Okay so its getting near my time to go F/I nitrous is considered cheating around here so im trying to steer clear of that but im wondering if anyone has anything good to say about superchargers to be honest they seem to fit my budget more then turbo's hows the tunability coming i havent heard much and i did search any feedback is appreciated thanks.

 

There's really not a reason to buy a supercharger anymore now that single turbos have arrived.

Check out Turbonetics and APS single turbo kits.

 

the vortech and ATI supercharger give you a more linear torque curve instead of BAM with lots of torque. That's better for control and road course driving. Also isn't such a slap on the engine. Turbos have so much torque that it's hard to get any traction at all on street tires.

they each have their pros and cons. If anyone comes out and says a turbo or whatever is 100% better in every driving situation IMO is full of BS or don't understand the Z and how it's gearing and weight distribution are set up etc.

check out the latest issue of SPEED magazine

If the vortech car had the same suspension/tire setup as the AXIS car, it would have done the best of all the cars by a pretty big margin

 

Im sure narkotic will chime in on this thread . On how he hates Vortech and a turbo is the only way to go . As you have seen in all the 350z and G35 forums that the TT set ups are having just as much or maybe even more problems than the SC 's . Even the Do no wrong APS kits....both Single turbo and the TT kits

 

ati procharger...7psi pulley...methanol injection....stock exhaust....with cats....377rwhp...320 tq.... my buddy has twin turbo aps kit(9psi) and borla true dual exhaust with kinetix race pipes....420 at the rear and he spent twice as much....i got money left to catch him!! hahaha....superchargers rock

 

I am very happy with my Procharger setup. I just got the Emanage Ultimate, now tuning is very easy. There are pros and cons to both the superchargers and turbo kits. It all depends on your specific goals.

 

i have run both the tt and procharger. i really did like the ati. some of the sounds that come from it are truely awesome. nothing like it. only reason i switched was i decided to do a built motor with alot more power and the ati compressor would not support my hp goals. even though they claim 700hp potential with the Z kit, it will not do it.
the single turbo kits are pretty reasonable compared to the supercharger too. i havn't had much time at all on my tt build so not much info i can give you on that, but i hit it once (50% throttle to be exact) and i almost couldn't get my foot back out of it fast enough to brake for the next turn.
i did rip apart blower belts a couple times though. most places do not stock them. if you go supercharged, buy a couple extra belts to carry with you. i had one blow 1600 miles from home on a fri night. the drive home sucked!

 

I don't see any downside to going with a Turbo other than the ease of finding a CARB legal Supercharger kit. The turbo puts down the power where most people want it - as soon as possible. The TT kits will give you the best overall results, but if you're considering a lower cost alternative, there's no reason to pick a SC over one of the new ST systems.

I don't think it's true to say that the linear powerband of a SC is "better" for road course driving. A turbocharged vehicle can be every bit, if not more effective, than a supercharged vehicle in the corners. You just have to adapt your driving style to compensate for the surge in power as the turbos kick in.

 

ok, by linear I meant the torque curve builds up in a more gradual way. So by the time you're in the upper rpm's it's hauling ***.

With a turbo, it's like BAM. The gearing on this car is so aggressive you pretty much WILL lose traction and spin out your tires unless you really feather the crap out of the gas pedal. I don't like that walking on eggshell feeling in a corner knowing if you I dunno sneezed that the slightest bump on the gas pedal will send your car spinning out of control because the rear tires just spun out losing traction

I have not talked to a turbo owner who has said they don't have traction issues

 

I copy/pasted this from one of my posts on G35driver:
There is a bit of misconception here. The SC does make the motor produce tons of torque. Instead of sending that extra tq to the wheels, the SC steals the power off the crank.
Take into consideration the power that is stolen by the SC.
Although 400 hp & 310 tq at the wheels sounds safe, the motor put out a whole lot more. Most of the lost power goes to the SC, then the alternator, the other pulleys, water pump, then through the drivetrain. If the SC was ran by another source & not off the cranks pulley, I bet you'd see #'s similar to turbos. 400hp would turn into 450hp & 310tq would turn into 430tq.
So SC's make less tq for a reason and it is safer for the motor............ "Wrong"
A supercharger is more strenuous than a turbo on a motor at the same power levels.
This is why turbos are so much more efficient, they are a separate source of power for the compressors.
All of the kits are equally dangerous to the motor (considering all the safety precautions & tuning)..........period

Another good point is that the APS piggy back can ramp up boost (hp/tq) to be as safe as you want. No need in getting SC's so you can have less tq down low for traction. The fact that you can get a carb sticker with a few SC's now (Though a few TT companies are in the process of doing so) is pretty much the only good incentive.
Not trying to "rip" on SC's or anything. I just had my eyes opened through experience, so I figured I'd share.

Wes

 

so at 3000 rpms, the SC is stealing 70tq? explain that? you can't with that logic

I agree SC have parasitic losses, but don't see it as more stressful than adding a couple more AC units to the belts.

centrifical SC get all their torque up high cause the turbine doesn't get boost pressure until it has a certain number of RPM's turning it


You still need racing tires to get traction with turbos on this car

 

yes that post up above from g35driver is only partial correct. the superchargers run in direct relationship to rpm, so that is the reason for a more linear powerband. turbos are unrestricted in the relationship to rpm, so they can spike power alot more, solely dependant on the exhaust strength to spool up. realisticly, turbos have some losses due to exhaust restriction.
i have a 6-71 jimmy supercharger waiting to go on a 67 camaro, and figured the hp it would take to run that supercharger at 10psi is 40hp. but the swept volume of one of the huge 6-71's is almost 350ci per revolution!! meaning the volume behind that 10psi is HUGE. the centrifical superchargers are alot more effiecient and do not rob nearly that amount of power.
the turbo kits for this car will give you more bottom end sooner when they spool up, but personally i still like the linear power and predictability of superchargers, but would take alot of cutting and modding to fit the next size up centrifical compressor into the Z chassis to hit my power goals. hence the tt i'm running now. if you think you will want more power in the future, a tt is the only choice.

 

I agree with overZealous1 100% on everything he said

 

O.K. I wouldn't know the exact #'s(I just threw some #'s out for example) and what RPM most of the power is taken at. It could be a large amount all through the RPM's, most likely it is.
Like overZealous1 said, his SC probably takes 40 hp though with another car it is still pretty relevant. So you estimate 40 through the whole RPM's?
Well I figure, in different points of the RPM range the SC is taking anywhere from 20-60hp. Maybe a little too conservative, maybe a little too extreme. Still pretty close, & a good assumption knowing that every form of FI has a "sweet spot" (most efficient operating point).
Now, hp is what most people are concerned about but TQ is what they should be paying attention to. SC's steal way more TQ than HP, that is the problem.
The difference in the loads needed to operate an A/C compressors & needing to operate SC's are way different. I guess you could compare putting 3-4 more A/C's to 1 SC but why? Don't quote me on #'s, just another guess.
Yeah, upgrading tires is a must.
Remember boost mapping could replicate SC's climbing boost (progressing boost RPM related) if you happen to dislike low end traction problems but who doesn't like that?

 

no not low end traction problems, FI people have a hard time going WOT from 1st thru 3rd gear, sometimes 4th. The tires just spin out so they have to go part throttle thru the first 3-4 gears. That's kinda lame isn't it?

Sure on the highway when you're in 4th-6th gear traction isn't an issue anymore cause the gearing isn't that strong.

and upgrading tires - yeah to racing tires. Big 295 or 305 street tires and LSD aren't even enough sometimes. To me this seems kinda showcar-ish. Brag about dyno numbers and how you have so much power you can't get traction unless you're running drag radials or slicks. I dunno, I'm more interested in predictable handling than constantly having to worry about feathering the gas pedal.

 

overZealous1 "the superchargers run in direct relationship to rpm, so that is the reason for a more linear powerband. turbos are unrestricted in the relationship to rpm, so they can spike power a lot more, solely dependent on the exhaust strength to spool up. realisticly, turbos have some losses due to exhaust restriction."

- I see with what you're saying. For a short portion of the RPM's turbos are restricted until they spool though.
The spikes can be smoothed out with the boost map.
The exhaust strength is directly related to RPM's.
Yes, turbos have losses but mainly in the short portion of the RPM's it takes to spool them.

" i have a 6-71 jimmy supercharger waiting to go on a 67 camaro, and figured the hp it would take to run that supercharger at 10psi is 40hp. but the swept volume of one of the huge 6-71's is almost 350ci per revolution!! meaning the volume behind that 10psi is HUGE. the centrifical superchargers are alot more effiecient and do not rob nearly that amount of power."

- Yes but I bet you'd be surprised how close they are. They're both compressors doing the same job, using the same form of power to drive them. They can't be that much more efficient.

"personally i still like the linear power and predictability of superchargers"

- O.K. just use your boost map to take out all the unwanted power/boost down low. That would actually make it easier on your motor.

Wes

 

I know, I know but that's the fun of it. Figuring out how to control & handle a beast & not being able to just mash the peddle & shift gears is what I like. I'd rather have too much power. Peeling out through all those gears is kinda lame but this is probably because most people are still figuring out how to operate & hook up the vehicle the right way (especially on street tires).
I have 18"Volks with 275 BFG KD's which I plan on upgrading to 285 or 295 street radials.
No street tire under 330 will give enough traction, you have to compensate with better rubber ("R" compound specifically).
If you add a ton of power to your car, you should upgrade tires for better traction & safety. That's obvious. It does take quite a bit of trial & error to find the correct sizes with the right compound.
I also have a KAAZ lsd which makes a huge difference.

"To me this seems kinda showcar-ish. Brag about dyno numbers and how you have so much power you can't get traction unless you're running drag radials or slicks.
- By no means will my car be an everyday driver anymore. I have it strictly for pleasure after what is being done to it. To me it is more frustrating than something I want to brag about but I always try to think optimistically & come off as it being kinda funny.

 

ok, since you have torn apart most of my entire post i shall elaborate.
turbos spool with exhaust strength not rpm. true they will spin faster with rpm, but your throttle blades need to be open and taking in air in order for your exhaust pulses to output more. meaning, if you are bairily cruising at 4000rpm and have the throttle at 10%, you are not intaking much air, therefore you are not expelling much air to spin the turbos fast enough to be making good boost. it will take opening the throttle blades to intake more air to expell more air. unlike a supercharger which at 4000 rpm will be trying to make boost but will be expelling the excess through the bypass or blow off valve. open the throttle blades, all your boost is right there and not bypassing anymore.
the hp figures i got to run the 6-71 were from gm manuals way back when they were using them on diesels. the rotors are much heavier than the impellors used in centrifical superchargers. i believe it would take a good 25% less power to run at the same psi. only way to find out for sure would be to talk to ati, i'm sure they have figures for it.

 

Sorry for "tearing" apart your post, & thanks for the education of the turbos.

At 4000 RPM & 10% on the throttle, you're saying that if both systems went 100% on the throttle the SC will have more boost & hp?
Maybe for a split second the SC could have a little more but with less tq.

So according to GM manuals and your 25% guesstimate, your 6-71 on a diesel motor would have taken 30hp. Now I get it.

ATI probably didn't R&D as much as you think. I bet they just took as similar motor specs,then tried 1 or 2 prototypes. In '02-'03 there was a huge market for FI, ATI probably rushed it.

 

4 + 4 = 8, thats about all i know