| From | Message |
MnMeLiTe
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/25/2002
23:53:54
|
 Subject: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey everyone, I was just curious about something. What do you think is better, a supercharger/procharger or a turbo? I've heard from friends who have turbos that its alot better because your getting air pushed str8 into the engine, as opposed to the supercharger where it needs pullies to function. And superchargers are expensive i believe too right? If possible I would like everyone's input on this subject, and also I would like to know if it's possible that I can drop a turbo in my dakota R/T.
Any info would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Mike
|
xplikt
GenIII
9/26/2002
00:00:18
|  RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Superchargers push air straight into the engine too. I think you'll be best off doing a search in Google.com. There you will find more sites on this subject than you'll ever need. You can drop a turbo in your R/T pretty soon, but you're going to be paying over five grand.
2002 2WD RC SLT 4.7L 5spd 3.92 LSD
MBRP Single in/out, straight piped 3rd cat, turndown tip
Hotchkis swaybars and springs
Bilstein custom tuned shocks
Roadmaster Active Suspension
Shaved emblems and antennae
|
DaveR
GenII
9/26/2002
00:05:49
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Look for Duner. He has a turbo setup for the 4.7 that looks simple enough to be tempting to try and duplicate on the 5.2 and 5.9. He makes me wish I had the time and money to build something to play with.
|
MnMeLiTe
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
00:27:12
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Ok cool.. Lets condiser two things.
1) If I don't have the money to go all out, which would be cheaper, or better yet which would give me more power for my money?
2) If I was just loaded and had money coming out of my @ss, which setup would give me the most power? Turbo, or super/procharger????
Thanks again guys,
Mike
|
Tom Slick
GenII
9/26/2002
00:39:47
|  RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Superchargers are cheaper...
Turbochargers will produce more power at the smae psi boost...plus they provide full boost through more of the powerband... and you don't have to worry about belt slippage... and turbos are very easy to adjust the boost on, like by just pushing a button(w/ an electronic boost controller...
...running a supercharger, when you upgrade heads and intake on your motor, you don;t get as much boost to the intake manifold...you have to change the pulley to make up for the additional flow... you don't have to worry about this with a turbo...
I'd be glad to answer any other questions that you may have...
Thanks!
Tom "Slick"
96 Dakota Sport 5.2 RC SB
|
MnMeLiTe
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
00:54:48
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey thanks Tom I appreciate it. Right now I've got intake, TB, and exhaust. And I'm getting headers soon. My truck, 2000 CC R/T has the looks, but now I want to work with the engine. Money is kind of tight right now, but I want a set-up that won't cost me an arm and a leg, and will allow me to finally kick the 'Lightnings' @ss. Just an off topic question. My friend has an audi s4 and is pushing at max 20 psi everytime he accelerates.. Is that good or bad.. That's alot right. Also does it guzzle gas?
Thanks again,
Mike
|
Tom Slick
GenII
9/26/2002
01:01:25
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
20psi is a lot!!! If he didn't change the boost level himself, then he might want to check the vacuum/boost lines connected to the wastegate... sounds like the wastegate is not opening...
The more boost, the more fuel you need...
Turbos are the best way to go when it comes to wasting lightnings, but they don't come cheap...
Later!
Tom "Slick"
96 Dakota Sport 5.2 RC SB
|
KRC Tech
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
04:30:25
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Mike, a turbo has to be sized for the application just like a supercharger;
"...running a supercharger, when you upgrade heads and intake on your motor, you don;t get as much boost to the intake manifold...you have to change the pulley to make up for the additional flow... you don't have to worry about this with a turbo..."
you buy a supercharger that has the cfm flow needed for the head cam combo you are building or are going to run, don't expect pullies to be the answer, they are the fine tune button as is a wastegate. Also, 8 lbs of boost at 5000 rpm with a turbo or with a supercharger is the same power. That gets back to Kenne-Bell's arguement that he makes more boost and power throughout the powerband from 2000 rpm and up. That's fine, if you are running a stock geared truck. But the majority of us want ET advantage and have steeper gears already. You can gear any combo to be in it's powerband quickly, even if it is only 3000-6000 rpm. They both have things you need to weigh, turbos need an intercooler and all the piping, (I won't even discuss non-intercooled setups when discussing turbos), supechargers need maintanance to the belt tensioning if you are not running a cog belt. Turbos generate more engine bay heat, and are much louder (unless you have a noisy P-Dyne), especially two; superchargers increase oil temp also if running from the main supply. I guarantee anyone, a non intercooled turbo will produce the same power as a supercharger at the same boost level, and a equally intercooled turbo will produce no more than a equally intercooled supercharger at the same level of boost. As for the power levels Vortech list with their bolt on kits, it sure doesn't jive with what folks really have. Bone stock 318 98 5-speed, running 13.7 at 102, making 315 at the back, hitting the rev limiter at 5250 and making 8 lbs, is pretty far off from their numbers of 270. Boost is boost, and intercooled, it's the same, but dollar for dollar, supercharging has intercooled turbo kits beat hands down. I use the S-trim kits that cost us around $3000, and with the same head and cam combo a turbo setup can use, I made a mild 429 rear wheel on a 360. I made 435 at 5500 on a 318.
The deciding factor is the wallet Mike, get the most you can with what you are willing to spend.
|
Tom Slick
GenII
9/26/2002
09:10:05
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
KRC TECH - sorry, but you are wrong...
Turbocharging produces more power at the same amount of boost than supercharging... it's called parasitic power loss, thanks to the supercharger running off the crankshaft by the a belt...not to mention belt slippage... supercharger boost is produced linearly with engine RPM(centrifugal especially)... turbochargers produce boost non-linearly and provide full-boost over a wider range of the powerband.
Later!
Tom "Slick"
96 Dakota Sport 5.2 RC SB
|
Canucker
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
10:45:10
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
I have to agree with Tom here ... though turbos DO have a parasitic power loss, it simply isn't as great as the superchargers.
KRC is right in saying 8psi will give you the same increase in power (turbo or super) BUT the turbo will only need 5-10hp to develop that boost, whereas the S/C will suck as much as 20-30hp for the same amount of boost. (my numbers may be way out to lunch, but you get the idea)
The downside: Turbos cost a lot more.
Another option if all you want to do is beat lightnings is to look at KRC's lightning killer package.
The choice is really yours though.
|
MnMeLiTe
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
11:49:27
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Hmmm.. ok well I've got the pros and cons of both. And everyone has an opinion favoring one or the other so I'm still not sure which application would be "best" for my 2000 R/T. But If all I have done to my engine now is intake, a throttle body, and exhaust, then what else would I need besides headers to run a super or a turbo. Depending on how much I spend on these extras will depend on whether or not I get a super or a turbo. Also, if anyone knows any good shops in south florida, please let me know. This way I can get some more opinions and see who does good work and who doesn't. Thanks again guys for all the info. I appreciate it
thanks,
Mike
|
alex
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
13:48:10
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
The guy that answered above... KRC Tech. he's in Cocoa, Florida. His website is KRCperformance.com and he will set your truck up to kick some major ass. Visit his website and then go to his shop. You won't be sorry.
|
PositivePSI
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
17:35:33
|  RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
It takes basically the same amount of horsepower to make the same level of boost - turbo or SC they are both air pumps afterall. The SC takes its power off the crank, while the turbo takes its off the exhaust gas ( while causing an exhaust restriction and some tuning degradation so it is NOT free hp! ). But the turbo is feeding MUCH hotter air to the engine, so at the same boost level there is less air going to the engine with the turbo - this means LESS power is produced at the wheels at the same boost level with the turbo.
The fastest blown trucks today don't use turbos - and there are reasons for that! Turbos work great in many applications, but for our trucks the belt-driven blowers are superior considering cost/hp, reliability, and resale. Turbo technology for trucks is not where SCs are today. Maybe in five-ten years they will be, but today it seems foolish ( IMO ) to use a turbo unless you want to 'develop' the system.
|
Duner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
18:05:44
| Incorrect - Temps are VERY similar!
IP: Logged
Message:
PositivePSI - The statement about turbos feeding much hotter air to the engine is incorrect if you are talking about the same boost levels.
A buddy of mine has a Vortech blower on his truck and with it turned up he's making 12psi of boost. At 12psi the charge air temp is 290 degrees. With my turbo set to 12 psi (without the intercooler system operating) my charge air temp is 284 degrees. It's my opinion that the reason for the perceived lower charge air temps with blowers is because most of them are only making 5-8psi of boost. When you spin them up - they make a bunch more heat! The next time you are at the track and somebody with a blower makes a pass and has their hood open.... I dare you to touch the tube between the blower and the airhat! hahaha
The reason that the fastest blown trucks today don't use turbos is because there isn't 6 different companies producing kits for them like there is superchargers. People can buy a blower kit and bolt it on if they can follow along in the instructions. The turbo systems are more involved.
Nobody made a kit for my 4.7 (blower or turbo) that I felt comfortable with.... so I built my own. I don't believe I could have come anywhere close to the performance numbers I have already if I were to have used any of the existing kits for the 4.7 engine. Turbos may seem foolish to you... but sometimes you just have to make your own stuff!
|
xplikt
GenIII
9/26/2002
18:27:26
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Everyone always calls turbos and superchargers an air pump, but wouldn't they be more of an air compressor since no more amount of air is actually entering the engine?
2002 2WD RC SLT 4.7L 5spd 3.92 LSD
MBRP Single in/out, straight piped 3rd cat, turndown tip
Hotchkis swaybars and springs
Bilstein custom tuned shocks
Roadmaster Active Suspension
Shaved emblems and antennae
|
j
GenIII
9/26/2002
18:37:05
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Yes, 'compressor' is a more accurate term.
2000 4.7 CC auto, Kenne Bell s/c
|
MikeD
*R/T*
9/26/2002
18:57:28
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Man looks like we got a Speedtweaks vs. KRCPerformance going on in here. haha
~Mike~
Get In...Sit Down...Shutup...& Hangon
|
KRC Tech
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
20:49:24
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Mike D , how have you been?
Slick; noticed I said 5000 rpm? I didn't say the whole powerband did I? I would be wrong if I stated that. I have dynoed the superchargers here without the blower tube hooked up and lost 15 rearwheel; but at 4600 rpm and above, it diminished to less than 2 hp. At 2000-4000 rpm it does loose more. But that is why I specifically said 5000 rpm. Plus I won some money on your response I expected. Restrict your exhaust with a turbo, produce no boost, dyno with it off, and I guarantee you will see up to 15 lost from the exhaust change. Wager?
But they are apples and oranges aren't they?
Still, 12 psi intercooled turbo against 12 psi supercharged intercooled also at the same high rpms is the same. Thats like comparing power numbers from...say... a twin turbo intercooled system against a non intercooled single supercharger, apples and oranges.
As for Mike's last comment, I love and admire the turbo work that Speedtweeks has developed for the Magnum. Keep up the great work!
|
MikeD
*R/T*
9/26/2002
21:17:02
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey Marty, I'm doing good, truck runs great...I have a funny story for you.
The guy that did my heads & cam work has a guy here in Dallas that does the porting and polishing in his heads if you remember. Well he placed a bet w/ me that the heads he got from his guy would kick my @ss at the track (the heads he got were put on another truck he worked on). Well we raced at an 1/8th mile track and I raced head to head w/ the guy that had the *eye candied* heads on...he had slicks on his truck, I didn't.
He pulled a 10.41 in the 1/8th...I pulled a 9.24 against him and I was barely getting traction there!! So your point has been proven, just because heads are ported more doesn't mean they'll perform better.
Oh I had a question for you...the guy that did work on my truck was kinda hesitant about putting on those Comp Cam roller rockers I bought from you. He bolted them up and he didn't know if I needed shorter pushrods because of the bigger cam which is a .512 lift cam. I don't understand since they are the stock ratio size and they not being able to fit. Can I bolt them up or will I need a different length pushrod?
~Mike~
Get In...Sit Down...Shutup...& Hangon
|
Jake T
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
21:17:33
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Big torque numbers at a low rpm(turbo) are hell to hook up on the street. The weight bias of a pick up only makes it harder.
For 90% street use I'll take a supercharger.
|
paysonbadboy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
21:38:05
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Well most of the fastest hot rods at the track use SUPERCHARGERS over TURBOS.
And in the real world with a stock torque converter you will have somewhat of a lag off the line with a turbo while the SC is almost instant!
So if you line up in a lightning he may still get you off the line and by then it may be too late by time your turbo hits full boost.
Then there's the piping issue like some said.
I prefer a SC.
|
POWER HUNGRY
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
21:39:02
|  RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
A turbo will put more power to the ground than a supercharger with the same boost because of higher mechanical and thermal efficiencies. Most people use superchargers because they are cheaper, larger # of kits available and simpler. Other reasons are that the sudden torque of full on a turbo kit after a shift upsets the chassis making it hard to control and to run consistant et's. Either one can make 1,000+ horses so it really doesn't matter.
Generally superchargers have better off the line throttle response and turboes are more versital. The turbo system options make it better than a supercharger when comparing cruising characteristics of high powered kits. The options that make it possible like electronic wastegates, turbo timers, adjustable fuel maps are what make it expensive and complex.
|
Curt
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/26/2002
23:47:23
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
KRC-tech.... could u explain some of things u did to get 435 on a 318... i would love it
98 CC 318 5spd
|
MnMeLiTe
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/27/2002
00:01:13
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey POSITIVEPSI....
In the other s/c, turbo post you stated that the S/C would be perfect for the 5.9 right? You said that since it has it's normal lowend power that the boost will benefit at higher RPM. I'm I getting the picture or am I way off.. I have a 2000 R/T, so would a S/C be better for my truck? and also does a S/C nEEd an intercooler? how much does this all cost, an estimate.
Thanks again for your help..
Mike
|
Tom Slick
GenII
9/27/2002
01:39:39
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Marty - you wrote the following:
"I have dynoed the superchargers here without the blower tube hooked up and lost 15 rearwheel; but at 4600 rpm and above, it diminished to less than 2 hp. At 2000-4000 rpm it does loose more. But that is why I specifically said 5000 rpm. Plus I won some money on your response I expected. Restrict your exhaust with a turbo, produce no boost, dyno with it off, and I guarantee you will see up to 15 lost from the exhaust change. Wager?"
15 hp...without the tube hooked up...that is a decend amount or parasitic loss...with the tube hooked up, there is more resistance incured(due to the increased pressure) which increases the amount of power needed to spin the supercharger(even though it is producing more power, it isn't doing it as efficiently as a turbo would...
As for the wager, I'm afraid that you would lose on that one... :-) Remember, the turbo's impellers are not as big and bulky as the impeller and gears of the supercharger...plus turbos only have one bearing... as compared to the mutiple bearings and the friction on the gears that a supercharger has...
Theoretically, turbochargers recover some of the power that the engine already uses to expel the exhaust gas... unlike superchargers, which place an additional load on the crankshaft.
I do agree with you, that on a budget, superchargers are the way to go, but turbos offer higher efficiency(more power) at the same boost levels, they produce boost over a larger range of the powerband(boost is non-linear, unlike a centrifugal supercharger), and allow you to adjust the boost by a screw, dial, or button(no pulley to change out), and no matter what heads, cam, intake, TB, etc. are on the engine, the system, when set at 6 psi will always produce 6psi, unlike with superchargers in which you may only get 4-5psi with the 6psi pulley after you change out heads, cam, intake, etc.
Turbo lag is a non issue... I bet you that you could not (while just cruising down a road) push the gas pedal to the floor and release it without producing full boost... even on race cars, the longest amount of turbo lag is less than a second...
Unfortunately turbos have not caught on as much yet in the truck arena, but fortunately it is coming around... like that twin-turbo Trailblazer
Porshe won a record number of 24hr at Lemans Races over the years with turbocharged engines... their secret to success? They would crank up the boost to get a good lead, and then onece thay has a nice margin, they would drop the boost down to save fuel and increase reliability...
I've been to many tracks, and have seen many very fast vehicles run...
What really impresses me is the guys with the Chrysler 2.2L turbo engines that run consistent 11's and 10's in the quarter mile...
I do have to say that Marty does some awesome work with the magnum engines and that whether you choose to go the supercharged or turbocharged route, you will enjoy the power increase for a while... until you want more boost!!!
As for me, turbos rule!
Later!
Tom "Slick"
96 Dakota Sport 5.2 RC SB
|
Bernd
*GenIII*
9/27/2002
08:49:55
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Coming from experience with both on a 5.9L (Supercharged with 9# boost and Turbocharged with 9# boost)...the Turbo truck made more useable power across the board (even as compared to a Kenne Bell s/c'd 5.9L) - all were Dakota's.
Which made more power overall? We've got the dyno sheets posted on the website - 5# on the turbo vs. 6-8# on the S/C's.
1997 Dodge Dakota SLT - V6
Supercharged/Intercooled @ 10# w/Nitrous
14.55 @ 96.01mph
|
AlmightyDart
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
9/28/2002
01:25:52
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Fellas get a supercharger!!! Wouldn't you like to have this big ass thing sticking out of your hood or hiding. Bolt on power is the easiet and fastest way to get horsepower no doubt about it. Just get an M1 intake single plain, PCM chip, mopar performance headers, MBRP cuda exhaust, a diff cam and tb and you'd be screaming witht hat super charger!! Thats what I plan to do, money is really tight but my bro owes me 1,500 bucks. Anyone know of anyone selling a supercharger for 2000 grand?
|
jonathan
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/11/2003
15:01:22
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
You would be better off with a turbo besause a turbo charger does not sap powewr from the engine. turbos work by using your exhaust gasses to turn an impeler that shares a commom shaft with another impeler on the intake side. when the exhaust impeler is turned the intake impeler forces air into the engine. the truck has to be designed to take a turbo though where as a supercharger uses a belt driven pulley to spin it's impeler and force air into the engine, it should just be able to be bolted on. i hope this helps.
|
Demon Dakota
DakotaEnthusiast
3/11/2003
16:21:36
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
It will always come down to budget and application. For the money, the S/C is usually cheaper performance. For true maximum performance and tunability, the turbo is the keeper (at a higher price). I think my truck has plenty of TQ at the lower end of the RPM spectrum, so I would personally go with a turbo (over 3000 RPM )to fatten up the curve and give a more constant acceleration.
K&N Drop in AF (CAI during summer months)
True Dual exhaust and removed third cat
HO Cams & HO Intake
FASTMAN 70mm TB
Autolite 3923 Plugs
TPS @ .76 VDC
IAT Adjuster Mod
14.52@94.2 MPH at Silver Dollar Raceway
|
tweaked
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/11/2003
16:33:05
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
is speedtweaks ever gonna be back up? just wondering, not meaning to start anything, hehe...
|
azdak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
3/11/2003
17:56:31
| RE: Supercharger vs. Turbo?
IP: Logged
Message:
Hers the thing the turbo is the winner. As for Tom if you restricted the airflow from the charger you would find that the numbers would be much higher. As any gear head here who owns an air compressor in their garage knows the higher the air pressure the higher the load you can hear it just before your compressor shuts off. Now take you supercharger and apply the same theory with the volume of air at the 6 or 8 psi there will be a considerable difference in parasitic power loss due to the load on the charger and as for a lack of technology for turbo's 10 years? Development curve from now I don’t think so superchargers use to be the thing only cause they could push large amounts of air back in the dinosaur age. The materials and dimensional constraint coupled with superior metallurgy put on manufacturing today allows for much tighter tolerance and a better understanding of how to improve reliability I did the same as Duner and built my own single t3t4 hybrid. With all the goodies fmu, gauges, fuel pump, blow off valve, misc. hardware it cost 600.00 for the whole project and 2 months of finding pieces on e-bay. That combined with my own spare times (a week’s vacation). Find a charger kit for that (not stolen) and you will be the luckiest guy on this site. The hardest thing of the whole project was getting good reliable data people are always willing to give advice on $hit they have never done only read about in books or heard from friends on Friday night cruises. The best advice you can get is from all the people who have done the research, trail and tested (and blown stuff up). Whether you go with turbo or charger both have good qualities or else there would be only one.
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
