

I want to ask a question about something posted a little earlier.
It was mentioned that chargers were better that turbos in towing conditions, but if a vehicle wasn't goin to be towing that much, wouldn't the increase in mileage with the turbo rather than the mileage loss with the charger make the turbo the better option for a daily driver?
Neither a supercharger nor a turbocharger directly increase or decrease gas mileage. Although BOTH can indirectly do so.

An S/C, while it causes a slight parasitic drag on the crank, improves the engine's ability to breathe -- thus, under CONVSERVATIVE driving conditions and S/C indirectly improves gas mileage -- usually by about 1-2 mpg. Since no ADDITIONAL air is going into the engine, but the air the engine needs is easier to acquire (it is being pushed into the engine by the blower), then no decrease of mileage is seen -- instead there is an increase in mpg due to the engine no longer using its own power to draw the air in.

Now, of course, once you put your foot to the floor and the impeller starts generating boost at higher levels, then the fuel system must provide additional fuel to compensate for all that extra air -- and in this case, it will decrease mpg by 1-2 mpg. Since the boost increase is gradual, the addition of fuel is also gradual. Max fuel supply is only seen (provided the engine has a good tune) when max air supply is seen -- and thus the biggest decrease in mileage is only seen at very high rpm.

Turbos, on the other hand, since they are not in operation until the exhaust builds enough pressure to spool the impeller, do not cause any parasitic drag, but are also not assisting the engine in breathing. Therefore, mileage is the same as N/A -- except for the slight restriction in exhaust flow that turbos (by nature) cause.

On the other hand, once you put your foot into it, there is a sudden surge of air into the engine (not a gradual increase as rpm increase, as with an S/C) and the fuel system must now supply a sudden surge of gas to accomodate the increase amount of air. Since the boost charge is nearly maximum, and since that maximum is seen at a much lower rpm and maintained throughout the rpm range, this is where the turbo less efficient fuel-wise than an S/C -- but also why it makes (relatively speaking) more power.

For a daily driver, it is my opinion that a turbo is NOT the way to go -- if you have a lead foot, it will decrease your fuel economy much more than an S/C due to the way it operates. There are also the longevity and tuning issues to combat.

And, for the record, Hot Rod magazine did a "Boost Blowout" in a previous issue (August 2003). It tested a turbo, a centrifugal supercharger, and a Roots blower. Overall, yes, the turbo did perform better due to the way it operates. But, the centrifugal provided the most peak hp (600 hp for the turbo vs 617 for the S/C). Unfortunately, their choice of Roots blower wasn't the best and it did NOT make a very good showing for itself.

I can't stress it enough -- it all depends on what you want to do. Personally, I'll take my truck with an S/C over a turbo ANY day. Of the three turboed S-Series that I am aware of, NONE of them can be driven right now -- mine CAN.

As far as turbo kits for an S-Series -- there are two on the market. . . The STS remote-mount, which I know very little about (although the idea seems interesting) and do not even know the price. The other kit is HIGHLY questionable, from a questionable source, costs close to $6000, and has yet to prove itself worthwhile -- and that's IF you can get all the parts for it.

[Divergent Lightning]

From reading this I would have to say that the general feeling here is taht Superchargers are better.

I would have to say that the Turbo offers more felxability than the Supercharger. Although i will always admire the whine of the supercharger, it is very difficult to make any modifications to bosst pressure as compared to how a turbo can be made to change it's behavior on the fly.

As for towing, I have known many Syclones and Typhoons that have been outfitted with tow hitches and have carried 25ft boats at times. Also, when people are debating bewteen turbo and supercharger, they rarely think about how it will help them tow better. The overheating factor can be easily overcome with fans and/or a larger intercooler.

As for reliability, the Domestic producers couldn't put together the car/truck that was supposed to be put together because of the illustrius flag car. Both the Grand nationals and the SyTy would have been much faster than the Corvette in their day had they been put together as they should have been but were de-tuned due to the potential overshadowing of the Corvette.

I believe the auto manufacturers also head in teh dircetion of apeall. Most american car buyers don't want to be associated with the new "Tuner" group and therefore avoid the Turbo completely.

As for the aftermarket applications, there might be a problem of simply expecting the turbo to bolt on as most domestic aplications have in the past. To make the the most out of a Turbo-charged system it needs to be tuned.

but then, I might be biased. :)

[Sy-Clone]

"Turbos,the ultimate power adders" PEACE>Tony :chomp:

[Matt 4.3 TBI]

Also, when people are debating bewteen turbo and supercharger, they rarely think about how it will help them tow better.
I must be a rare breed, then! My truck is definitely not a racer, I use it to haul loads quite often. I've also seen SyTy's with hitches, and that infamous poster of a Syclone hauling a boat, but remember GM released the bulletin stating shortly afterward you should NOT attempt to tow with them or risk engine and transmission damage. The marketing department hadn't consulted the engineering department when they came up with that one.

I won't knock a turbocharger, they're an awesome invention, if you know your history the original design became what is now the turbojet engine. I still have to give it to the supercharger because even though it doesn't produce as much hp-per-psi, it doesn't have the detriments (ie, decreased payload, spool-up lag, lots of heat) a turbo does. I would still love to have a SyTy, but it couldn't be my only vehicle.


The overheating factor can be easily overcome with fans and/or a larger intercooler.
It seems like quite a pain in the *** to have to upgrade the factory equipment to meet the standards of the cheaper models (S10/Sonoma, Blazer/Jimmy). But again, if I bought a SyTy, I would never consider towing with it. It would be for weekends and play!

[Supercharged-ZQ8]

Yes, turbos have a distinct advantage over S/Cs when it comes to upgrading. But needing to adjust boost "on the fly" shows that the engine wasn't set-up properly to begin with. I am of the opinion that if you need to constantly tinker with it and tune it and adjust it, then it's more of a PITA than it's worth. I want something that will run consistently and reliably -- and I have yet to see a turbocharged vehicle do either.

I'm also of the opinion that intercoolers are like FMUs -- they are a band-aid for an inefficient design. I know I am going to get flamed for that remark, but the fact is that if you run 8 psi on an S/C, an intercooler is not necessary. On the other hand, if you run a turbo at the same boost level, an intercooler IS necessary. In fact, from what I've seen MOST turbo applications require an intercooler. It's not a "smart thing" -- it's a band-aid.

Yes, they run better times psi-per-psi against S/Cs, but that doesn't justify the liabilities and disadvantages they have, as far as I'm concerned. Reliability is an issue with ANY turbocharged vehicle -- not just domestics. I've dealt with Asian, German, Italian, and domestic cars, and have yet to see a turbo last more than 60K miles without needing a rebuild. And what does factory tuning have to do with reliability? That shouldn't even be a factor. The fact of the matter is that S/Ced vehicles are second only to naturally-aspirated vehicles when it comes to reliability and consistency. Yes, S/Cs do have their limitations, but those are limitations that are easier to deal with than the limitations that turbos have -- in my opinion. Sure, boost isn't as easily adjustable -- but more boost isn't always a good thing. In fact, "more boost" can often be a bigger problem than it's worth.

I've been building motors and racing for almost 20 years. I've dealt with roots blowers, centrifugal blowers, N/A motors AND turbos. I've tuned and tweaked most styles of engines -- 4-cylinders, 6-cylinders (both inline and V), 8-cylinders (flat-tops and more conventional Vs), a V10 or two, and even a couple 12-cylinders. Based on my own experiences, as well as those of friends, I prefer S/Cs -- that's just me.

Forced induction is a matter of preference -- plain and simple. Yes, there are inherent advantages and disadvantages to all forms -- it's a matter of weighing the options and finding which one suits your purpose and your vehicle (and, not to mention, your wallet).

[Maximus]

I used to own a turboed Ford Probe yes I never mention it before for the obvious reason and I was young.But that was the biggest pain in the arse car I have ever own.It was constantly needing something replaced do to the heat.And if you think there was any room for a larger intercooler for those your crazy.That engine was packed so tight in that engine compartment there was no room for crap.Even in front of the the radiator it was a very tight fit.And the Probe only had around 50k on it when I bought it.Parts wise let's see the tranny went out,,the cat stopped up almost completely,plug wires would melt all the time,starter would get heat soaked and eventually had to be replaced.The exhaust manifold had to be replaced because it was cracked.The turbo had to be rebuilt.And last but not least it blew a head gasket and that was the final straw.I sold it and never looked back.Is that typical of a turboed vehicle I don't know it's only one of the two I ever owned.My wife owned a little turboed Dodge Spirit that was a pretty decent car but it had it's problems to.If I had the choice I would rather make my power all natural and both turboes and superchargers have there pros and cons.Don't hate me because I owned a Probe.I was young and stayed high most of the time so im gonna blame it on the drugs LMAO!!

[Krazny]

Max,
The simple solution to that overheating problem is to simply run LOX in coolant lines thru the engine compartment. . .

[Matt 4.3 TBI]

Max,
The simple solution to that overheating problem is to simply run LOX in coolant lines thru the engine compartment. . .

I can only find one thing wrong with that...the word 'simple' :D

[LEADFOOT]

Max,
The simple solution to that overheating problem is to simply run LOX in coolant lines thru the engine compartment. . .
Ok call me stupid, but what is LOX?

[Matt 4.3 TBI]

If you insist :dunce_125

LOX = Liquid oxygen :jester_12

[Krazny]

Hey, I am an engineer in training, ok?
50 pages of calculations for one problem is 'simple' to me. . .

[bvr775]

i've been doing allot of research on turbos:
this is what I've found of interest so far.

as for the issue of overheating. This was a major issue years back before the advent of ceramic blades, precision berings, and many outher improvements to reduse heat and greatly increase life span:
still researching

lag: simple you run to 2 diffent size tubos a small one and larger one.I've seen setups with 3 on some of the faster imports with no heat soak problems and able to make multiple runs with no oil cook.

waste gates are an issue if you set them up wrong: I'm still researching this

the biggest problem is price. To correctly setup a turbo on a gas engine your looking at 10gran or more. not allot of people willing to pay that. they take shortcuts so you get more myth than fact in most cases.
This has been a hard subject to research so give me some time.there is more myth about these thing than any outher gas engine performance componet i've every come across.It would be real hard to condence this subject and present all the facts. I'm looking at 3 posts just to get the basics across and explain the math beh, but one thing I do know is turbos are not for hobbyest. They are for seriuos racers with serious money backing them. most of your top racers woun't run turbos just because of the setup and money involved, but those who can don't lose very offen.

[Maximus]

Max,
The simple solution to that overheating problem is to simply run LOX in coolant lines thru the engine compartment. . .You must have never owned a Probe before lol.The only thing even remotely small enough to fit in that engine compartment was the engine it's self.Then you add the turbo and plumbing and then you've used every inch of space available.It was a fast little car but way to dam expensive to keep running that way.:giveup: