Turbo or Super Charged? Pros and Cons of both
01-09-2007, 09:09 AM
#41
Originally Posted by Nismo 350z
Porshe 996 and 997 GT3 are NA cars... no blowers on either of them.
Originally Posted by reptile718
SINCE THEY PUT MORE STRAIN ON YOUR ENGINE COMPONENTS. I recommend you use the search option on these boards, very helpful.
yeah but they all put strain on the engine, in different ways and dependent on how the person drives
01-09-2007, 09:27 AM
#43
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bradenton/Sarasota
Posts: 5,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by reptile718
SINCE THEY PUT MORE STRAIN ON YOUR ENGINE COMPONENTS. I recommend you use the search option on these boards, very helpful.
boost is boost genius. turbo boost is no different from supercharger boost, it's all compressed air.
So again.......exactly HOW do turbos REQUIRE more maintenance? I fail to see or have any experience with that, after owning turbo cars for the past 4 years.
01-09-2007, 09:27 AM
#44
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really like both but each serves different purpose IMO. One is better for one thing and one for the other, simple as that. I have several friends with Turbo Z's just wanted to do something a little different. Thinking outside the Turbo. Check out some pics taken of the Z @ the dragon a while back http://www.photoreflect.com/pr3/ViewAlbum.aspx?a=326558 nothing like the whine of a s/c and the bov on a turbo singing in perfect harmony.
01-09-2007, 09:28 AM
#45
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bradenton/Sarasota
Posts: 5,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by reptile718
Also keep in mind that Stillen offers warranty on your engine
o rly? then what about those people with blown motors that stillen isn't doing anything about?
and Stillen...as far as FI goes, is almost a joke on the VQ. You ned good mods and stage 3-4 to make over 300whp with it!
01-09-2007, 09:30 AM
#46
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chimmike
boost is boost genius. turbo boost is no different from supercharger boost, it's all compressed air.
So again.......exactly HOW do turbos REQUIRE more maintenance? I fail to see or have any experience with that, after owning turbo cars for the past 4 years.
So again.......exactly HOW do turbos REQUIRE more maintenance? I fail to see or have any experience with that, after owning turbo cars for the past 4 years.
01-09-2007, 09:40 AM
#47
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chimmike
o rly? then what about those people with blown motors that stillen isn't doing anything about?
and Stillen...as far as FI goes, is almost a joke on the VQ. You ned good mods and stage 3-4 to make over 300whp with it!
and Stillen...as far as FI goes, is almost a joke on the VQ. You ned good mods and stage 3-4 to make over 300whp with it!
01-09-2007, 09:41 AM
#48
I like turbos just fine and came pretty close to going with a twin turbo setup and think they're a good setup on the Z as well
I just don't like senseless bias where everything that is not _____ sucks when clearly there's fast cars out there with all types of FI.
The new Lotus Exige S is a fast car and uses a roots-type supercharger setup. So does the Ford GT and GT500, Ariel Atom, top fuel cars, etc
There's some fast turbo/twin turbo cars - the usual suspects
centrifugal superchargers typically aren't on a lot of production cars because of their gear noise at low rpm idles and for low daily driving rpms at WOT they don't put out much power. They're more common on lots of modified cars and personal race cars where the idea is you're going to be high up in the powerband anyway, or people that want to shape the powerband differently so the tq is relatively flat from mid-high rpms
nitrous typically doesn't come on anything but a modified car or purpose built race car (not going to argue if it's actually "FI" or not, who cares)
then there's lots of really fast NA cars with no FI at all and there's lots of setups for them as well - high reving, small liter engines with aggressive gearing. And then there's big liter, lower reving engines with weaker gearing and less shifting.
just pros and cons. I'm not a fan of extreme bias. It sucks when at the end of the day it's about going fast and enjoying a car
I just don't like senseless bias where everything that is not _____ sucks when clearly there's fast cars out there with all types of FI.
The new Lotus Exige S is a fast car and uses a roots-type supercharger setup. So does the Ford GT and GT500, Ariel Atom, top fuel cars, etc
There's some fast turbo/twin turbo cars - the usual suspects
centrifugal superchargers typically aren't on a lot of production cars because of their gear noise at low rpm idles and for low daily driving rpms at WOT they don't put out much power. They're more common on lots of modified cars and personal race cars where the idea is you're going to be high up in the powerband anyway, or people that want to shape the powerband differently so the tq is relatively flat from mid-high rpms
nitrous typically doesn't come on anything but a modified car or purpose built race car (not going to argue if it's actually "FI" or not, who cares)
then there's lots of really fast NA cars with no FI at all and there's lots of setups for them as well - high reving, small liter engines with aggressive gearing. And then there's big liter, lower reving engines with weaker gearing and less shifting.
just pros and cons. I'm not a fan of extreme bias. It sucks when at the end of the day it's about going fast and enjoying a car
Last edited by sentry65; 01-09-2007 at 09:52 AM.
01-09-2007, 09:45 AM
#50
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sentry65
I like turbos just fine and came pretty close to going with a twin turbo setup and think they're a good setup on the Z as well
I just don't like senseless bias where everything that is not _____ sucks when clearly there's fast cars out there with all types of FI.
The new Lotus Exige S is a fast car and uses a roots-type supercharger setup. So does the Ford GT and GT500, Ariel Atom, top fuel cars, etc
There's some fast turbo/twin turbo cars - the usual suspects
centrifugal superchargers typically aren't on a lot of production cars because of their gear noise at low rpm idles and for low daily driving rpms they don't but out much power. They're more common on lots of modified cars and personal race cars where the idea is you're going to be high up in the powerband anyway
nitrous typically doesn't come on anything but a modified car or purpose built race car (not going to argue if it's actually "FI" or not, who cares)
then there's lots of really fast NA cars with no FI at all
just pros and cons. I'm not a fan of extreme bias. It's just like the "no replacement for displacement" if it ain't got at least 5 liters, it sucks when at the end of the day it's about going fast and enjoying a car
I just don't like senseless bias where everything that is not _____ sucks when clearly there's fast cars out there with all types of FI.
The new Lotus Exige S is a fast car and uses a roots-type supercharger setup. So does the Ford GT and GT500, Ariel Atom, top fuel cars, etc
There's some fast turbo/twin turbo cars - the usual suspects
centrifugal superchargers typically aren't on a lot of production cars because of their gear noise at low rpm idles and for low daily driving rpms they don't but out much power. They're more common on lots of modified cars and personal race cars where the idea is you're going to be high up in the powerband anyway
nitrous typically doesn't come on anything but a modified car or purpose built race car (not going to argue if it's actually "FI" or not, who cares)
then there's lots of really fast NA cars with no FI at all
just pros and cons. I'm not a fan of extreme bias. It's just like the "no replacement for displacement" if it ain't got at least 5 liters, it sucks when at the end of the day it's about going fast and enjoying a car
Need to fuel the tank for the love machine 
c-ya!
01-09-2007, 09:48 AM
#51
Originally Posted by chimmike
boost is boost genius. turbo boost is no different from supercharger boost, it's all compressed air.
So again.......exactly HOW do turbos REQUIRE more maintenance? I fail to see or have any experience with that, after owning turbo cars for the past 4 years.
So again.......exactly HOW do turbos REQUIRE more maintenance? I fail to see or have any experience with that, after owning turbo cars for the past 4 years.
Not saying any of those things will go wrong with most installs or anything, usually they don't and overall running a turbo will be less maintenance under the hood. But it's the potential of if something did go wrong, it can go very wrong
If something goes wrong with a SC like a belt issue or gearing issue, it usually it doesn't have the potential to hurt the actual engine
With any added power, you're going to have to monitor the car more often than stock
Last edited by sentry65; 01-09-2007 at 09:54 AM.
01-09-2007, 09:52 AM
#52
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kf3
Well guys thanks, I think...
anyway I've made my decision to go with an APS TT kit and built motor.
anyway I've made my decision to go with an APS TT kit and built motor.
01-09-2007, 10:05 AM
#53
Originally Posted by bboypuertoroc
S/C=no lag, less power potential, parasitic (uses power to make power), easier to deal with, safer for engine
Turbo=lags, more power potential, uses exhaust gases to make power (non-parasitic), more mantainence needed, **** blows up when not done right
FYI, I found all this on one search. It took less than 5 minutes.
Turbo=lags, more power potential, uses exhaust gases to make power (non-parasitic), more mantainence needed, **** blows up when not done right
FYI, I found all this on one search. It took less than 5 minutes.
I guess S/C is more suitable for Track use since it doesn't have lags..instant power at low RPM during cornering..
01-09-2007, 10:21 AM
#54
Originally Posted by reptile718
So are you saying you don't know how to drive?
As far as I can remember our manual transmissions have been a problem since day one. Trouble shifting, gears sticking, grinding, bad synchros. And this is on a N/A Z. You say putting more power to them isn't going to make a difference?
As far as I can remember our manual transmissions have been a problem since day one. Trouble shifting, gears sticking, grinding, bad synchros. And this is on a N/A Z. You say putting more power to them isn't going to make a difference?
Our synchro issues are well documented, Nobody knows the tranny's power limit of failure. For you to sit there and try to argue that my turbo's power caused the tranny to break is stupid as $hit-are you implying it wouldnt happen with a S/C? The last tranny was 100% my fault, but guess what?....the same thing would have happened with a S/C adding power and being flogged like I did (or eventually NA) so what was your point again Captain obvious?
01-09-2007, 10:34 AM
#55
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alberto
Yup I dont know how to drive Our synchro issues are well documented, Nobody knows the tranny's power limit of failure. For you to sit there and try to argue that my turbo's power caused the tranny to break is stupid as $hit-are you implying it wouldnt happen with a S/C? The last tranny was 100% my fault, but guess what?....the same thing would have happened with a S/C adding power and being flogged like I did (or eventually NA) so what was your point again Captain obvious?
Our synchro issues are well documented, Nobody knows the tranny's power limit of failure. For you to sit there and try to argue that my turbo's power caused the tranny to break is stupid as $hit-are you implying it wouldnt happen with a S/C? The last tranny was 100% my fault, but guess what?....the same thing would have happened with a S/C adding power and being flogged like I did (or eventually NA) so what was your point again Captain obvious?
on the subject so I was just trying to put things in a way you would understand. Captain Obvious Away (fly's off)
01-09-2007, 11:03 AM
#57
Registered User
iTrader: (109)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Huntersville, NC
Posts: 2,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Alberto
You think I dont know more power could potentially lead to stress and parts failures? If your so worried you shoulda stayed NA-oh wait you did the closest thing-you went Stillen
01-09-2007, 11:10 AM
#59
Registered User
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Posts: 2,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has been covered numerous times, and some people are biased, but, I would figure out what you hope to accomplish with your car in terms of performance, then make a decision on what FI setup you want. TT kits are going to have the most potential, and S/C's are more lilnear and moderate. I will be happy with a mid to low 12 second Z as my daily driver, but later down the road after I purchase my new crib, I would build and go TT.
