hey guys..im just wondering what the difference between a SC and a turbo is for a fox mustang, and how they work, and do you need a special header for the turbo kit??
difference in turbo and SC
- Thread starter 87Mustang351
- Start date
The difference is pretty much the same for any car 
They both compress air, the turbo is powered by exhaust gases and the supercharger is driven by a belt. You don't necessarily need special headers for a turbo kit, lots of people flip their shorties and fab up a crossover with a flange to bolt up to the turbo. Do some searching... you sound kinda new to the whole turbo thing, so I suggest you pick up the book "Maximum Boost" by Corky Bell. It's a killer book with tons of good info.
Good luck on whichever route you choose
They both compress air, the turbo is powered by exhaust gases and the supercharger is driven by a belt. You don't necessarily need special headers for a turbo kit, lots of people flip their shorties and fab up a crossover with a flange to bolt up to the turbo. Do some searching... you sound kinda new to the whole turbo thing, so I suggest you pick up the book "Maximum Boost" by Corky Bell. It's a killer book with tons of good info.Good luck on whichever route you choose
bubba-dough
Active Member
Here are a couple of links. Granted they are not all the info you wanted or need. The biggest difference is that the s/c runs off a belt off the crank whereas the turbo runs off the exhaust (more effecient and doesn't rob power from the motor to run). You do need a "special" header(s) for turbos. Whether they are part of a kit or you mod your existing shorties. Turbo kits are generally more expensive also.
http://www.proturbokits.com/pages.asp?pid=2
http://www.forcedinductions.com/help.htm
http://www.proturbokits.com/pages.asp?pid=2
http://www.forcedinductions.com/help.htm
88_GT_5_oh
Sportin' a turbo 5.0 in Canadistan
bryce93lx
Member
s/c cheaper, easier to install and less effecient, turbo is more complicated, more expensive, and more power, but a fox mustang with a turbo that runs is as rare a pink unicorn lol
dragnazz5.0
My "0" key d0esn't w0rk, s0 I have t0 use the zer0
that book by corky bell has some good information in it but it also has a lot of misguided information in it. like in the first couple pages he explains how a turbo makes more power because of the 91 cid indy motors that make 1000 hp compared to a top fuel motor that is 500 cid and makes 8000 hp. he tries to claim that because the smaller engine makes more power per cubic inch that turbos are better. but he doesnt explain that indy motors turn more than 2x the rpms that a top fuel motor does and that there are a lot of things that indy car motors are allowed that top fuel isnt allowed.
i like superchargers better because im a drag racing guy. superchargers have proven to be more consistent in big horsepower situations and more reliable. on a big hp motor with a supercharger you know exactly how fast that supercharger is turning at any given rpm and how much air it is moving but with a turbo you really dont know because it depends on engine load and throttle opening and lots of different things.
i like superchargers better because im a drag racing guy. superchargers have proven to be more consistent in big horsepower situations and more reliable. on a big hp motor with a supercharger you know exactly how fast that supercharger is turning at any given rpm and how much air it is moving but with a turbo you really dont know because it depends on engine load and throttle opening and lots of different things.
bryce93lx
Member
turbo's also sound cooler, and are harder to package under the hood and can cause increased underhood temps(s/c do to but not to the same degree) making big radiators and big electric fans mandatory, and that stuff costs more than you think, even the most basic diy turbo can be sevaral thousands of dollare to make it live, a s/c is a lot more install and forget about, which is nice if the stang is your dd
88_GT_5_oh
Sportin' a turbo 5.0 in Canadistan
bubba-dough
Active Member
I learned a long time ago alot of these guys are s/c guys. Brained washed by the mighty advertising dollar and sponsership money that influences the racing sanctioning bodies. I have ran a DIY tt set-up now I run the juice on my high compression 347 but would love a pre-made tt set-up by Urist or Pro Turbo Systems. The funds are just tight since the plant closing and me going back to school.Maybe with some real world experience and age they will come around.
Quikstang
Founding Member
Yea, I have to agree... One ride in a turbo car and the Torque alone with make a lot of people take there paxtons and vortechs off there cars real quick.
The most noticeable seat of the pants thing is that most turbos develop full boost early on and hold it to max RPM. That gives you a broad, flat torque curve that works well for a street driven car. There are a number of guys that have attempted to do the junkyard twin turbo thing, and a few of the more skilled of them have succeeded. Ranchero50 and Onefaststang are two old time Stangnetters that have succeeded with excellent results.
Centrifugal superchargers (Paxton, Vortec, Novi, Procharger, etc) start with low boost levels that increase with RPM. That gives you more power as you wind up the engine. A belt system drives the supercharger, and has its own set of problems and advantages. The belt system allows change in boost levels by altering the pulley sizes.
Roots and screw type superchargers (Eaton, Kenne Bell, Blowzilla, Whipple ) provide max boost earlier than a centrifugal supercharger, making them good candidates for heavy cars with small engines. However, they tend to drop off the increase of boost level as RPM increases. They also tend to heat the intake air charge more than a centrifugal supercharger or turbocharger. That makes an engine that is prone to detonation and lower power levels for the same amount of boost when compared to centrifugal superchargers or turbochargers.
Any car with pressurized induction will need specialized fuel and spark advance management. That usually translates into a custom tune or even a new computer system. The complex nature of the tune usually means that carbs are very rare as they are not as flexible to tune without mechanical adjustment.
A high volume fuel system is also a must. A 255 LHP pump seems to be the starting point for fuel pumps, along with #8 pressure lines and #10 return lines. Larger injectors and fuel manifolds fill it the rest of the picture.
Centrifugal superchargers (Paxton, Vortec, Novi, Procharger, etc) start with low boost levels that increase with RPM. That gives you more power as you wind up the engine. A belt system drives the supercharger, and has its own set of problems and advantages. The belt system allows change in boost levels by altering the pulley sizes.
Roots and screw type superchargers (Eaton, Kenne Bell, Blowzilla, Whipple ) provide max boost earlier than a centrifugal supercharger, making them good candidates for heavy cars with small engines. However, they tend to drop off the increase of boost level as RPM increases. They also tend to heat the intake air charge more than a centrifugal supercharger or turbocharger. That makes an engine that is prone to detonation and lower power levels for the same amount of boost when compared to centrifugal superchargers or turbochargers.
Any car with pressurized induction will need specialized fuel and spark advance management. That usually translates into a custom tune or even a new computer system. The complex nature of the tune usually means that carbs are very rare as they are not as flexible to tune without mechanical adjustment.
A high volume fuel system is also a must. A 255 LHP pump seems to be the starting point for fuel pumps, along with #8 pressure lines and #10 return lines. Larger injectors and fuel manifolds fill it the rest of the picture.
I think it has been explained. Turbo seems to be the answer for large amounts of power. Many big power dragsters use the S/C because it is controll they need more than power.
dragnazz5.0
My "0" key d0esn't w0rk, s0 I have t0 use the zer0
yes...there are a lot of high power cars out there with turbos...but i believe a supercharger would win the fight in high horsepower applications. imagine the size of turbo you would need to produce 60 psi and the thousands of cfm that a psi or bds blower puts out without the massive turbo lag involved or complicated mechanics to control turbo lag. imho turbos are great power makers and can be used to make great daily drivers but a supercharger is the way to go for big power
jrichker said:
Just wanted to make a couple of notes here. Eaton, Kenne Bell, and Whipple Chargers (the Blowzilla is a version of the Kenne Bell) ALL have lower air discharge temperatures than do comparatively sized centrifugals. That is to say that if in stalled on identical engine combos showing the same boost on the gauge that these blowers typically run between 20-30% lower discharge temperatures provided neither type is running a cooler of any kind. Where folks often run into trouble with this type of blower is when they attempt to over spin them or run too small a blower for X engine combo.
It should also be noted that Eaton's are roots and modified roots type blowers while Kenne Bell and Whipple are screw type blowers. Both types have distinct properties that are apart from the other. Screw type blowers tend to be more efficient and discharge less heat in boost across their entire efficiency range than any other type of forced induction. They are the top portion of that 30% mentioned above (the rotating screws do not touch one another or anything else).
Like ANY type of forced induction, there is a thermally efficient range for the build of the blower. Eaton superchargers are great for roughly 9 psi and down. There are modified Eaton super chargers that move that range a hair further up the range but not much further. Spinning the blower outside of it's thermal range creates a LOT of heat regardless of type.
Kenn Bell and Whipple chargers are much more efficient in the upper ranges. They are thermally most efficient from roughly 8 lbs all the way up to around 16 depending on the size and build of the blower and how well it matches the engine combo that is being fed. These blowers DO NOT run out of steam up top as I've seen so many folks say UNLESS they are not of sufficient size for the application or are being spun out of their efficiency range. The EXACT same thing happens to every type of forced induction.
Moral of the story... Makes sure that you match your blower to your combination.
One small note about turbos... They are really getting damned good. By that, I mean that the latest and greatest stuff out there spins up allot quicker than it ever used to and stays efficient for a really wide range of revolutions and boost levels. They DO however (just like any other form of forced induction) create a parasitic loss just like Superchargers do. Not nearly as much as a supercharger does though. The parasitic loss on a turbo comes from the restriction of the exhaust gasses as they're trying to leave the motor whereas a blower pulls it right off the crank. Parasitic loss is SIGNIFICANTLY less with a turbo than it is with a blower. This is the efficiency that folks above are talking about.
Thermally, turbos are not all that efficient and you will require an inter/after-cooler of some sort. Turbo discharge temps are extremely high.
As far as the great debate over which is best? It's a tired and beat to death subject. Figure out what your goals and bank book are then go from there.
Just wanted to make a couple of notes here. Eaton, Kenne Bell, and Whipple Chargers (the Blowzilla is a version of the Kenne Bell) ALL have lower air discharge temperatures than do comparatively sized centrifugals. That is to say that if in stalled on identical engine combos showing the same boost on the gauge that these blowers typically run between 20-30% lower discharge temperatures provided neither type is running a cooler of any kind. Where folks often run into trouble with this type of blower is when they attempt to over spin them or run too small a blower for X engine combo.
It should also be noted that Eaton's are roots and modified roots type blowers while Kenne Bell and Whipple are screw type blowers. Both types have distinct properties that are apart from the other. Screw type blowers tend to be more efficient and discharge less heat in boost across their entire efficiency range than any other type of forced induction. They are the top portion of that 30% mentioned above (the rotating screws do not touch one another or anything else).
Like ANY type of forced induction, there is a thermally efficient range for the build of the blower. Eaton superchargers are great for roughly 9 psi and down. There are modified Eaton super chargers that move that range a hair further up the range but not much further. Spinning the blower outside of it's thermal range creates a LOT of heat regardless of type.
Kenn Bell and Whipple chargers are much more efficient in the upper ranges. They are thermally most efficient from roughly 8 lbs all the way up to around 16 depending on the size and build of the blower and how well it matches the engine combo that is being fed. These blowers DO NOT run out of steam up top as I've seen so many folks say UNLESS they are not of sufficient size for the application or are being spun out of their efficiency range. The EXACT same thing happens to every type of forced induction.
Moral of the story... Makes sure that you match your blower to your combination.
One small note about turbos... They are really getting damned good. By that, I mean that the latest and greatest stuff out there spins up allot quicker than it ever used to and stays efficient for a really wide range of revolutions and boost levels. They DO however (just like any other form of forced induction) create a parasitic loss just like Superchargers do. Not nearly as much as a supercharger does though. The parasitic loss on a turbo comes from the restriction of the exhaust gasses as they're trying to leave the motor whereas a blower pulls it right off the crank. Parasitic loss is SIGNIFICANTLY less with a turbo than it is with a blower. This is the efficiency that folks above are talking about.
Thermally, turbos are not all that efficient and you will require an inter/after-cooler of some sort. Turbo discharge temps are extremely high.
As far as the great debate over which is best? It's a tired and beat to death subject. Figure out what your goals and bank book are then go from there.
Andy, you are right on this one. I looked back at the information I had to roots & screw type superchargers. I saw that the the added heat and pressure drop off problems were associated with using too small a unit, and then trying to spin it faster to try and recover the pressure loss. Good call on that one...
The units with bypass valves also have a tendancy to make additional heat when in bypass. They continue to recirculate heated air through the blower until the bypass closes and the unit actually begins to make boost (or rather, force it through the motor). With a bypassed screw type blower, idle air is usually higher than that of a centri for this reason.
With all mentioned before, they all have thier pro's and con's. All have been proven to make more power than any set of tires can hold. All Internal Combustion Engines are just air pumps, the more air you get through, the more fuel they can burn. From there it is efficiency of burning that fuel, and getting it to the wheels. Of course there is the limits of your fuel (such as pump gas) and then the strength of the engine.
When choosing a poweradder, weight the pro's and con's for what you want. The reality is that making big power, there isn't that much to it. Putting togeather a whole vehicle that can use the power, that is much harder.
When choosing a poweradder, weight the pro's and con's for what you want. The reality is that making big power, there isn't that much to it. Putting togeather a whole vehicle that can use the power, that is much harder.
for a street application, a think a SC is the best bet.
its cheaper, much easier to install. much easier to maintain and tune. more underhood room, less heat. and gives excellent gains.
a turbo is much more efficient. not really using power to make it like a SC, 10psi with a turbo is more power since its not taking a percentage of your power to produce that 10psi. its basically free
but on the downside. for a complete kit, the are pricey. and to fabricate one you have to have some decent fab and welding skills. not to mention they are harder to tune and keep running right. and tend to require more fuel bc people who go turbo are running 10psi+ and arent messing with low boost level.
its cheaper, much easier to install. much easier to maintain and tune. more underhood room, less heat. and gives excellent gains.
a turbo is much more efficient. not really using power to make it like a SC, 10psi with a turbo is more power since its not taking a percentage of your power to produce that 10psi. its basically free
but on the downside. for a complete kit, the are pricey. and to fabricate one you have to have some decent fab and welding skills. not to mention they are harder to tune and keep running right. and tend to require more fuel bc people who go turbo are running 10psi+ and arent messing with low boost level.
Please stop saying this. It is not true. Turbos have parasitic loss just like other forms of forced induction. The loss for a turbo is a significantly lower percentage than it is for a super charger but the point is that it still exists.
Stuff an exhaust restriction into yor car and tell me whether you loose power or not. Turbos are very efficient when it comes to power made vs. power lost but lets keep things in perspective and not spread internet myth.
ya i know i should have empahsized it more. the way i look at it. with the S/C your engine is making power and its been sucked away to turn that SC. with the turbo, the exhaust is restricted and gases cant flow 100% so the engine isnt really making power thats being sucked away. its being restricted and its just not making as much power period.
yea there is a loss but compared to the S/C its hardly anything.
either way, the gains of either SC or turbo FAR outweigh the slight power loss it takes to operate them.
yea there is a loss but compared to the S/C its hardly anything.
either way, the gains of either SC or turbo FAR outweigh the slight power loss it takes to operate them.
