Im having trouble with going with a supercharger or or going twin turbo but maybe n/a can i have some suggestions on that

 

you should try posting in the force induction section iand not the feedback section for the forum.

 

What kind of trouble are you having with a Supercharger? What kind of power are you looking for from the car? What do you plan on using the car for? Daily driving, racing, show? A little of everything? That all will help to get you more suggestions.

 

Here's what i think

Turbo= Stealthy, quieter, stock feeling, can be harmful to engine and monsterous Trq= Expensive but Best bang for buck

SC'er=Louder, easy to install, Low Trq numbers, can be less harmful to engine Can keep most n/a mods. Cheaper install

N/A= Loudest,sometimes harder to install for serious gains, little or almost no hp gains from mods, mostly carb certified, and "should" be safer for engine. Most expensive due to bang for buck hp. Takes lots of labor and many parts for minimal gains.

That about sums it up, just a general overview of what i learned.

 

A supercharger is just as likely as a turbo setup is to pop your motor.

go with a turbo setup. More power, more potential, no SC whine, no belts or pulleys to change boost levels or worry about slipping/going out, no parasitc drain on your motor.

You will see SC owners trade in their chargers for turbos, but I have yet to see one turbo owner trade in their turbo for a SC.

 

As i stated a Charger "can" be less likely to damage compared to a Turbo setup. Its in the way the power is delivered and the amount of stress (Torque).That is the facts. What has happened is different. I know theres Chargers that have blown motors. But Turbos can and will "almost" always be more harmful.

 

i know what you are saying and agree to a certain extent. Just that, the thing you aren't factoring in, is the stress on the motor required to spin that SC. That is something that IMO, is detrimental to the longevity of the motor (thus a parasitc drain)

 

Superchargers will generate less heat too because it is basically just a blower (HKS S/C in particular I have heard are barely hot at all even after a hard run). 15,000 rpm S/C vs 100,000 rpm Turbo turbine speed means that a S/C unit will last longer as well. Turbo cool down period is non-existant for a S/C, you can drive it hard and turn it off like a N/A car. Ofcourse all this at the expense of parasitic drain.

Nothing beats a turbo though for HP/torque and efficiency, and ease of maintenance (no belts to worry about).

 

I love my turbo and I have had a s/c on another vehicle, and then factor the smile factor in and turbo is the way to go. The same amount of boost can be utilized in both units, but there is no comparison to the onset of boost that a turbo delivers in comparison the s/c's. Just my 2 cents.
Craig

 

while this may be true in terms of engine bay temps, a supercharger heats up the intake charge far more than a turbocharger does, simply because of its inefficiency of compression.

 

Whoa!! Where did you get that idea? Turbos run at way higher RPMs and create more heat than an SC blower. The real issue regarding engine safety, however, isn't heat. It's the peakiness of turbos compared with the linear boost of the SC. Turbos on our engines are generally less safe than SC because of weaker rods and ring lands and the high compression of the VQ design. With a built engine, of course, the playing field is levelled considerably. As a contrast, the engines in the STIs and Audi S4s are extremely beefy and designed specifically for turbo. But, as a result, they don't rev up as quickly and smoothly and aren't, therefore, as 'driveable' as the VQ--in my opinion, and Ward's, the greatest all-time V6 in the history of the internal combustion engine.

Driving an SC blown car is fairly close to stock until you both put your foot in it and rev high. That's the advantage and disadvantage of turbo--great midrange torque at the expense of engine stress. If the engine's built, then this becomes less of an issue. The other factor is maintenance. Turbos are more complex and more prone to breakdown. Aside from belt adjustment with an SC (which I've yet to have to do after 12K miles), it's really a 'set it and forget it.'

 

I don't think you have any idea what I'm talking about.

a turbocharger is much more EFFICIENT in the way that it compresses air. So much so that the charged air from a turbo is less heated than that from a supercharger.

read http://www.nissanperformancemag.com/june05/nerds/

and it's pretty much in every thermodynamics related auto tech book. A turbocharger doesn't create as much heat in the compressed charge as a supercharger does.

 

I agree with ya on that.

As far as turbos being more expensive to maintain. I would have to disagree. They never need adjustment, have fewer moving parts. If they are tuned right and you don't have scattered timing you can be like me and have Thousands of miles without any fitment or maintenance issues. I will agree on complexity.

 

Your point is well taken when comparing a centrifugal turbo to a screw-type SC. But that's comparing apples to oranges. From the article you quote:

Centrifugal supercharger compressors like the Vortech are much more efficient. The V-5 supercharger used in their Civic Si kit can reach efficiencies of 73% over a fairly broad band.

The only real difference between the SC and the Turbo blades is the speed they spin. Faster=more heat. Turbos spin up to 100,000 RPM. SCs max around 40K. Turbos have better adiabatic efficiency for sure, but that doesn't translate into a cooler charge--in practice it's a more compressed charge.

Believe me, I'd love to have turbo, but don't want to spend the $15-20K needed to bullet-proof my engine.

 

gersteinp,

I mis read your comment. I do think your right, a turbo can be more fine tuning needed here and there. You didn't mention expensive. But you maybe right. Some of these new kits are proving old myths wrong tho because these companies are getting better and better. The focus is increasing a vehicles performance while maintaining stock driveability and i think all these companies are really focussing on this, thus driving old myths into the dirt!

 

I'm certain you're right about that. If only Nissan would slap on some titanium billet rods!