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/g..._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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by themadhatter

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]

Originally Posted by SilverTurboRidin

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]

Originally Posted by themadhatter

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]

Originally Posted by themadhatter

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]

Originally Posted by sisforsurfing

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]

Originally Posted by sisforsurfing

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