Supercharger OR Twin Turbo

Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more] >> [Full Scale planes, cars, helis, boats] >> Cars & Trucks - Full Scale

[Poll]

Supercharger

35% (14)

Twin Turbo

64% (25)

Total Votes : 39

(last vote on : 8/5/2008 3:25:38 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

asl4lyfe -> Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/4/2007 7:08:13 AM)
Been thinking about this idea for some time. I have a '06 dodge ram hemi 5.7L. I have the $$$$ and I'm planning on turning it into a 1,200 HP beast. Think the TT's will work with the engine and how many MPG's do you think I'll get if I go with this crazy idea?[:D] By the way any of you guys have a SC or TT? Post pics.

Anomie -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/4/2007 12:42:32 PM)
I don't know about miles per gallon, but you likely won't have to worry about power! That thing will scream [:-] I'm a big believer in superchargers (the roots-type, nothing else) because of the instant power at almost any RPM. No need to get the revs up. I had a Mooneyham 12-71 on a built 351 Cleveland about 15 years ago, and the power was unbelievable on the drag strip. It eventually sent the lower end to the grave, though. [:D]

asl4lyfe -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/4/2007 5:46:40 PM)
Hey Reiko, I bet that 351 Cleveland was fast. What ET's were your running? I kind of like roots type blowers but not centrifugal and twin screw types. The whine from centrifugal and twin screws really annoy me, but with the roots, the whole world knows you have power under that hood![:D]

Tripower455 -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/4/2007 5:49:10 PM)
You want 1200 HP, and are worried about MPG? I'd be more worried about how many feet the thing will go before breaking something in the drivetrain....... Followed shortly by the bottom end of the motor...... But, I agree that a root's blower would be the best way to go, but I'd start with more displacement. 1200 streetable hp is not gonna be easy even with a big block.......

Anomie -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/4/2007 8:10:16 PM)
That was a heavy car, a '70 Mustang coupe. The quickest quarter was in the high 12s.

rideicon -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/5/2007 11:16:50 PM)
You guys must all be old muscle car farts, the roots and the twin screw are almost the same thing, the only difference is the twin screw is way more efficient. the cintrifical supercharger is the most efficient super charger there is, while it may not make boost as low as the roots or twin screw, it will make much more in the top end and the power curve will be much more fun, not to mention the gas mileage is WAY better. then you step up to turbo chargers, yeah, they don't boost hard in the bottom end, but your in a hemi pick up truck, you have to be easy on the gas in a launch anyways to keep traction, that tiny bit of lagg could actually help you get better ET's , now lets get into the technical stuff, you want high hp, you going to do internals in your truck? roots and twin screw style chargers suck up to 33% of your engine hp from the crank, that means if your crank shows 1000hp with a roots charger as the only means of boost the engine internals are actually seeing over 1300hp worth of pressure, that means more internal stress and way worse engine efficiency. You want just efficiency, better mpg and more power get a single or dual turbo set up or centrifugal supercharger. You want to most psychotic truck you can build and be streetable with some efficiency left? do a compound supercharger and turbo, i have this set up on my 1.8liter integra, its got a twin screw charger and a gt35 turbo, it see's over 600hp with minimal lagg, if i was to build that hemi i'd send the block and head out to get machined, sleved, new pistons rods crank whole deal, do the trans up too. then you get yourself a roots charger, a big one! the roots because it build pressure faster and will let pressure through it better than any other kind of super charger, and you get yourself 2 gt40 turbos, they are capable of about 700hp each. now normally that hemi would have trouble getting those 2 big turbos spinning, it would usually only see 1 turbo that big, but with the roots pushing though the motor and in turn through the exhaust you can spool those turbos real fast!!! really really fast!!! and 2x gt40 plus a roots will get you around 1500hp with some major good tunning. you'd be looking at a **** load of money and if i had a hemi i'd sell it and buy a cummins and sup it up because the efficiency of a diesel makes gas look like a joke and you can get major power without engine internals and have crazy reliability, and like 22mpg. but thats just me i guess....

Tripower455 -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/6/2007 12:52:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rideicon You guys must all be old muscle car farts, the roots and the twin screw are almost the same thing, the only difference is the twin screw is way more efficient. the cintrifical supercharger is the most efficient super charger there is, while it may not make boost as low as the roots or twin screw, it will make much more in the top end and the power curve will be much more fun, not to mention the gas mileage is WAY better. then you step up to turbo chargers, yeah, they don't boost hard in the bottom end, but your in a hemi pick up truck, you have to be easy on the gas in a launch anyways to keep traction, that tiny bit of lagg could actually help you get better ET's , now lets get into the technical stuff, you want high hp, you going to do internals in your truck? roots and twin screw style chargers suck up to 33% of your engine hp from the crank, that means if your crank shows 1000hp with a roots charger as the only means of boost the engine internals are actually seeing over 1300hp worth of pressure, that means more internal stress and way worse engine efficiency. You want just efficiency, better mpg and more power get a single or dual turbo set up or centrifugal supercharger. You want to most psychotic truck you can build and be streetable with some efficiency left? do a compound supercharger and turbo, i have this set up on my 1.8liter integra, its got a twin screw charger and a gt35 turbo, it see's over 600hp with minimal lagg, if i was to build that hemi i'd send the block and head out to get machined, sleved, new pistons rods crank whole deal, do the trans up too. then you get yourself a roots charger, a big one! the roots because it build pressure faster and will let pressure through it better than any other kind of super charger, and you get yourself 2 gt40 turbos, they are capable of about 700hp each. now normally that hemi would have trouble getting those 2 big turbos spinning, it would usually only see 1 turbo that big, but with the roots pushing though the motor and in turn through the exhaust you can spool those turbos real fast!!! really really fast!!! and 2x gt40 plus a roots will get you around 1500hp with some major good tunning. you'd be looking at a **** load of money and if i had a hemi i'd sell it and buy a cummins and sup it up because the efficiency of a diesel makes gas look like a joke and you can get major power without engine internals and have crazy reliability, and like 22mpg. but thats just me i guess.... Spoken like a true ricer........ I am making over 550 hp/600 ft lbs at under 6000 rpm with no power adders whatsoever...... on pump gas and no computer. True, I only get 17mpg at 80mph, but I can pay for a lot of gas by not having to pay for a turbo or supercharger.... Yes, I am a "musclecar fart"..... There is no replacement for displacement.... proven on a weekly basis at the track...... I mean, if you want power, why start with half an engine?

rideicon -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/6/2007 3:07:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tripower455 Spoken like a true ricer........ I am making over 550 hp/600 ft lbs at under 6000 rpm with no power adders whatsoever...... on pump gas and no computer. True, I only get 17mpg at 80mph, but I can pay for a lot of gas by not having to pay for a turbo or supercharger.... Yes, I am a "musclecar fart"..... There is no replacement for displacement.... proven on a weekly basis at the track...... I mean, if you want power, why start with half an engine? Spoken like a true old muscle car fart, can you even read past the first line or can you not find your glasses? I work on, and spend my time around cars of every make and model, there are pro's and cons to each. If you want to go fast why star with a car that weighs 3500lbs? my 4 door integra weighs in at under 2300lbs with the cage and full interior and runs a high 10, and gets around 25mpg Is all that you read my first sentence? I have many cars, V8's, 4 cylinders, diesels, street bikes. I never dissed on displacement, if you understand how an engine works you understand how displacement is important. But what i said was V8's have tons of torque already and a turbo will make more hp. Turbo's are much more efficient. I had a dodge cummins with around 600hp and 1100ft lbs, and it got close to 23mpg. Turbos add efficency, owning a turbo does NOT make you a ricer, ask any diesel mechanic about how great turbos are. also I went ahead and did some research for you, Lasik eye surgery. they've made vast improvement in eye care. Even if this is the first time you couldn't find your glasses im sure it will happen much more redilly in the near future, you might want to start saving your social security checks and get that done up real fast buddy.

carmatic1 -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/6/2007 4:57:24 AM)
i would normally stay out of arguments when they are already happening, but i must agree with rideicon on the roots + turbo idea... at low rpms the roots work with high efficiency , at high rpms the turbo takes over...

Tripower455 -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/6/2007 5:26:49 AM)
Roots plus turbo is a good idea....... How about some pics of the 10 second Integra? Or even a time slip? [;)] Just call me O.M.F. I've been called worse and it has a nice ring to it........

rideicon -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/6/2007 10:46:42 AM)
engine is apart right now, but i have pics of the car, click here just got the cage done and started on the body work just because i own an integra and know alot about engine efficency DOES NOT MEAN im a ricer.... ricers are fags with body kits and single cam hatch backs with nothing done but the muffler cut off...

rideicon -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/6/2007 10:48:44 AM)
but mines not a real roots, its a jackson racing supercharger which is a twin screw variant, more efficiency if use alone but a roots would have been better in my set up. they just don't have one for my application. the cars going to be sold once the body work is finished, i'm building a 6 door f-650

rideicon -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/6/2007 10:56:19 AM)
http://www.forcedairtech.com has been building Suburu Sti's with superchargers and turbos and claim the compound set up to be way better than the twin turbo set up and the owner of the company actually has an sti with a twin screw charger and two gt30 turbos! [image]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid185/pda1f2e26fef75540a4a25c02a64825cb/f2785c2a.jpg[/image] thats a 2.5 liter with almost 900hp!

rideicon -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/6/2007 6:57:19 PM)
Gale Banks talks about superchargers and Turbos. and Both Gale banks and Jay Leno say they'd do a turbo over a supercharger but they admit both have there ups and downs. They also call superchargers parasites!!! lmao. Thats great thats exactly what i thought of them but could find a good word for it!

subarubrat -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/7/2007 3:51:35 AM)
"There is no replacement for displacement.... " There is a replacement, it's called forced induction. Let's face it, 1.5Ltr F1 engines make 750HP per Ltr. "proven on a weekly basis at the track" Only if you accept drag racing as the only acceptable proof. The real world has turns and straightaways, wet and dry. It is one thing to build a car that goes fast perfectly straight under only ideal conditions, it is another to deliver that power around corners. Don't get me wrong. I am a car enthusiast, but an honest one. I love to see a 69 Camaro haul the front end 2ft in the air and shake the gravel off the track. However that same car would be just as much of a failure against a showroom stock Lancer EVO as the EVo would be against the Camaro on the drag srip. Lack of honesty drives me nuts in the car world. For example, I own a Harley Heritage Springer which is a 1300cc 850Lb chrome monster. It may be a work of art but a 600cc sport bike will outrun, out turn, out last and out perform in every way that Harley. Yet what do I hear from other HD owners, how bad the Jap junk is. I admit I bought the HD because of it's glorious inefficiency and it's over the top sound, but it isn't a better bike. Same is true when you compare cars. Compare the Subaru STi to the Mustang. Both make 300Hp stock and both can be readily upgraded to more. My 04 STi is making a hair over 500Hp and it gets a 52 mile commute each way every work day and it isn't babied. A Mustang of equall HP will generally go faster in a straight line on dry pavement than an equally matched in HP STi. However it has traded everything else for that. On any other type of road it falls dramaticly behind the STi. It is fine to like a certain type of car, we all do. But claiming that a car that only wins in one out of many comparisons is superior is dishonest.

Tripower455 -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/7/2007 5:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rideicon engine is apart right now, but i have pics of the car, click here just got the cage done and started on the body work just because i own an integra and know alot about engine efficency DOES NOT MEAN im a ricer.... ricers are fags with body kits and single cam hatch backs with nothing done but the muffler cut off... Has it ever run in the 10's, or were you just bench racing?

Tripower455 -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/7/2007 6:06:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subarubrat "There is no replacement for displacement.... " There is a replacement, it's called forced induction. Let's face it, 1.5Ltr F1 engines make 750HP per Ltr. For how long? Real world? quote: "proven on a weekly basis at the track" Only if you accept drag racing as the only acceptable proof. The real world has turns and straightaways, wet and dry. It is one thing to build a car that goes fast perfectly straight under only ideal conditions, it is another to deliver that power around corners. True.... but I drive a 40 year old musclecar, a 17 year old pickup, a 5000 lb SUV and a late model V8 RWD in my real world, and all of them negotiate these things at well over the speed limit....... quote: Don't get me wrong. I am a car enthusiast, but an honest one. I love to see a 69 Camaro haul the front end 2ft in the air and shake the gravel off the track. However that same car would be just as much of a failure against a showroom stock Lancer EVO as the EVo would be against the Camaro on the drag srip. True...... Even with a bunch of suspension upgrades, my '66 GTO doesn't handle nearly as well as my '04 when pushed hard, but I rarely, if ever, have need to push either of them anywhere near their cornering limits in the real world. The '66 will obliterate the '04 on the drag strip though. That little 5.7 would need forced induction to make it quicker than my '66. It all depends on what you want. Even with the 5 speed in the '66, I wouldn't want to get off a 12 hour day and drive it 3 hours home through the swamps of FL. The '04 is much more refined and comfortable. It is a "better" car in every way. The '66 is way more fun to drive though...... quote: Lack of honesty drives me nuts in the car world. For example, I own a Harley Heritage Springer which is a 1300cc 850Lb chrome monster. It may be a work of art but a 600cc sport bike will outrun, out turn, out last and out perform in every way that Harley. Yet what do I hear from other HD owners, how bad the Jap junk is. I admit I bought the HD because of it's glorious inefficiency and it's over the top sound, but it isn't a better bike. I totally agree. I could care less if either of my GTO's are beat by anything, as I like the cars, and would rather drive them than pretty much anything else. I also agree that in a lot of cases, the Japanese cars and bikes are better overall. I have owned a ton of vehicles over the years, including a few imports. It seems to be hit or miss as to what kind of luck I've had. My F-250 has 220k on it, and it has been virtually trouble free since I bought it in 1990. My wife's Mazda minivan had some real recurring pita issues, like cracked exhaust manifolds. These POS things cost more each than the ceramic coated headers in my GTO, and were a major hassle to change (twice in under 75k), especially the rear one. I've had great luck with Toyota trucks (my wife has a Sequoia, and I love it.... in fact, I am thinking of getting a Tundra for a driver based on how much I like my wifes Sequoia), and I owned a high mileage '79 Accord for a while that was dead reliable, but the body rotted off it. quote: Same is true when you compare cars. Compare the Subaru STi to the Mustang. Both make 300Hp stock and both can be readily upgraded to more. My 04 STi is making a hair over 500Hp and it gets a 52 mile commute each way every work day and it isn't babied. A Mustang of equall HP will generally go faster in a straight line on dry pavement than an equally matched in HP STi. However it has traded everything else for that. On any other type of road it falls dramaticly behind the STi. Just out of curiousity, what has a Mustang traded off that your Subie hasn't? I'll definitely give the handling edge to the Subie, but not by much, especially in real world use. quote: It is fine to like a certain type of car, we all do. But claiming that a car that only wins in one out of many comparisons is superior is dishonest. Well, I get to the drag strip on a pretty consistant basis, and the overwhelming majority of quick cars running there are RWD V-8s...... There are a few, very impressive imports that show up regularly RSXs, TT Supras etc., WRXs, etc. Another one that impressed me was the little Neon SRT. If the guy can drive, they will go pretty good for what they are.... That said, the ones that seem to run the best overall are the Fox body Fords. I am not generally a Ford guy (but I do like their trucks) so that is a hard one to swallow, but you can't argue with what works. If I wanted a quick car on a budget, that's what I'd build....... Good thing I am not on a budget, because I like Pontiacs....... [;)]

Tripower455 -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/7/2007 6:51:41 PM)
Oh, and by the way, I stand by my original assertion that if the guy who started this thread wants 1200 hp to move a heavy truck, he should start with something bigger, even with forced induction.......

mirage-twin -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/9/2007 3:14:39 AM)
I would not even dream of putting 1200hp into a stock magnum engine, if you really have the money buy a viper crate engine and put on a Twin turbo setup and your done(power wise), the shop I work for recently did an 05' viper, all stock internals with twin turbo and it makes 1100hp at the wheels with no issues. any roots/twin screw supercharger is bad idea if you want a reliable street car. turbos are the only way to go, superchargers only make smoke. Prochargers are the only belt driven Forced induction I would think about. I totally agree with rideicon, Tripower no offense but your stuck in 1970, even my old man belives in turbos [8\|]

mirage-twin -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/9/2007 3:16:04 AM)
I have to add one more thing: There really is no replacment for displacment, there is an alternative.

Tripower455 -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/9/2007 5:42:11 AM)
quote: I totally agree with rideicon, Tripower no offense but your stuck in 1970, even my old man belives in turbos I agree with rideicon too, and have said so many times. The only thing I disagreed with was about the size of the Ford trucks, and it turned out that we were both right (or wrong)..... I admitted that, but he won't, he just changes the subject and hurls insults......... I still want to see some 10 second time slips, or a 600 hp dyno sheet from his Integra........ I believe in turbos in certain applications. I used to work on airplanes that were turbocharged and have a love/hate relationship with the things. That said, I am not the least bit interested in putting one (or 2) on any of my current vehicles...... If I had to drive a vehicle with small displacement gas or a diesel engine, it'd definitely need some type of forced induction to make it bearable for me to drive. Fortunately, I am not limited in that respect, so it is not neccesary for me to add complexity to make up for lack of displacement...... The only 4 banger I ever owned for any length of time was an '85 Toyota p/u with a carbed 22R. Great truck, easy to work on, went like a raped ape off road, but was absolute misery to drive on the street (short on ramps were real exciting). It also couldn't tow or carry much. That thing would've been much more palatable had it had a supercharger or turbo I may be stuck in the 70's, but it simply makes no sense to start with a small engine, if the goal is maximum power. There is no replacement for displacement. You can make up for lack of displacement with forced induction, but you are doing just that and adding complexity and compromising reliability and longevity to do so (higher manifold pressure, rpm, egt, operating temps, simply pushing all the parts harder to do the same work). Everything is a trade off. I'd rather trade a few mpg and have a normally aspirated, 350 hp engine that gets nearly 30 mpg loping along at 2000 rpm at 80 mph, than a smaller, forced induction one making the same power, that gets 35 mpg turning 4000 rpm at the same speed. Then again, I'm stuck in 1970 (oh wait, 350+ hp cars couldn't do that in 1970). If you go back and read my posts, you'll find that I chose NOT to buy a diesel back in '90 because the truck I wanted wasn't available with a turbocharger........ Drive what you want........ I'll repeat myself again..... If you want 1200 hp to power a full sized pickup truck, you'd be better off starting with more displacement than 5.7 litres, regardless of what you use as a power adder. Why this opinion is such an issue around here is beyond me......

mirage-twin -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/9/2007 6:54:33 PM)
you still belive in s/c over turbos, I have been in both the 07' gt500 (bigger displacment with a supercharger) and an 05' mustang gt with a single turbo and only 7 pounds of boost that probably makes around 380 hp at the wheels, the turbo stang was much faster in a straight line, I'll admit the shelby was stronger off the line(still slower due to tire spin) but it was horrible on the highway. I've been in plenty of cars and honestly superchargers should only be considered as a cheap and easy upgrade.

subarubrat -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/10/2007 1:22:31 AM)
quote: Just out of curiousity, what has a Mustang traded off that your Subie hasn't? I'll definitely give the handling edge to the Subie, but not by much, especially in real world use. There is as much of a leap in handeling between the Mustang and the STi in real world as there is between a sport bike and a harley dresser. Most of it comes down to power you can deliver controllably and under conditions impossible in a RWD car. The STi has all wheel drive first off, with limited slip front and rear as well as a DCCD center differential that gives computer managed power division between front and rear. Accelerate through a charp corner and drop the hammer on a RWD car and your going to loose it, in an STi, or EVO or other similar car you will be able to control that delivery and pull much harder. Off camber turns, lane transitions, skid recovery, etc. instead of fighting the power delivery it is integral to the car. If you want to see a good comparison google or youtube for Evo Vs lambo and watch the Top Gear episode where they test the Lancer Evo against the Lambo Murci and the EVO comes out on top. Keep in mind the same show and most anyone consider the STi and EVO about 1deg apart. The same show did a comparison of the two and awarded the STi the win by a hair at best. Take the time to view those, you will probably enjoy it, and try to imagine where a mustang would fit into that picture as you watch what these two cars do. I own an 04 STi, 06 Lotus, and a 99 Lambo Diablo. Hands down the STi is worlds superior in real world, the Lotus takes the edge in track handeling, and if you want to go fast, real fast the magic formula is a wedge with allot of HP and that is where the Lambo shines, of course a new Vette is a better car in almost all respects.

mirage-twin -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/10/2007 1:41:47 AM)
you can't say you own those without pictures...

rideicon -> RE: Supercharger OR Twin Turbo (4/10/2007 3:10:58 AM)
Okay, I will say this! it would both easier, and more reliable to shove a big block with a pair of turbos, or a v10 viper engine, into that truck to get over 1000hp. Tripower you keep saying why start with a smaller engine if you want to make more power in regards to drag racing. horse power is not everything, although it is a major factor[>:]. but truth be told if i didn't want to keep my integra streetable with full interior and everything i would shoved my motor into a striped out crx, those cars rock! i took a stock si crx single cam 1.6l and put a cheap bolt on turbo on it without changing anything and got it into the low 12's. you keep asking for time slips or dyno charts? dude 600+hp isnt that big of a deal for a b series honda engine, people do it all the time, and i wish i had waited about 6 months to do my build and started with a k series, stock internals on a k24 can see around 750hp!! built around 900, from a 2.4liter. my approx 630 is no big deal, you can see my truck i have almost 100K into you don't think i can drop 10K into my integra engine? lmao!! Im going to say yeah technology wise turbos are way superior to the supercharger but the supercharger is still known as the main source of boosting a car, the linear power curve is much easier to drive, at times..., and you dont need to worry about blow off valves, waste gates, intercoolers, and turbos are slightly harder to tune.... cost wise though, neather can be considered the cheaper. also Tripower have you ever drivin in a sti? not a wrx but a real sti? aggressively? they are like magic, the'd eat my old evo i had. i don't care whos saying what, the sti will out handle most things, especially a mustang, [sm=lol.gif] also dude Tripower guy im not really trying to argue with you, most people who speak are just ignorant and you are not, you have your ways and understand that they may or may not be the "ultimate" whatever but you know what your talking about. thats cool, it seems harder and harder to find anyone who knows anything, most youth just say stupid ** like skylines are faster than anything!! and most old people just put don't small displacement engines, although you kinda put them down by not agreeing with them you do at least see where we are coming from. and you must know by now that i enjoy small displacement high reving engines, with the street bikes and integra, but i've mentioned i also enjoy larger displacement engines as well. but i love diesel engines! so if you talk crap about Sti's, diesels, mostly cummins, or turbos, and i am around, you are asking for me to start ranting about everything!! diesels rock!! dude sell your damn hemi and buy a 5.9 cummins, go to ats turbos, get the head ringed, and do the badass heads studs and get the twin turbos, only like 5K, plus maybe 3k in engine work, get a 5k drop in trans, and do like 3k in electronics and fuel system and push 100lbs of boost through that cummins, you will get 23mpg and have something like 900hp and up to 2500lbs torque also yeah Tripower the older fords are the same, but who would go out and buy one of those nowadays? i was sure he wanst talking about one of those, if you are ive got a 94 3/4 ton here with a 460 big block, gets **ty gas mileage but runs great, $1,000.. come get it!!! jay lenos 1000hp toronado

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

0.640625