Best supercharger?

used paxton sn seriers for couple hundred with a vr4 upgrade will out do them all i think youll still get a new one after you replace the parts and be cheaper(vr4 upgrade 600)

Out of the ones you listed the Paxton 1000 would be the best one!

Best bang for the buck supercharger is to buy my brand new Vortech SQ kit thats NEVER been used, only bolted to the engine. More efficient, more power and includes more parts than the kits you listed like a T rex pump and a BTM I paid $2377 for it all, make a reasonable offer.

Mike

A sequential turbo system would put to shame any superahrger any day of the week. Superchargers are only good for 14,500 max rpm, after that, they fall on their face while a turbo will continue to make POWA until 100,000rpms. Turbos are WAY more faster then superchargers, my college professors told me so.

Cobra tt said:

A sequential turbo system would put to shame any superahrger any day of the week. Superchargers are only good for 14,500 max rpm, after that, they fall on their face while a turbo will continue to make POWA until 100,000rpms. Turbos are WAY more faster then superchargers, my college professors told me so.

Click to expand...

hes huffing the propane again

shttygtstang said:

hes huffing the propane again

Click to expand...

Ask your mom, she'll tell you what I've been huffing..HATERS!

ill make this simple for you to understand your such a loser .you have a nascar in your drive way you say you have a tt cobra then you showed us pics and it was a supercharger.thats great then your sig says you have 8200hp and 9000tq wow what even numbers ide love to c that dyno sheet.best of all you have a 351 w/ a 302 crank bs.

also dont talk to your father like that i almost pulled out and left you in that back seat .....what a tool

With the ones you have listed I would pick the Paxton or Vortech....or better yet a Procharger

The belts in the Powerdynes (they are not gear driven like the other models) have a bad rep for breaking. The Ford Motorsport units are Powerdynes as well

Cobra tt said:

Turbos are WAY more faster then superchargers, my college professors told me so.

Click to expand...

God I love the way that was written

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Try this one on for size, when a supercharger unit is hitting and passing the 100,000 mile marker, a turbo will be either on it's second leg or about ready to be ripped out and rebuilt to be put on its third leg or just flat out replaced. The turbines inside them spin so incredibly fast that no man-made bearing can last the tens of thousands of revolutions they spin up at. Turbos suffer terribly from lag so while a supercharger has been pulling its ass from idle up until around 2500 rpms or so here is where the turbo just starts makeing noticeable boost levels. A twin screw blower is an ungodly s/c and can be had makeing up to 60 psi of boost - trust me, it's a nasty device! Turbos must be carefully maintained or else you will boil the fluid in them to the point of where they lock up. Now with the major downsides to turbos stated, I will say that they have infinite boost and will pull as long as the given engine will (but keep in mind that most engines don't rev but so high anyway). They have a lot more power potential because of the continuous spooling ability. They do not require power to make power (s/c runs off of the engine crank), so they can be a plus here. Turbos in my opinion don't really conquer a supercharger until you get into the twin turbo scene, which is something totally different.

There are so many factors as to which is better and why and I only tipped the scale slightly. I'de have to say though that with engines that already pull good power down-low like the v8's in our mustangs, a supercharger dominates this realm, these engines aren;t made to rev high anyway where a turbo would be so beneficial. However, twin turbo is king when that setup is used and cannot even be touched - but you are most definitely going to pay for it.

Turbos in my opinion don't really conquer a supercharger until you get into the twin turbo scene, which is something totally different.

i disagrre have you seen the supras switch from twin to single and make alot more power.then some say well you can take two of those upgraded turbos and make more .not true if there isnt enough to spin them at a certain rpm then you will fall flat on your face.

Can't we all just get along!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hell no!!!!!!!

It is all about setup/tune and efficiency. Just because a 281 makes more power with less cubes than engines of much larger size of yesterday - should that make it automatically better? There are too many factors that can effect such things with boost involved. Who's to say a different A/F ratio was used, different intake, larger valves, better breathing camshaft, better timing retard and advance implementation, more efficient turbo, a turbo that had a lot less lag so the power could come on sooner and spool up longer, higher or lower compression, different octane requirements, higher boost levels, or better yet - a design that was so poor by itself that haveing two turbos actually hurt performance because one could not satisfy the other to work in its optimum boost band?

There are too many factors that could have accounted for the change. what one has to do is take the exact same vehicle, year, tranny, driver, conditions, engine, ect. and compare them side by side then say what came out ahead. That's like saying because Ford went to .4 liters less, they got 75 more hp in return (92' 5.0 versus 05' 4.6) In order to make twin turbos work best, the engineers must make the turbines/impellers of the two turbos so precisely matched that right where one begins to just slightly drop off, the larger one seriously kicks in. Did you ever consider it was poor design by Toyota and that they made a much better turbocharger and it would save themselves some money as well to only use one instead of two? All variables I say.

On a last note, this is a 5.0 forum, therefore I was talking in relation and for a 5.0 application. I could, with all due repspect, care less about a supra or some other 6 or even 4 cylinder vehicles - those are different engines with different needs and work much differently than a torquey v8 performs. Each power adder has it's purpose and application, including nitrous. For each application though comes different needs, and it hugely depends as to which method would be of most benefit and yield the most power out of the other choices.

However though just for appeasal purposes and to complete the other side of the arguement, i'de tip my hat towards a single turbo for a small 4 cylinder engine simply for the fact that they don't make much power in the first place down low. Considering an engine has it's greatest stress under acceleration from a stop, putting even more strain on the engine, such as that of a supercharger, would only make it slower at first. Most of these engines are made to rev high because they almost have to make the kind of power that today's demanding driver wants. So while a v8 driver will shift at 2500-3000 almost all day long, it's not too uncommon to have the 4-banger driver to rev it out to 4k-6k rpm before they shift. Therefore a turbo would be of most benefit because where they work best, a 4 cylinder almost always lives - including cruising on the highway. A larger-styled engine when setup very well for a twin turbo will run one very well. It's all about weather or not that engine can support the "feeding" of the turbo well enough in the first place to make it work well. If setup well, then work well it will.

Now the size of the turbo defines greatly the kinds of boost levels an engine will see as well as how long or short the turbo lag is. Like I said, it's all variables. there is only so much you can do with a small engine, medium-sized, or larger engine before it is either overkill or performance-hindering.

Again, there are too many variables to say which will be a 100% certain winner for what type of application. Then again, there is the one factor i'm forgetting quite well, cost. Technology is great but one has to able to afford it first.

87'GTstang said:

It is all about setup/tune and efficiency. Just because a 281 makes more power with less cubes than engines of much larger size of yesterday - should that make it automatically better? There are too many factors that can effect such things with boost involved. Who's to say a different A/F ratio was used, different intake, larger valves, better breathing camshaft, better timing retard and advance implementation, more efficient turbo, a turbo that had a lot less lag so the power could come on sooner and spool up longer, higher or lower compression, different octane requirements, higher boost levels, or better yet - a design that was so poor by itself that haveing two turbos actually hurt performance because one could not satisfy the other to work in its optimum boost band?

There are too many factors that could have accounted for the change. what one has to do is take the exact same vehicle, year, tranny, driver, conditions, engine, ect. and compare them side by side then say what came out ahead. That's like saying because Ford went to .4 liters less, they got 75 more hp in return (92' 5.0 versus 05' 4.6) In order to make twin turbos work best, the engineers must make the turbines/impellers of the two turbos so precisely matched that right where one begins to just slightly drop off, the larger one seriously kicks in. Did you ever consider it was poor design by Toyota and that they made a much better turbocharger and it would save themselves some money as well to only use one instead of two? All variables I say.

On a last note, this is a 5.0 forum, therefore I was talking in relation and for a 5.0 application. I could, with all due repspect, care less about a supra or some other 6 or even 4 cylinder vehicles - those are different engines with different needs and work much differently than a torquey v8 performs. Each power adder has it's purpose and application, including nitrous. For each application though comes different needs, and it hugely depends as to which method would be of most benefit and yield the most power out of the other choices.

Click to expand...

i understand what your saying and im not some guru of much of ne thing but from what i see or seen of any motor is a bigger single will make more than a twin in any aplication .a twin is better for economy ..lag .and when the makers of the supra desighed it im shure they werent out to make the most hp they could because we all know how much they can make just like a stang. also think of the emission they have to go though ....

i think for the street strip twin is better for the drag strip i would look into one big one

i mean you seem to know alot aboght this an im not saying your wrong to school me on something new i love to learn new things

shttygtstang said:

i understand what your saying and im not some guru of much of ne thing but from what i see or seen of any motor is a bigger single will make more than a twin in any aplication .a twin is better for economy ..lag .and when the makers of the supra desighed it im shure they werent out to make the most hp they could because we all know how much they can make just like a stang. also think of the emission they have to go though ....

i think for the street strip twin is better for the drag strip i would look into one big one

i mean you seem to know alot aboght this an im not saying your wrong to school me on something new i love to learn new things

Click to expand...

Well I have been into it for a little while (kind of have to know as much as you can as a Ford technician) and it is confusing sometimes. For the most part there is no definite answer to "what will make more power overall for my engine?" - one just has to experiment a little.

I can tell you this though, if there is one thing for certain then it is the fact that as with everything in this world, forced induction does have the same philosophy of trading one thing for another. In this case, i'm referencing the bigger turbo theory you are speaking about. Fact of the matter is the bigger the turbine/impeller of the turbocharger, then the more potential boost the engine can have. But, the larger the turbine/impeller is, the more effort it takes to spool it up. In order for an engine to take full advantage of the bigger turbo, an engine must first have the increased induction ability first, and second is for the exhaust of that engine to be able to be in such quantities to spool a larger turbo up. If the engine can do just one or neither, then for one the maximum potential can be seriously hurt, and along the same lines, turbo lag can seem like an eternity.

The other factor which I am believing may be the instance to the supra, is much better efficiency. Engines of today compared to those of 50 years ago can be substantially more efficient, right? So why not a forced induction unit?

However though, back to the big turbo idea, like I stated earlier, one must have the needs of the steep demands of the bigger turbo. I suppose I can compare it to the engine itself. Say you spend money on the "best set of cylinder heads money can buy", yet go with a wimpy econo-camshaft. So why again have such great potential when in turn you have limited those cylinder heads and especially that engine by means of not being able to feed them worth a lick? The equipment and potential could be there, BUT, the choice of picked and matched components must be just that - well-matched.

You are absolutley right on the emissions standpoint. when ford designed the 4 valve cobra, there is one of the three reasons you stated as to why some enthusiasts would call it "detuned". One is fuel economy, two is to be running safe enough to still be able to offer a good warranty and keep it backed, and three is emissions. You pump more air into the engine then you must back that up with more fuel as well. The rest should be well-known from that point on.

To end this long novel, I go back to my point of not knowing what you will get as a result of some modification. It'd judt a guess and see what happens next kind of game. Either you luck out or you don't, one can only try to see what ends up working best.