[lil_soldier_boy]

I have a 2006 Mustang V6 I just want to know which is better a turbo charger or a super chager?

[blk_06_mustang]

I havent seen you post on here lol so first off, Welcome to MM! And with the question, how much power are you going for in the future? If its quite a bit then I would say Turbo, more potential.

[101fng]

i say supercharger. all the things said on here about how turbos are much better than superchargers is for the most part misinformed personal opinions. but that's just my opinion. with that said though, blk 06 mustang is right, but to see that potential (with any sort of f/i) you've got to shell out a shit-ton of $$. and i'm guessing that you're not exactly rolling in dough.

actually, i would just get a GT if you want to see power and more potential for more power.

commence flaming

[101fng]

and welcome

[ponygrrl]

There's so many threads on this... Try running a search and I'm sure you will find plenty of answers.

In the end, it's your decision and it's going to be up to you what kind of power you want to make or how far you want to go with it.

Good luck!

[ESG-642T]

Originally Posted by 101fng i say supercharger. all the things said on here about how turbos are much better than superchargers is for the most part misinformed personal opinions. but that's just my opinion. with that said though, blk 06 mustang is right, but to see that potential (with any sort of f/i) you've got to shell out a shit-ton of $$. and i'm guessing that you're not exactly rolling in dough. actually, i would just get a GT if you want to see power and more potential for more power. commence flaming

Would you mind enlightening us on this subject... I would like to be better informed...

[xelitexjamx]

get forged internals, internal balance, and boost the hell out of it with a turbo... if i were to do it once, thats what i would do.

[weezer]

Originally Posted by SSStang Would you mind enlightening us on this subject... I would like to be better informed...

I would also love to be better informed

[101fng]

Originally Posted by SSStang Would you mind enlightening us on this subject... I would like to be better informed...

the biggest one i've heard from this forum is that turbos are more efficient than superchargers. yes and no. at first it sounds logical, turbos are driven by spent exhaust and superchargers are driven by engine hp. makes sense right? but there seems to be alot of ambiguity surrounding "efficiency". there are different efficiencies that come in to play when you start talking about how efficient a turbo/supercharger is. temperature efficiency, adiabetic efficiency, and volumetric efficiency are the most relevent in f/i setups.

temperature efficiency is pretty much self explanatory. it's the air temp into the s/c or turbo versus the air temp out of the s/c or turbo. the cooler the air, the more air can be crammed into the engine right? boost is the most influential to temp efficiency. as boost increases, so does air temperature (by about 10* per psi). just because a turbo has lower discharge temp at a lower rpm doesn't mean it's more efficient. the turbo is developing less boost and engine hp, so the discharge temp is lower. less boost means lower HP. more boost means more power. this is also where heat soak plays a big part. i've heard time and time again on this forum that superchargers run hotter, but i can't figure out how you guys get that shit. there is absolutely no doubt that turbos run much hotter. it's run off exhaust for christ's sake. why do they make heat shrouds for turbos and not blowers? if you need physical proof, put your hand on your turbo after doing one or two passes. and that heat does soak the rest of the engine compartment.

below peak air flow, superchargers have turbos beat in temp efficiency. but at high boost and high rpm, the turbo, twin screw and centri blowers are about the same (about 10* per psi). so then volumetric efficiecy comes into play. volumetric efficiency indicates how efficiently the s/c or turbo breathes and leaks. if an s/c hasa displacement of 2.8L and 2.52L exit volume, the supercharger has a 90% volumetric efficiency (VE) or 2.52/2.8 = 90%. here, also the s/c and turbo are very close in efficiency at high rpm. the higher the VE, the greater the boost. however, the VE must be compared across all engine rpm and not just at 6500 rpm. a turbo does not produce the same boost (e.g. efficiency) at 2K, 3K, 4K rpms etc. boost and air flow increase incrementally with engine rpm and exhaust flow.

adiabetic efficiency or power consumption is where the turbo has the edge and is more efficient than an s/c. however, you guys say the turbo is driven by "free" exhaust. but you're wrong, all that exhaust has to be rerouted and squeezed into a single pipe and then pushed through a restrictive turbine. HP is lost through the restrictions, but the turbo will still make top-end HP. why? because in the higher rpm range, the s/c uses more engine HP to drive it than the turbo loses, from forcing air through the restrictive exhaust and turbine. SO, the turbo makes more peak power and is more efficient. but the turbo can't compete in the low and mid range rpms. and IMPO, bottom end is where it's fuckin at.

[ESG-642T]

1.) I don't know many racers who dig from idle
2.) Have you ever checked the IAT temps on a turbo / centri / positive displacement blower
3.) Low end (where its it to you) would mean your talking positive displacement vs turbo right? [because most of these guys are wanting vortechs and prochargers]

[101fng]

1) i didn't ask you how many racers you know dig from idle.
2) i'll tell you what, you check the temp on your turbo. i'm sorry i don't have a turbo lying around, but you do. you know what, you can check the temp and just keep it to yourself. you don't have to post and show everyone how hot they get. i don't give a shit.
3) you get too pussy hurt from a good argument and i guess you didn't catch the "IMPO" from the low end comment.

chill bro. you asked me to enlighten you and you get defensive when i present science and numbers. if you really don't believe me, do all the numbers and shit yourself. i'm not here to prove myself to you guys and provide yet more information to those that are clearly too lazy to research it themselves.

[ESG-642T]

I can pull some fancy science and numbers that should tell me how much power my car makes too, but the dyno proves those numbers wrong. Then I can take those dyno numbers and factor them in and it tells me what I should run at the track... (think they call it ricer math and bench racing) But some reason I don't run that?! Numbers don't always mean anything.

But you've proved my case, you don't have a turbo/sc lying around your just going buy what you read not real world experience. Sure turbo's get hot, and so do superchargers and that's why most kits now days come intercooled. Still 99% of the time turbos will make better power curves and more power per psi.

[101fng]

bro, i didn't try to tell you how much HP a turbo or s/c should make and i sure as shit didn't tell you how much faster you'd run with a s/c over a turbo. all i did was put out the facts about efficiency (which seems to be every turbo enthusiasts' main point against s/c's). that's the main thing i was referring to when i said "misinformed personal opinions."

as for better "power curves" with a turbo... if by "better" you mean a higher peak then i'll agree with you 110%. but a turbo won't be making more boost (or power, for that matter) than a s/c at 2K rpm.

i'm not arguing with you, even if i was before. turbos do have some big advantages over s/c's but s/c's also have it where turbos don't. and from an efficiency standpoint, i think superchargers are neck and neck with turbos, if not more efficient. i say that because alot of superchargers today put out more average power throughout the entire rpm band. if two cars accelerate from 2K rpm to 6K rpm through four gears, the car that wins will be the one that realizes the most average HP through the run. of course maybe there aren't that many people that dig at 2K rpm but i think my point is clear. turbos have a much higher peak than superchargers ever will, but i'm not arguing with that, am i?

does your real world experience agree?

[2002 BLK GT]

[Grabber08]

I think go with the SC and if you do get the x-charger from Explorer Express- Ford Ranger - Ford Explorer - Ford Mustang Performance
It comes with a handheld tuner SCT SF3 with the bamachip tune.

Its also the safest way to go in my opinon. Know people that have 80,000 miles on there x charger already with no problems at all.

[ESG-642T]

Originally Posted by 101fng bro, i didn't try to tell you how much HP a turbo or s/c should make and i sure as shit didn't tell you how much faster you'd run with a s/c over a turbo. all i did was put out the facts about efficiency (which seems to be every turbo enthusiasts' main point against s/c's). that's the main thing i was referring to when i said "misinformed personal opinions." as for better "power curves" with a turbo... if by "better" you mean a higher peak then i'll agree with you 110%. but a turbo won't be making more boost (or power, for that matter) than a s/c at 2K rpm. i'm not arguing with you, even if i was before. turbos do have some big advantages over s/c's but s/c's also have it where turbos don't. and from an efficiency standpoint, i think superchargers are neck and neck with turbos, if not more efficient. i say that because alot of superchargers today put out more average power throughout the entire rpm band. if two cars accelerate from 2K rpm to 6K rpm through four gears, the car that wins will be the one that realizes the most average HP through the run. of course maybe there aren't that many people that dig at 2K rpm but i think my point is clear. turbos have a much higher peak than superchargers ever will, but i'm not arguing with that, am i? does your real world experience agree?

See the underlined part? The problem here is you don't mention what TYPE of supercharger. A turbo will make more power than a centri at 2k rpm, maybe not a roots/screw type but a centri sure.

[101fng]

semantics. you got me there. my bad, a turbo makes more power than a centri at 2K rpm.

at no point did i ever even say a s/c was better than a turbo or whatever it is you think i did. i'm not trying to bash turbos (well, maybe a lil), but i'm just sick of hearing everyone on here tell other people how turbos are so much more efficient blah blah blah without even understanding how the shit works. that is misinformed turbo propaganda and i'd just like to put an end to it.

can we just end this argument? i made my one and only point and you seem to at least partially agree with me on the efficiency thing, and i agree that turbos make more power. so are we copesthetic? we're both right!

[StarCity]

I only read a few posts and wondering witch turbo is in question and what type of setup. In my experience and reading your are better off going with a good turbo setup mapped for your application.

[ESG-642T]

Oh yes...

The thing you have to look at with s/c's though is the loss it takes to turn the damn thing. Not to mention I don't see many turbos getting belt slip !

Plus I don't know about you KB whine is bad-ass but when you have wastegates opening, turbos spooling, and a bov you can't beat that.

[white03v6]

IMO, the KB whine is the god of all gods when it comes to sound (especially on a 4.6 4V).