I am still debating the supercharger vs. a turbo on the z. All the really wicked fast imports are sporting turbo setups. Why is that? The procharger looks enticing with its simplicity, and good power gains.

But what is the limiting factor of a supercharger? Can i eventually get 600rwhp out of the procharger or will it never make it over 400??

It seems with a turbo setup such as the greddy you could have 2 programs.. one for the track/racing and one for daily driving which would spare your motor. so that is a definite plus for the turbo setup.

 

Yes but can't you do the same by using different belts with the SC that allow you more or less boost?

 

You could get ~600RWHP with a supercharger but it would be harder than with a turbo. With a supercharger you can't change boost as easily (you have to buy a new belt). With a turbocharger you can change the boost from inside the car if you have a boost controller or engine management system. I have heard of Supra's with like T88's getting boost up to 40PSI! Supercharger's provide power across the whole powerband while most turbocharger's provide top-end power. This is when you get nitrous, nitrous provides bottom-end with a turbo therefore spooling them faster. Supercharger's provide more torque than a turbocharger. Turbocharger's are better IMO. (BTW - this is all in general so no one start fussing over my comments...)

 

yes i understand that, but with turbo you can do it electronically.. i dont want to have to pull my car over to change belts if an ls1 pulls up next t to me and wants to run

 

Turbo are more efficient the SC in a number of aspects. The big one is parasitic drag. Robbing 5hp right off the crank is like taking 8-10hp RWHP, so at the same boost level, on the same car a turbo will product a bigger net gain.

SCs and Ts both heat up the air something wicket, but because of the placement of turbo adding an interncooler isn't that difficult. The AIT is the first SC that i've seen with an IC (and i'm still not sure where the IC is located).

Turbo's can product the max boost required mid way though the RPM range and hold it to red line. SC's typically have a linear boost curve that increases with RPM (as it's belt driven). You can gear a SC to produce max boost at lower RPM's but then it would over spin at red line, turbos an be easily controlled.

 

Efficiency of a turbo vs supercharger is dependant on a lot of things, there's no way you can generalize this. It is true that a SC has paristic drag, but you can't compare x amount of boost on one to the other. You have to take into account volumetric efficiency as well as other things.

There is more than one type of SC too. The ATI is a centrifugal type, which gives a boost curve that increases with rpm. There are also positive displacement superchargers, and those can give more boost at low rpms than either a turbo or a centrifugal SC. With centrifugal superchargers, intercooling is just as easy as with a turbo. Most positive displacement superchargers don't have the option to intercool at all, for example Stillen.

The nice thing about the ATI or any supercharger is that the boost is very predictable. Boost control is also very reliable as it is determined by the speed at which it is driven...no chance of overboosting because your boost control had a glitch. Predictability, reliability, and smooth power increase are all characteristics that might make someone choose a supercharger over a turbo.

Saying a turbo can make more power than a supercharger is kind of like saying this car is better than that car. You can always go bigger with either one to increase efficiency at higher boost levels, thus increasing the power potential. With either one, just continually increasing boost does not guarantee more power because you will reach a point where either one is too inefficient to continue making more power. I offer you the example of top fuel dragsters, which run huge positive displacement blowers. Can that engine in a turbocharged variation make more power? I don't know for sure, but I don't believe so.

 

its an easy answer.

the ricers like the sound


ssssssssssssssSSSSSSSSSSSSS

PHHOOOSH!

sssssssssssssssssssSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

PHWOOOOSH!!


versus the barely audible constant SC whine.

 

SOLD!!

 

Some of what you say is correct.

Look at what those top fuel dragsters give up with those superchargers. Those things rob those engines of 1000-1200 horsepower.

Look at the efficiency you can get with a proper turbo setup. I can name a bunch of set-ups that produce(d) more HP per liter than a top fuel dragster. You have to understand that those things start out with over 500CID and are completely rebuilt about every 1/2 mile.

Can you build a 500CI Hemi engine with twin turbos that would make the same HP as a top fuel dragster ??? Sure -- you can do almost anything when you have that many CI's, run nitro methane, and only expect your engine to run for 1300 feet.

You really need to look at some of the early (and current) turbo charged road racers. Porsche has had some really reliable cars (able to run for 12 - 24 hours straight) pushing 65psi of boost and making over 1200 HP.

To answer the original question, those camaro/mustang owners love superchargers because they are cheap and easy -- not because they are better. They also like cars that cannot handle the twisties worth a crap.

Leave the superchargers for the domest-icks. The V6 Z's DNA is held together with 2 turbochargers. Anything less is not doing the 350 justice.

The import vs. domestic battle really is one of "brains vs. brawn"

Take a look at the 2 page apology GM has plastered all over the rags lately -- They are apologizing for building 30 years of piece of $#!+ cars. Do they state that their quality is getting better -- No, they talk about how fuel efficient GM's are getting. They just don't get it.

IMO

DR

 

Boost is Boost, the only real difference that matters to me is what it feels like. Turbos come on harder, the more you push the pedal down because there's more exhaust gasses pushing the turbine.

SC's aren't affected by pedal push, only by RPM which gives a much more predictable power curve.

I don't see how choosing a SC somehow makes the Z unworthy. That seems pretty ignorant to me, but if spending $10k on a twin turbo setup makes you happy then good for you. A centrifugal supercharger is nothing but a tubocharger with gears and a belt.

 

Don't forget, there are some wicked twin turbo domestics out there.

The fastest Supercharged car that i have driven is an M3, it was quick and predictable.

The fastest turbo car i've been in is my old Prelude and it felt wayyyy more powerful, it would thrust you back in your seat and make you strain to keep you head in place. The sounds were an added bonus. I miss the boost greatly and I can't wait of the day when i own another turbo beast.

10 grand for a twin turbo setup is rediculous, i am sure that you to make a 350Z TT for less if you pieced a custom setup together and did custom piping. You just gotta make sure theres enough fuel

Turbos have my vote.

 

I think that when alot of people are planning on how they are going to build their cars there is something that is forgotten.

What are you going to be doing in your car are you going to the strip? Are you auto xing or will you road race? Do you like short sprints or long drags like on the way to vegas? (If you like long drags at higher speeds and go blown then you better get some good cooling or you just wont hang once you heat up.) Im sure you guys should be good since big bro was a skyline hehe or is actually.

Is it going to be a garage queen or a daily driver? How much money do you have for maintinence? Blah blah blah etc etc I just think this should be the main discussion when talking about planning out your car.

Whatever you do tho wait for dynos and if you arent rich wait for others to get the first gen stuff or you could be sorry.

 

I know all about top fuel engines. The point is, you can always make more power no matter which way you go. Still, I don't know of any turbocharged engines that can make that kind of power because you'd probably have to use turbines and impellers so big that the lag would be too much to make use of the power. There's no need to talk about hp/liter...that has exactly nada to do with the efficiency of the turbo or supercharger. I'm curious though, what setups are you referring to that produce more power per liter. They'll need to be approaching 700 hp/liter or more to beat a top fuel engine in that game.

FYI, I'm one of those Mustang/Camaro owners multiple times in the past. I've had a whole mess of each of 'em. Guess what? I'm into handling the "twisties". Always have been. And either platform, especially the Camaro, can handle pretty good. They just require a different driving style than some cars.

To say that its not right to supercharge a 350z is ignorant as Jesse already said. I'm not saying you are a ricer, but you sound like it with your logic. Both turbo and SC have their benefits, and I don't think you can say one is better than the other. You have to look at the characteristics of each and decide for yourself.

And regarding the "import vs domestic" battle...there isn't one. You pick what you like and that's it. You'll never convince me one is better than the other. Just like turbos and superchargers, each has advantages and you have to weigh them out to pick what's best for you. I like both, I own both, and I will eventually put a car together that will combine the best of both.

To get back to the topic, in order to answer the question you have to first decide what you want to do with the car, as well as what you expect of it. Only then can you start to debate what will be better for you. I choose the Procharger because:

1. Enough power for my street car to make it fun
2. Simplicity/reliability
3. Predicatable boost/power
4. Lower cost

Oh, and I kinda like the whining sound it makes

And if I ever do want to make more power, the Procharger should be good for about 600 rwhp with a built engine. The nice thing is, it still won't have any lag at that power level...just nice, smooth power delivery.

 

My opinion is that the Z (and I've owned SEVERAL of them) has always been turbo'd. The street cars were turbo'd and the race cars were turbo'd. IN MY OPINION putting a supercharger on a z is no different that putting on a set of flowmasters. Or putting a v6 in a Corvette or putting an inline 6 in an RX-7... its all about heritage.

I am different than most of the new Z owners -- I enjoy the Z for what it is.... and forced induction Z's have always been turbos. I hate seeing one riced up and on the same note I hate to see someone turn one into a trailer park sled.

There will no doubt be many many supercharged Z's. Some of them will be done right, and some will even be fast. But just wait and see what a well done twin turbo setup can do for this chassis.

As far as your comments concerning the predictability of turbo power -- you need to do some research. Knowing the capability of any car rests with the driver. An N/A, turbo, or supercharged car all have very predictable power curves -- it is up to the driver to know how to wring them out. I agree that some 17 year old kid who chose the Z over one of the millions of mustangs out there has the potential to slap a turbo or two on a Z and not be a good enough driver to handle it.

Your comments concerning turbo reliability are even more laughable. As I've stated before, look at the reliability of a centrifigul supercharger (pick your brand) versus any of the turbo setups out there. There's a reason why so many road race teams throughout the years have chosen turbos -- not to mention almost every 18 wheeler on the road. Turbos are extremely reliable. Can you say the same for any of the aftermarket bolt on cent. superchargers out there??

I respect your opinions, but please don't try to pass them on as fact to others. You took a shot at one of my OPINIONS concerning the Z and called it ignorant. It would be just as cheap and a lot easier for me to call your lack of truth/facts the same.

I have been waiting to replace my Z32TT for quite a while (ever since the anouncement of the Z33) and am currently waiting to see if Nissan can correct some of the shortcomings with the Z (paint/tranny/forced induction) before I purchase. Who knows, I may end up with an Infiniti Skyline GTR (which will hopefully be a TT).

I consider the current Z a bargain. I also cosider the current Z with $10 - 20K worth of TT and other upgrades to be a bargain when one considers what company that potential (reliable, predictable) 500+HP Z would be in. I can't touch a used 996TT for under $90K. I consider a Z with a $4K supercharger just that -- A z with a supercharger (no different than one of the MANY mustangs with a supercharger).

Argue with my opinions, but don't touch the facts.

Respectfully (and I mean that),

DR

 

SC for daily, turbo for all out racer.

I wouldn't turbo a non-turbo car unless I only planned on driving it occasionally.

 

If you know all about top fuel engines, then you should know something about racing in general...?

Spend some time doing research on the golden era of HP. I'm talking engines that facilitated rule changes.

You will no doubt learn the history of a BMW racing team that was able to produce over 1000 HP/liter on a very small turbo'd inline 4. You will learn of a very modern Acura that is producing crazy amounts of horsepower per liter. You will learn of the 935's that were able to make over 1200 HP.

You might also learn of the Viper TT's that are making the supercharged vipers look tame. You will learn why lingenfelter chose TT's for it's most powerful packages.

I didn't open my mouth to argue about a turbo vs. supercharger, just to argue the BS that was layed out about turbos.

As far as a domestic vs. import war... It's not a war, its a preferred application of technology-- A state of mind if you will. What I meant were that PROPER (not rice) import HP monsters are usually VERY high tech -- high HP domestics are usually very low tech. A good turbo setup (on an import or domestic) is very high tech. A good supercharger setup is as easy as slapping a roots type blower off a truck onto a big block chevy and using not one but TWO carbs.

Yes, I currently prefer imported vehicles. Not because I am a "rice boy" but because of the absolutely undisputable crap that American car makers are pushing on us. Imagine the new Mercury Marauder (pushed as a "hot rod") owners face when he discovers that his hot rod can be schooled by a stock honda accord.

Of the cars that I've owned in my life (3 Camaros(rs, ss, & z28), 2 TA's, 2 Fords, 1 Lada, 1 Fiat, 1 Dodge, 1 Mercury, 1 Nissan minivan, 1 Honda Minivan. 1 Honda Civic, and 6 assorted Z's) -- The one thing that I know for sure is that the camaros/firebirds were fairly fast in a straight line, but they handled and braked like ***. Not to mention the cheap interiors.

 

Dr, for what its worth I don't view any of this as more than a discussion. I bring what I know, you bring what you know. If you get offended, I don't know what to tell you. You're spouting off some things that you know are going to offend, like that crap about domestics and twisties.

In case you didn't already notice, I'm at the opposite end of the spectrum from folks like you, who I think we could call the "purists" without offending anybody. I have no problem at all with completely changing the engine and drivetrain in a car. I'll put a domestic engine into an import and won't think twice. If it makes the car better for my use, then I've acheived my goal. If it offends the purists, that just makes it even more fun! I'd love to have an LS1 powered rx7 or 240z.

Just because a car in past generations was turbocharged, should it always be that way? I don't think so, in fact I tend to go with something a little different. But that is indeed my opinion. This also was not the question.

From what I gather, the question is a "what are the pros and cons of a supercharger as opposed to a turbo setup?" To make a blanket statement saying one is better is impossible. It depends on a lot of things.

I never said a turbo setup can't be reliable. For my application, which is going to be pretty much the same as a lot of folks here, I think the supercharger will be more reliable than a turbo. Why? Because it is a much simpler system. Either one can be reliable, depending a lot on the installation and tuning. I don't care if somebody has more power with a turbo. I can build the bottom end to handle more boost with the SC and crank it up with a pulley change.

As far as roadracing and 18 wheeler applications, that's just it...for that particular application a turbo probably is better. We're not talking about 18 wheelers, and I don't think the guy is roadracing (although he hasn't indicated yet). I still say that a blanket statement that a turbo is better for a z is ignorant. That's my opinion.

 

whats with the noobs coming in with no respect?

Dude, you need to

1) chill out
2) *read* the book you're quoting

I'm all for power.
Personally, I prefer the low rpm pull of a Sc vs a turbo (for thsi application). I waited 4 years for Jacksonracing to come out with a SC for my 97 prelude....then I got my Z.

While I loved my lude, I love dipping in the Zs right pedal at 2k rpm in 2 gear - yay! thrust.

Your concept re: what is *proper*, the Z DNA blah..may be your opinion, but in terms of going faster it holds little weight. Kinda how the Honda ricers think that Turbos are "cheating" and that the "...only respectable way to make power is all motor".

Back on track -

Just chill out...

Turbo, Nitrous, S/C, Turbo+Nitrocooled ITC....whatever you want.

Me I'm into stock. When I want a 100Hp upgrade...I'll go buy a porsche. The Z is perfect how it is (my $.02)

 

If you want to get into history of the Z, then Nissan should have never put a V6 in a Z because the first couple generations of Z's were inline 6cyc's. Even Nissan/Nismo has been rumored to be going back and forth on if they will offer a SC, TT, or nothing for NISMO. My bet is nothing unfortunately. The bottom line is if you are a purest, dont modify your Z at all including tires and wheels, otherwise it is an after market mod thus not pure, end of statement.

All of these mods will devalue your Z but for me I do not care. I am going for what gives me the best performance for my dollar. For me, 400+ hp is enough, I do not need 600hp so are you going to tell me I should buy a set up that is capable of 600hp because YOU think it is right in YOUR mind?

All of us have different models ranging from base to track and we got them based on what we felt was best for our needs. Why cant we select FI on the same basis?

Happy modding...Jeff

 

Sorry for getting off topic folks...

I want some information on this BMW engine you're talking about. I'd seriously like to know more about it...

The smallest 935 engine I know of was 2.8 liter, so you're looking at about 430 hp/liter there. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What does the acura powerplant do?