So a turbo is better than a supercharger?

[tx2000gt]

Namely one of these: http://turbochargedpower.com/96-04 Mustang.htm

Or is it the other way around? Basically, I'd be putting either of them in my daily driver, and want to know which one is more reliable, and wont crap out on me. I won't be beating it up daily, but I will like to get on it every now and then.

 

[lazerred02]

Cost wise I would have to say go with the supercharger but myself I would love to have twin turbo setup on my stang.

 

[oohsoobad2]

That is a bad ass TT kit and it will most likely make more power than any blower kit you will buy. However add that kit up and its gonna be close to $8000 for the stage 2 intercooled kit. For under $5000 you can get the Kenne Belle 1.7 blower kit and that will easily give you 400 rwhp. KB cars are a blast to drive on the street, they make full boost almost as soon as you hit WOT. The KB would also be a much easier/cheaper install.

 

[Ghostface]

That white GT is an awesome sleeper

 

[VividDreams]

when it comes to forced induction, there is no clear answer to which is best. there are a lot of things to consider

how much money do you want to spend?
how much power do you want to make?
are you going to use the stock internals?
do you want max power?
or is the driveabilty of low-midrange torque more your liking?
would you prefer to have power all the time?
or can you deal with lag to have an instant ruch of power?

after you have those answered, consider this....

set-up properly, all types of FI are equally reliable. keep in mind, that doesnt mean zero maintenance, it just means that they wont, for the most part, cause any problems....IF tuned and done right.

blowers are good for instant power all the way to redline

turbos are good for higher hp #'s cause its "free" power, you're not "using" power to make power

those are the basics, but it mainly comes down to what you want out of your FI setup

 

[tx2000gt]

I just want something that is reliable, and wont crap out on me for a long time to come.

 

[lazerred02]

I just want something that is reliable, and wont crap out on me for a long time to come.

Then I would have to say go with a S/C.

 

[300bhp/ton]

Namely one of these: http://turbochargedpower.com/96-04 Mustang.htm

Or is it the other way around? Basically, I'd be putting either of them in my daily driver, and want to know which one is more reliable, and wont crap out on me. I won't be beating it up daily, but I will like to get on it every now and then.

Is a turbo better than a supercharger?

Answer - Yes & No!

They are different and each have different benefits.

Turbo's -

Pros:
Can make the most power, should be reliable.

Cons:
Very expensive, can destroy an engine if done wrong, LAG time and driving style due to power dilvery


Supercharger -

Pros:
Great looking/sounding, can make almost as much power as a turbo in the real world, better power delivery

Cons:
Not all types of blower as good, another belt in the engine bay to maintain



A supercharger can easily give 400-500rwhp, 500 being beyond a stock block, with a forged block 700+rwhp is VERY EASY but would no longer be a road machine. So the fact that a turbo setup has the POSSIBILITY of being able to produce a bit more (10% or so like for like), so at 700bhp an equiverlent turbo may be 770-800bhp.

What do you want from the car, a twin screw supercharger will give instant big block power delivery from idle to red line, a turbo won't as it will come on boost much higher in the rpms.

Unless professionally circuit racing a supercharger can and does offer the same (sometimes more due to better kits available) bhp levels with better power delivery and driveability for less money.

A turbo maybe cool, but IMO why spend $3-4k (like 90%) more on a turbo over a supercharger and still end up with the exact same BHP peak numbers but have way LESS grunt low down.

This is a classic case of 'More = Less'.

 

[DBMSTNG]

Cons:
Very expensive, can destroy an engine if done wrong, LAG time and driving style due to power dilvery

any type of forced induction can blow an engine if done wrong. lag time is very minimal with newer turbos, especially twins on a V8. a turbo setup will drive just as good as stock under normal conditions. under acceleration, there will ofcoarse be an issue with traction.

Supercharger -

Pros:
Great looking/sounding, can make almost as much power as a turbo in the real world, better power delivery

great looking/sounding is an opinion. size for size and psi to psi there is NO blower roots, twin screw, or centrifigul that can come close to a turbo. as far as power delivery, a turbo blows away centrifugal blowers all over the powerband. roots and twin screw blowers may come close to the same low end power as a turbo, but the turbo will surpass them in the upper RPMs.

A supercharger can easily give 400-500rwhp, 500 being beyond a stock block, with a forged block 700+rwhp is VERY EASY but would no longer be a road machine. So the fact that a turbo setup has the POSSIBILITY of being able to produce a bit more (10% or so like for like), so at 700bhp an equiverlent turbo may be 770-800bhp.

i'm really curious as to where you got this info.

What do you want from the car, a twin screw supercharger will give instant big block power delivery from idle to red line, a turbo won't as it will come on boost much higher in the rpms.

not true. roots and twinscrews usually kick in at 2000rpms. you can do that with a turbo.

Unless professionally circuit racing a supercharger can and does offer the same (sometimes more due to better kits available) bhp levels with better power delivery and driveability for less money.

wrong except for the part about less money.

A turbo maybe cool, but IMO why spend $3-4k (like 90%) more on a turbo over a supercharger and still end up with the exact same BHP peak numbers but have way LESS grunt low down.

This is a classic case of 'More = Less'.

again, wrong.

 

[DBMSTNG]

turbo = better

s/c = cheaper

 

[Saleen201]

turbo = better

s/c = cheaper

simply put

 

[Shiroelex]

I like that kit. It simply looks like a fenderwell CAI. I wonder if you could make real silent BOVs and blow the pants off of an LS1, and say 'All I have is a CAI, I swear!'

 

[68 & 00 GT]

turbo's are more efficient, and therefore provide more power since they don't run off of the crank pulley like a blower but depedning on your goals may be way overkill price wise, and wasted potential. As stated above by DBMSTNG who I agree with lag really is a thing og the past w/ these newer turbos.
Turbos also = less stress on the crank as s/c run off the crank pully. Also no issues with belts like s/c's have in high RWHP applications.
I wouldn't run a TT kit unless I was making a track only car anyway. Anything less than a track car a s/c could get you there anyway, cost less, and be more streetable. Unless you want to run slicks on the steet

what is your final RWHP goals for the car ?
Personally I can't wait for my centri blower to take me to ~650 RWHP in a few weeks
Id say if you just want to run 350-400 RWHP get a KB 1.7
500-600 RWHP get a KB 2.2
600-700 RWHP get a big centri blower
+700 get a TT kit

or something like that lots of power adder combos can get between 400-500 RWHP
your goal should decide on which blower you get. IMO don't be cheap now, and have to rebuy later when you want more

 

[300bhp/ton]

any type of forced induction can blow an engine if done wrong. lag time is very minimal with newer turbos, especially twins on a V8. a turbo setup will drive just as good as stock under normal conditions. under acceleration, there will ofcoarse be an issue with traction.



great looking/sounding is an opinion. size for size and psi to psi there is NO blower roots, twin screw, or centrifigul that can come close to a turbo. as far as power delivery, a turbo blows away centrifugal blowers all over the powerband. roots and twin screw blowers may come close to the same low end power as a turbo, but the turbo will surpass them in the upper RPMs.



i'm really curious as to where you got this info.




not true. roots and twinscrews usually kick in at 2000rpms. you can do that with a turbo.



wrong except for the part about less money.




again, wrong.

I hate to be rude, but your a ****ing D I C K

Go do some reading.

 

[Joel's98GT]

turbo = better

s/c = cheaper

agreed, since the intitial poster said it would be a daily ride, it would be a wise decision to stay with a centrifugal S/C or a turbo, you just don't need that much low end tourque (read more fuel usage too.) from a roots/screw type.

cost is the biggest factor you can get a rally good S/C kit for about 3500 and you can get a really good turbo kit for 500-6000 but on the same boost the turbo will tear the S.C up. also if you want low end power, you can use smaller turbos. Yes, i know some people like to pimp the KB for everything, and it is a great blower, but when a car is on the street every day and seeing rain an all types of inclimate weather, all that poer down low can turn into a bad thing in a hurry.

A friend of mine had a stock MOTOR 95gt with the incon kit. He ran mid-high 10's at the track on DR's stock suspension. And drove it every day. My favorate story was a time when this teal (ghey color) 95 GT with FIVE guys in the car absolutly rocked a 04 cobra. Later talking to the cobra owner on a local message board, he told us he took the car back because he thought something was wrong with it.

as for reliability, I would think they are about the same with proper maintenance, both methods of forced indiction have been around for a long time.

 

[68 & 00 GT]

hate to be rude but.....? lol

 

[white99gt]

Namely one of these: http://turbochargedpower.com/96-04 Mustang.htm

Or is it the other way around? Basically, I'd be putting either of them in my daily driver, and want to know which one is more reliable, and wont crap out on me. I won't be beating it up daily, but I will like to get on it every now and then.

Reguardless of the other comments.For a daily driver a charger like a 1.7kb is what you want.No motor to build makes 400rwhp and is complete including the tune.

The other blowers will make nice power but require a lot of other things (tune,injectors,maf etc) to get it running.

Turbos are nice but on a DD its not worth it .Not that the turbos dont make god power.But i see them having oiling issues down the road.There is not a lot of "drain back" sloping to the turbos .SO its possible that in a few thousand street miles they "could " have issues.

As far as a blower adding a extra belt ..Not on a 4.6 they all use the same belt.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

I hate to be rude, but your a ****ing D I C K

Go do some reading.

But he is right. The main benefit to the twin turbo setup is you can use two smaller turbos so it will spool up faster and in some cases like pointed out as low as 2000. The ONLY downfall to the twins are the initial investment and possible install time.

If you add up all of the other things in the HP kit it begins to be in the same ball park as a KB or a intercooled centri.

With the twin turbo kit you not only get the actual turbo kit, you are getting:

Headers (manifolds), H-pipe, K-member, coil overs, a-arms, etc. All of which if you added to a KB or Centri car would eat up some of the extra 1500-2000.

MPH has a installed and tuned version of the HP TT kit for $7,100. That kit is easily good for 600whp + on the stage 1 and for $500 get the 57mm twins and you go way up from there.

The twins are the way to go if you have the $$. But the big problem is even the stage 1 kit has to really be de-tuned so it does not kill a stock engine.

 

[97predator]

turbomustangs.com

All in all turbochargers are the holy grail of horsepower. Its very simple:

Superchargers operate on the mechanical energy of the engine, via pullies. They are parasistic to the engine, and as boost increases, the more power from the engine it takes to power the supercharger.

Turbochargers operate by using the exhaust airflow and thermal energy to power a turbine. The only drain on the car is a mile hinderance in the exhaust path, however this is rather insignifigant with a well designed exhaust on the back end of the turbo. Turbochargers have a higher efficiency and therefore for the same boost deliver more power.

Between roots/centri/turbo all are extremely useful and will make you very happy.

If you ever wanted a car to have a big block feel, with gobs of torque of idle, Kenne Bell is the only way to go. Accept no substitute. KB is a monster and in stop light to stop light nothing can compete, except nitrous.

For your average daily driven car, centrifugal is probably the best way to go. Centris are basically belt driven turbochargers. They begin making boost at varying rpms but it is in the upper band where they shine. This is great as it is relatively low maintenance, and doesnt kill you too bad on fuel as with general driving you wont be in the statosphere of your rpms.Centrifugals are great for a street car or track car.

Turbos are surrounded by myth and voodoo. Lag: Negligible if the turbo is sized right. Running too big of a turbo for your engine will cause slow spool. Too small, and it will spool to soon and run out of steam, falling on its face as it goes out of its efficiency range. You can run a big single for a track car or use it to simulate the sentrifugle. Or run twins of varying size to have the car you want. Run two smaller turbos, and you cna have a car that spools up from low rpm to redline, making it a street terror. Go bigger and you can build a 1000 horsepower screamer with a built block. Turbos allow for much more custimization and tunning control.

Depending on how handy you are a single or twin setup could be fabbed for less than a supercharger kit. But I would buy one. Fabbing is HELL. Especially if you are on a timetable. I would stay away from HP, as I have heard there Corvette kits suffer from poor build quality and fitment issues. I believe it is induction Concepts that is the best for Mustangs in terms of quality. But I am dubious as they put the turbos in the engie bay. Thats alot of heat.

nuff' for now I guess.