super or Turbo??

lbsbloke

Full member
Points
23
Location
London
Car
VW golf mk4
So here's the dilemma:
I have a Turbo and almost completed manifold for my build, plus various bits of pipe and a Wastegate
With a bit of work and intercooler fitting, adding oil feed... I will get there
problem is I always wanted to supercharge... Prefer the end results...
I'm not trying to build a drag car, just something I can use every day and have a bit of fun with should I want to
A Rotrex or vortech charger is the way to go... There's loads of kits available for R32 but not so many for mine... And I Don't really want to pay thousands for a drive in fitting
Most of the costly work is done on the engine, if I can source a supercharger and bracket for a decent sum I'll go that way and sell all the Turbo gear on
What are you guys thoughts?
 
I think it's easier to map and setup a supercharger than a turbo and that would be my choice if I were going from NASP to forced induction.
 
All forms of forced induction are supercharging techniques. Turbo chargers are accurately turbo superchargers, superchargers driven by exhaust gases. The other kind are mechanically driven superchargers.
 
Well... I've answered my own questions
Just had a great discussion with Dan from Turner race developments and......

Supercharger it is.
He does a RUF kit
Which suits What I want
Got to take a few backward steps with the car, but that's No bad thing...
One good thing about researching this type of project is that it really makes you think about just What you want
Still I expect everyone already knows that
 
So here's the dilemma:
I have a Turbo and almost completed manifold for my build, plus various bits of pipe and a Wastegate
With a bit of work and intercooler fitting, adding oil feed... I will get there
problem is I always wanted to supercharge... Prefer the end results...
I'm not trying to build a drag car, just something I can use every day and have a bit of fun with should I want to
A Rotrex or vortech charger is the way to go... There's loads of kits available for R32 but not so many for mine... And I Don't really want to pay thousands for a drive in fitting
Most of the costly work is done on the engine, if I can source a supercharger and bracket for a decent sum I'll go that way and sell all the Turbo gear on
What are you guys thoughts?


Good example of what can be done with a C-1 https://www.procharger.com/gallery/67/2000-honda-civic-si |B Ask for Drew Shepard or Tyler in Technical Services. They would be more than happy to help you with your questions.

And my ride completed with a safe and economical P-1SC-1 https://www.procharger.com/gallery/32/2012-dodgechrysler-300c-srt
 
Last edited:
Backward steps.....
Remove head spacer and 630cc injectors
It doesn't need The lowered compression
I didn't pay for them... Were in the car when I bought it
 
In an attempt not to fill this forum with repeat topics I'd like to ask a similar question.

I'm pretty new to all of this, and right now my understanding of the whole turbo vs super debate goes-

Turbo: Runs off of exhaust, which is cool making use of otherwise wasted energy sounds nice. Has a lag in power delivery because it runs off of exhaust gasses.

Supercharger: runs off of the engine itself, delivers power right away because of that.

Both of the devices are basically compressors that are meant to deliver more fuel and air into the engine right? The only difference is what powers them and low to mid range rpm performance?

So it seems like the debate boils down to do you want to deal with the turbo lag but have a more efficient engine. I'm gonna assume there's a lot more to the debate then that though.

So the really big question, what is the big difference in how the car ends up driving?
 
From my research I've concluded:
Turbo = bigger power opportunity, more aggressive delivery and more to go wrong

Supercharger = lower power figures, more subtle delivery and drivability,

It's all a question of personal requirements I guess
Coupled with the owners ability and or will to "tinker" or have sufficient funds to pay others to "tinker " for them.
 
on a correctly sized turbo there is no noticeable turbo lag any more, so if it's a diy build it's more down to how difficult you want to make it, it will always be easier to fit a supercharger than a turbo.
 
Last edited:
A little story for you just to compare....... I ran my XJR (supercharged) against a BMW M5 at Santa pod. I also had the Mrs in the car so I was carrying an extra few kilos (not saying how many she'll hit me). Anyway Basically I beat him on the 1/4 mile although I crossed the line at 107mph he crossed the line doing 117mph. The supercharger gives much more grunt in the low to mid range which is where I made my gains but as the Turbo in the M5 came on song it was flying. So if you want low to mid range e.g. every day driving or mid to top end race style it's up to you. :)
 
things never stand still
Tubos have improved leaps and bounds over the last few years and far more so than superchargers. The debate is therefore different to a few years ago. And I think turbos, will continue to improve further because of f1.
Leaving aside the mechanics for a moment and staying with petrol power , if you were to fit a turbo system just to produce the same power increase as a supercharger there would be no lag at all. That doesn't make them better just different.
If you want outright power then turbo is the way to go but it is more hassle and cost.
But if you are adding one to an na engine then supercharging is nearly always best.
 
A little story for you just to compare....... I ran my XJR (supercharged) against a BMW M5 at Santa pod. I also had the Mrs in the car so I was carrying an extra few kilos (not saying how many she'll hit me). Anyway Basically I beat him on the 1/4 mile although I crossed the line at 107mph he crossed the line doing 117mph. The supercharger gives much more grunt in the low to mid range which is where I made my gains but as the Turbo in the M5 came on song it was flying. So if you want low to mid range e.g. every day driving or mid to top end race style it's up to you. :)

Thank you that really helps. I really learn week from practical examples like that, and I appreciate you giving me one.

things never stand still
Tubos have improved leaps and bounds over the last few years and far more so than superchargers. The debate is therefore different to a few years ago. And I think turbos, will continue to improve further because of f1.
Leaving aside the mechanics for a moment and staying with petrol power , if you were to fit a turbo system just to produce the same power increase as a supercharger there would be no lag at all. That doesn't make them better just different.
If you want outright power then turbo is the way to go but it is more hassle and cost.
But if you are adding one to an na engine then supercharging is nearly always best.

Since it is a natural engine, and I'm really new to doing anything to my car it sounds like my best option is to go with a super charger and get a mechanic to help me out with it.
 
I have been involved with forced induction for years now and I have always found supercharged engines best for road use, there is a lot of different types and sizes and all behave differently, but I have just finished a 1.6 8v vw polo 6n with the Eaton M62 supercharger from a Mercedes C class kompressor. I will add a link to the build thread when I get it finished with the written description of the mapping, but the end result is 267bhp and 228lbft in 840kg
 
IMHO the exhaust sound from a SC engine is awesome. Nothing sounds as good as that. But with a turbo you get a good exhaust note too and you also get the neat noises from the turbo- the whine, intake sounds & the blow off valve.
 
@Guybo I am by no means slating the turbo, I have built and ran a R32 turbo rallye mk2 golf that made between 400 and 740bhp depending on boost pressure, but it was too much for the road to use half of the performance was just insane, but I have answered the question of what is going to be easier to fit and use as an upgrade to a n/a engine and in my opinion, low to mid range torque, minimal heat and power on demand is what the roots type supercharger does best.
The usual advice I give is to look at the other models from the same marque as the parts needed are going to fit and the development has been done already, so what we call a 'breakers yard project' is probably the best way to go with a limited budget
 
to suggest a SC is always best is just silly. Granted it is definately the right choice for the OP but it isnt for everyone.

People are always bringing up lag so I will repeat

you wont get lag with a turbo upgrade that only gives the same power increase as fitting a SC


The reason a lot or turbo conversions have lag is that the turbo has been an unconsidered bolt on. It isnt surprising therefore when the results are not great

As said before turbos have improved to a massive degree recently and serious power with minimal lag is acheiveable with the right set up and engine.

The problem is most people just dont understand the phrase the right set up - they think its bolt a turbo on and thats it ...........
Well it isnt

The right set up starts with a proper custom manifold to allow one of the new twin schroll turbos to actually work .
Then you need to buy one with the right size housing and billett wheel for the targeted BHP.
Finally you need to install a decent ECU to run a closed loop set up (link, haltech syveccs etc ) and someone to map it properly

Now it is true that the cost of the above is well over £5K but the results the above will produce simply could not be acheived with a spuercharger
That is of course presuming your induction exhaust and intercooler and engine are up to it.....
 
You are right mate, it's not that I am saying sc is better than tc, but on a budget, on a road car, and daily driver, with real world usable power, the Eaton is readily available, cheap, easy to find, install and configure the drive, and build time /labour costs effective has a lot of sense, we have done it for 900quid, and the car is still going strong, I have an RS3, but the truth is that it would struggle to live with my polo 6n 1.6 Eaton M62 supercharged around b roads, its putting down 310bhp/ton handling like a go kart and it is a great laugh, and more fun than the RS3 with 440bhp, but you're talking about 5k conversions, and I am asking about labour, ecu, fuelling, lsd, brakes, to get the n/a car in a decent condition to get the best from your new age turbo build, but don't you think they are better off with spending the money on a A3 1.8t,cupra R etc, easy to get 370 reliable bhp and your only looking at 2k for a decent car
 
Lag still exists, and the proof is in the 100,000 dollar supercharged top fuel dragsters, tell me how many turbo powered engines have you seen on the strip that can beat the sc 0/100mph in 2 seconds?
 
Alright guys I've done a ton of research on my own and I really appreciate your guys' input. It's been really helpful in deciding what I should get. I've also joined a community for my car, the FR-S. From what I've read here and over there, as well as taking into consideration my experience I'm certainly going to go for the super charger. It'll take another month or so before I can start the project, but I've got a garage lined up to get everything done. Thanks for all your help guys!
 
Lag still exists, and the proof is in the 100,000 dollar supercharged top fuel dragsters, tell me how many turbo powered engines have you seen on the strip that can beat the sc 0/100mph in 2 seconds?

None................. but this was a thread about the merits of SCs and turbos on road cars so top fuel dragsters are not relevant - Just for a start they need a gearbox set up that just could not function on the road

So back to the topic and road cars.

Assuming you are right about turbos and lag this would mean that all the fastest 0-60/100 times for road cars shouldnt be from turbo cars

Fastest stock car 0-60/100/anything - Bugatti veyron and suprise surprise its turbo charged

And the accepted fastest road car sold in any numbers off the line is Nissan GTR and its .......................... turbo changed

As to lag off the line you need to brush up on a bit of turbo technology called launch control


But to repeat the supercharger is the way to go for the OP.
 
Turbo lag and latency are the bugbears of turbocharging.

Turbocharging is best suited to constant speed engines and has been used for decades in such applications - air, rail and marine are good examples.

Turbocharging for road cars is a relatively new application of the technology.
 
I wouldn't call 25 years ago relatively new .?

Railway, aero and marine propulsion have used exhaust driven forced induction for well over half a century so 25 years is relatively new.

Saab offered turbocharged engines in the late 1970s, and there were surely a few before then. Not widespread I agree. But still young compared to the applications I mention.
 
Turbo charging has been around for a while in racing and it became a big deal when F1 adopted it widely in the early 80's, but then turbos kind of fell from favor in the late 80's. They are making a resurgence now because of computers. Engine management now is handled by faster modern computer chips which do a hell of a lot better job of it than older computer systems and mechanical means. Now turbo charging is a lot better understood and there are more companies which have computerized management systems that make it possible. It's more complex than SC and it has more potential gains.

SC is good because it has no turbo lag. Top fuel dragsters have a supercharger that takes so much power on its own to run that the V8 Vortec engine in my work truck could not power it. The scale of what dragsters do makes any comparison to what we do on the street irrelevent. There isn't much that our cars have in common with a top fuel dragster.
 
Thank you , it was a blast to drive. The point I was trying to make was that just like anything to gain something you will sacrifice something else . That engine ran at full throttle for a short distance . If I had wanted to drive every day back and forth to get groceries my turbo may have not been the best choice in that application. It really is no difference than a carb or fuel injection, one setup will not fit all combinations . My new turbo for the 66 bug(same engine in the video) has a slightly smaller hot side with the same cold side to improve driveability on the street . Mike
 
Nicely put Mike. I think this should be 'stickied' or pinned so that people who enquire about the 'simple' process of 'adding' a turbo will perhaps understand that it's not actually simple.

Supercharged (whether that's mechanically driven or turbo-supercharged) engines are not simply naturally aspirated engines with a supercharger/turbo-supercharger bolted on. The whole setup is designed around the intended application. Same as you say about delivery systems.

I think that turbo-charging has reached a high degree of sophistication now. Originally it was used for single speed engines or those with a narrow operating speed range eg. aviation, marine propulsion, railway traction, and of course static engines such as those in generator sets. Engines that basically run at full rated power continuously where flexibility is not required.
 

Similar threads


Please watch this on my YouTube channel & Subscribe.


Back
Top