Turbo VS. Supercharger VS. Nitrous VS. big displacement

[2point4DSM]

Just about everyone will say that nitrous is the best bang for the buck. But it is the option that is most feared.

Turbos seem to be a fad lately. It stuffs more air into a motor thereby increasing the total amount of oxygen available for combustion. It also increases compression.

Superchargers work similar to turbos but is belt driven rather than exhaust driven.

Bigger motors use to be a fad back when gas was cheap. But a big motor built to handle 400 hp is no better than a small motor that can handle the same amount of power. A big motor that is built well is $$$ and the least cost effective solution.

Agree, disagree, discuss....

[StealthTC]

Well I was just thinking about this a few weeks ago. On my tC about a month ago they released a TRD Centrifugal Supercharger for the price of about $2900-$3200 UNINSTALLED, now the SC off the bat was making the car 196whp dynoed vs. people purchasing a Stage 0 turbokit from a company that was making 235whp dynoed @ somewhere between $2600-$3000. So up front it showed that the turbokit was a better buy for the money, well I waited a couple weeks to see what can of power and upgrades people had for the SC and the only thing is different pulleys of course that were making minimal power between 15whp to 20whp. So what I did is I made a list of everything I would need for my project, how many whp, and how much it would cost me. In the end it seemed easier to go with a turbokit for one I got a kit for dirt cheap and it seems as if Turbos are easier and cheaper to upgrade for more HP than a supercharger would be. My kit consists of


16G Turbo
Stainless Manifold
Precision Turbo FMIC
Turbo Oil Pan
Tial BOV
Tial Wastegate
Stainless IC Piping
$2000

Emanage Blue w/ PNP Harness $560
Bosch 110's $36
Ported Head $550
Forged Pistons $500
550cc RC Injectors $250
Injectors Clips $40

Total $3,936 so far
Still in need of a HP FP, FPR, and a few other things so my grand total should be somewhere right around $4,500 all said and done. I may only be able to pull low 12's but I think thats a great accomplishment for a SCION!

BY THE WAY TCvsSTI from a ROLL http://www.thescionstore.com/video/tcsti.wmv

Scion tC 12.49 Run
http://www.zeropointindustries.net/gallery/albums/videos/zpi_orlando_12_52_2nd.wmv

[07BlackSS]

I like the idea of having nitrous and a turboed car on a fully built motor (my ultimate goal). I have said this a lot and I think the reaosn I am going turbo is because I put mine together for such a cheap price tag and installation won't drive me up a wall. Nitrous is a great way to get a car faster but like I have heard form other people without a built motor...Nitrous is like a dirty chick, you wanna hit it but your scared of the consequences!

[2point4DSM]

I think one of the reasons nitrous gets such a bad rep is that it is so easy to install in any motor. And it goes with out saying not every motor is built well. On the other hand if a motor can handle 100whp worth of turbo power then it is pretty safe to say that you can add that power with nitrous as well. Then there are people that say the problem is nitrous is instantaneous where a turbo comes on slower and more progressively. Sure, but nitrous also doesn't increase compression so it is a little safer that way.

[SilverTurboRidin]

Well heres the thing. Even a smaller motor with a built motor making close to 400HP is still gonna use close to the same amount of fuel as a 400HP monster N/A motor.

[themadhatter]

Wil,

you're right that it doesn't increase pressure but you're neglecting that shock is catastrophic.

for example: a connecting rod can withstand gradual pressure over it's reciprocating cycles while accelerating but drop that pressure onto it instantly and you may very well snap that rod or severally deform it.

-Ron

[themadhatter]

Well heres the thing. Even a smaller motor with a built motor making close to 400HP is still gonna use close to the same amount of fuel as a 400HP monster N/A motor.
you are on the money. whether making 400 bhp via displacement to making 400 bhp to increased pressure.

if you want to burn x amounts of air, you need to burn x amounts of fuel...you cannot break the rules there.

[SilverTurboRidin]

fuel is a non-issue; whether making 400 bhp via displacement to making 400 bhp to increased pressure.

if you want to burn x amounts of air, you need to burn x amounts of fuel...you cannot break the rules there.


Okay how about i use a 572CI motor which makes roughly 700HP and toss on a supercharger :) i like the sounds of that

[themadhatter]

Okay how about i use a 572CI motor which makes roughly 700HP and toss on a supercharger :) i like the sounds of that
I just edited my post to let it read better. as for the large displacement motor, shop for a nice dual turbo setup to help spool up faster without any serious lag and to allow flexibility without the use of a parasitic SC.

after turboing my first car and buying a second turbo car, I firmly believe that FI is best done with a hair dryer.

[SilverTurboRidin]

you are on the money. whether making 400 bhp via displacement to making 400 bhp to increased pressure.

if you want to burn x amounts of air, you need to burn x amounts of fuel...you cannot break the rules there.


i like this post better now

[capaGC8]

i think the bottom line is that with a turbo, you will be able to make an unlimited amount of power depending on the build quality of the engine. whereas with a nitrous or a supercharger, you are very limited to the amount of power you can make. in other words, even with a built motor there's still a set amount of power you can make.

i believe that the current selection of a high tech turbos are definitely a replacement for displacement. with full spool-up taking less than 2500rpm turbo lag is almost a thing of the past. of course, a combination of the both (turbo/high displacement) is still the best bet in making the most power.

IMO superchargers are a thing of the past and should have went away with the carburetor...

[On Sale]

il stick with my turbo.

although i do like how superchargers sound :) :)

[1988 Olds]

Big Displacement for my.

[1988 Olds]

Big Displacement for me.

[xEJ20x]

I'll take a turbocharger.

[sisforsurfing]

you are on the money. whether making 400 bhp via displacement to making 400 bhp to increased pressure.

if you want to burn x amounts of air, you need to burn x amounts of fuel...you cannot break the rules there.
Absolutely true. BUT, some engines are more efficient than others while making the same power. Carbureted cars, for example, use more fuel than FI cars making the same power (usually.)

Something i like about turbo's is that you can turn down the boost and run a different ECU map and run around making less power and getting better mileage. Turn up the boost and there you have the power... can't do that with NA displacement motors. Nitrous you can, but i'd rather not have to go around filling up a bottle. It's nice, but I prefer a turbo.

If I were building a car STRICTLY for power, I'd take a big engine and turbocharge it. There are replacements for it, but it makes things easier.

[MuddyREX]

After driving the new 2.5 liter WRX, I'd definitely go bigger displacement. Such a HUGE improvement over the standard WRX.

I'd rather have the torque.

[themadhatter]

Absolutely true. BUT, some engines are more efficient than others while making the same power. Carbureted cars, for example, use more fuel than FI cars making the same power (usually.)

Something i like about turbo's is that you can turn down the boost and run a different ECU map and run around making less power and getting better mileage. Turn up the boost and there you have the power... can't do that with NA displacement motors. Nitrous you can, but i'd rather not have to go around filling up a bottle. It's nice, but I prefer a turbo.

If I were building a car STRICTLY for power, I'd take a big engine and turbocharge it. There are replacements for it, but it makes things easier.
that's a given, it's all about efficiency and being tuned properly. it still doesn't change what I stated though.

forced induction is pseudo displacement.

[2point4DSM]

If I were building a car STRICTLY for power, I'd take a big engine and turbocharge it. There are replacements for it, but it makes things easier.

I've got a good friend on the delval board who has convinced me the best setup, for your scenario, is a nice simple big block with a two stage nitrous system.

[SilverTurboRidin]

wil whose your friend?? im on that board too

[igo4bmx]

i only went turbo cuz of the bov

[2point4DSM]

... a connecting rod can withstand gradual pressure over it's reciprocating cycles while accelerating but drop that pressure onto it instantly and you may very well snap that rod or severally deform it.

Very good point but in another thread I mention how the 1g NA 2.0L 4g63 motor is very similar to a 4g63turbo motor. In this instance where the headgasket might be the next weakest link due to the stock higher compression pistons it almost seems natural for it to breathe nitrous rather than pushing the motor with a heavier turbo setup that can run limited boost, anyway.

So my point is that certain motors might do better with a certain setup. Of course, filling a nitrous bottle can be pricey over the long haul and is still cumbersome but on the other hand it is easily upgradeable and or portable if you want to swap it to the next car.

And Igo4BMX, you will be surprised how often I've actually heard people serioulsy say that.

[themadhatter]

of course.

I'm referring to all things being equal in terms of hardware etc. My biggest issue with the bottle is that it runs out and over the life of the car, it's cost will eventually out weigh the cost of a GOOD turbo solution.

[2Mopars1Ford]

Start with big displacement.
It's always easier to add FI then it is to add cubic inches.
Bigger displacement = more future potential unless of course the weight of the extra cubes would be a hinderance (autocross, drift etc)

[themadhatter]

not really, this is why we have aluminum and magnesium blocks now.

[2point4DSM]

Start with big displacement.
It's always easier to add FI then it is to add cubic inches.

What if we were limited to a small budget and could only pick one or the other. Personally, if I had a ton of money I would probably build a hemi with a huge blower on it and stick it on a rail car chasis and trailer it to Atco and then just park it in my hanger when I'm done playing, lol.

Ok seriously, I agree, and the reason I went with a stroker motor. But now I can't go any bigger unless I go with a completely different setup (whole different car). Nitrous is my next logical step.

[2point4DSM]

not really, this is why we have aluminum and magnesium blocks now.
And titanium cranks, rods, turbo parts and cams. $$$$ :eek:


I forget who mentioned this:

How do you make a small fortune in racing....






start with a large fortune.

[themadhatter]

And titanium cranks, rods, turbo parts and cams. $$$$ :eek:


I forget who mentioned this:

How do you make a small fortune in racing....






start with a large fortune.
forged crank ftw ;)

I dunno how good titanium cams would be since titanium is a dull metal that cannot be polished properly. it was make a lousy contact surface between it and the lifters.

[Prototype240]

Personally, I'm a big turbo hound. S/C cars are fun for the boost throughout the rev range, but damn, a turbo spooling up is the most awesome feeling ever!

Nitrous is a waste. It's great for a 1/4 mile or stoplight to stoplight car, but it just isn't worth it in the long run. Those bottles get expensive to fill.

Displacement is great...but you should still add boost...come on, look at the veyron, haha.

[wgknestrick]

Medium displacement, turbo engines are the best IMO. Any nay sayers:

Give me 3Ls, a turbo, and AWD any day. That is usable hp for everyone.

[Raven18940]

Ok seriously, I agree, and the reason I went with a stroker motor.
I just got your screen name. I have to agree with that mentality, my 2.3 engine is a stroked Saab 2.0. Kinda fubarred the rod-to-stroke ratio so it chucks out torque like a mofo. Is your car the similar?

Why turbo? I think it's the best compromise of power and economy. It's essentially displacement on demand. I can cruise around all day in 5th gear only using 2.3 liters and get almost 35 mpg. Or I can drop a gear, build 15+ psi of boost and blast down the highway at 150+ getting 10 mpg. It's great cause it uses otherwise wasted energy to create this power. Not like a supercharger that uses power to make power, or even a large engine with it's heavier parts and pumping losses. And then there's the noises, the whistle of a turbo and then a bov is just awesomeness.

[2point4DSM]

I just got your screen name. I have to agree with that mentality, my 2.3 engine is a stroked Saab 2.0. Kinda fubarred the rod-to-stroke ratio so it chucks out torque like a mofo. Is your car the similar?

The 2.4 is great. People use to complain about this motor putting out too much torque and the only thing it was good for is breaking stuff. Actually, I think it is good for spinning up a big turbo quick.

If we raced I bet my car could keep up with your car from a 5 mph roll. :)

[LSHatch]

I've done the nitrous on my S. Unfortunately, it blew up my motor. Was it worth it? For the shock it sent the E500 next to me, hell yes. The car easily spun the tires at 60mph. It was an awesome feeling. A cheap fix for a speed addiction. Kind of like cheap crack.

Now, with the chance to build my car, I've gone with bigger displacement. A whole half liter more. From a 2.0 to a 2.5. The extra torque will be great, especially with the torqueless nature in stock form. But, it is all in a step towards spinning a large turbo.

Another thing to remember, when making the motor bigger, there are other things to do. Just throwing on a stroked bottom end won't take full advantage of that extra displacement. The head will need to be worked. I'm having a full head build done also. This should really wake up the bottom end. All motor, the car should be over 300whp.

When it gets boosted most likely in the next six months, it should be around 500whp daily driven easily. And like most know, with a turbo, more power is just a turn of a knob or flick of a switch away.

[2point4DSM]

Another thing to remember, when making the motor bigger, there are other things to do. Just throwing on a stroked bottom end won't take full advantage of that extra displacement. The head will need to be worked.

The nice thing about 4g63 heads is that they are pretty awesome, stock. There is a story where Magnus ran a 9sec DSM, blew his worked head, borrowed a stock head and only ran few tenths slower. haha.

[LSHatch]

The nice thing about 4g63 heads is that they are pretty awesome, stock. There is a story where Magnus ran a 9sec DSM, blew his worked head, borrowed a stock head and only ran few tenths slower. haha.


The same goes for the S2000 head. The high HP Turbo ones are still on stock heads. They are testing the limits of the motor with boost. Once the motors are broken into, they will be even crazier.

There are always gains to be found in certain areas, and I'm searching for it.

[mwh27]

No replacement for displacment!

[Raven18940]

Now, with the chance to build my car, I've gone with bigger displacement. A whole half liter more. From a 2.0 to a 2.5. The extra torque will be great, especially with the torqueless nature in stock form. But, it is all in a step towards spinning a large turbo.
How are you getting that half a liter, boring, stroking, or a combination?

[S4toSTI]

How are you getting that half a liter, boring, stroking, or a combination?
I would assume he is using a different short block. Imo for daily use the list goes nitrous turbo big displacemnt.for fuel economy atleast. A few people have said it already, personally i think that medium dispacement and fi is the way to go. No like Bill said a 3l i know in muscle car terms that is like one cylinder however for a 4 or a 6 that is not too shabby. Either way there is nothing like no spool up time... in my last car i love the engine it was awsome it had usedable power at everything over 1.5k it is really something i have had to addapt to in a 4cly turbo car. Something that doesn't show up in cars often is v8 + awd. I personally don't see the point in nitrous for the street casue you pull up to some jackass porsche driver at a light and you look at your bottle gauge and oh **** its empty now instead of 300hp you have 135 so your screwed.

[Twincharged]

I say big turbo and supercharger :thumbup:

[1988 Olds]

Thats why you have two bottles lol.

I'm also going to agree with Medium Displacement and Turbo. Probably my favorite engine is a Buick 3.8L Turbo. There very easy to make push a 3600-3700lb car into the 11s on stock block, heads, and bottom end.

With my engine and 9.8-10:1 compression I'm kinda stuck keeping it N/A for now. I don't have serpentine belt so S/C is out and a Turbo set-up would be alot of work. I'll probably end up with 100-150hp shot on it someday.

[LSHatch]

How are you getting that half a liter, boring, stroking, or a combination?


I'll take number three. :)

Basically the only thing left stock is the outside, and the oil pan.

[012.5RS]

there's no replacment for displacment. I wanna eventually build a blown 474ci sprayed pontiac engine... mmmmm torque.