• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Whats a better choice, turbo or supercharger?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 93steeda
  • Start date Start date Jan 4, 2004
9

93steeda

New Member
Dec 29, 2003
50
0
0
North Carolina
Jan 4, 2004
#1
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #1
I can't make up my mind, I'm thinking about going with a turbo kit because everyone around here has superchargers. I've also heard that superchargers don't last but about a couple of years and you have to have it rebuilt, is this true? I don't know anyone around here that has had a turbocharged stang so I don't know what would be the better choice or which would last longer.
 

88POSLX

Founding Member
Sep 16, 2002
553
0
0
Red Deer, AB
Jan 4, 2004
#2
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #2
Turbo wins hands down. It's not even a choice in my mind. No pulleys to change for different boost levels, no belts to slip, no lost power to run the turbo.
 

ComfortablyNumb

Founding Member
Apr 25, 2002
596
0
0
LB- Jersey Shore
Jan 4, 2004
#3
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #3
I like the supercharger idea because you still have headers and a stock type exhaust, can still access all your spark plugs, and its not as complicated. Turbos are cool because of there effeciency and boost control and stuff, but they take up a lot space. Its all preference I guess.
 

90mustangGT

I felt sorry for girls because
Founding Member
Jan 15, 2002
2,773
17
89
Dallas, GA
Jan 4, 2004
#4
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #4
Turbo's are definatly better for power. Harder to tune, they make more heat, that's about it. The biggest problem I see with turbo'd 5.0's is the boost kicks in so hard and fast it just roasts the tires while a supercharger comes in more gradually.

For example, look at the Grand National and the Pontiac GTP's engine's. The GTP is supercharged and the GN is turboed, which makes the most power?
 
C

Chetly

New Member
Aug 6, 2003
117
0
0
Jan 4, 2004
#5
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #5
go turboed. Everyone has a supercharger strapped to their mustang. Get a turbo, it makes more power and i like the sound of hearing a big turbo spool up then the blow off valve kicks in. Do something different. Yes a turbo set up will cost more adn it will be more to tune and it makes more heat. But if you get an intercooler with it and if you have alittle extra bank, its well worth it.
 

hllon4whls

BANNED
Founding Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,567
0
46
Covington
Jan 4, 2004
#6
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #6
Turbo is definately cool. A S/C is something more people can do themselves. Check into a kenne bell wipple charger. They make some good power, easy install and mega torque.

http://www.kennebell.net/superchargers/ford/blowzilla-flowzilla/blowzilla-flowzilla.htm
 

TrophyHead

15 Year Member
Mar 18, 2003
1,195
11
49
PA
Jan 4, 2004
#7
  • Jan 4, 2004
  • #7
Supercharger because its constant power. Turbo's have lag.
 

millhouse

Founding Member
May 14, 2002
1,985
0
46
Simpsonville, SC
Jan 5, 2004
#8
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #8
TrophyHead said:
Supercharger because its constant power. Turbo's have lag.
Click to expand...

Newer turbo's dont have the lag that you would think.

Turbo's dont require nearly the h/p to run compaired to a supercharger which runs off of your crank.

Turbo's reach peak boost much quicker than superchargers, hence the flatter torque/hp curve. Supercharges usually reach peak boost near peak rpms.

You can buy a single turbokit nowadays for a comparable price to a supercharger, yet the turbo kits are more complete and usually include intercoolers.

I'm going turbo. I've found I can get the whole kit including the turbo and intercooler for $3500.00. Not to bad if you ask me
 

larrendeuce

Member
Sep 13, 2003
649
1
19
Southern NJ
Jan 5, 2004
#9
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #9
Turbos give your exhaust a different sound too, quiets it. I personally don't like it. The supercharger doesn't effect sound quality.
 
Q

quicksilver03

New Member
May 27, 2003
8
0
0
Miami/Orlando
Jan 5, 2004
#10
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #10
just curious, how can u check to see what would be better for ur application? if u describe the specs on ur engine to an engine builder or maybe there are some formulas out there to compare the effect of a turbo and an sc on ur car? i mean if someone is gonna spend 3000+ there should be a way to see which one is better w/o buying. i personally would rather go with whatever made me run faster, and i'll let the person with the nicer sound be visible in my rear view mirror.
 
D

D347643

Banned
Jan 28, 2003
1,095
0
0
portland, OR
Jan 5, 2004
#11
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #11
supercharger! i tried a turbo but there was too much downtime. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE A TURBO 5 LITER THOUGH!
 
3

331 cobra

New Member
Oct 14, 2003
398
0
0
Silicon Valley CA
Jan 5, 2004
#12
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #12
A supercharger can break the snout off of your crank shaft because the 5.0 was never designed to take that kind of load in the front. That usually only happens with race motors, but it still happens.

As far as applications go, either one really needs a rebuilt short block with lower compression. If you go with a stock short block, you should keep the boost low because the compression is pretty high for forced induction, and the stock block has weak main journals that don't like much more than 500 hp.

To make real power you have to spend about $6k on your longblock, then add a blower or turbo.

I would go for the turbo because it's cheaper and you can potentially make a lot more usable power from the same shortblock.

Another thing to think about is that a turbo basically has three parts: the housing, the bearings and the impeller/compressor. A supercharger has many more parts. More parts means more things that can fail. I'm sure that a properly set up turbo will last longer than a properly set up supercharger. That's why you see so many turbo diesels and almost zero supercharged diesel engines.

Of course, a race motor usually isn't what I would call properly set up and they are usually compromised for power rather than reliability, so you can probably find multiple examples supporting either arguement.
 
S

smokinciv

Founding Member
Aug 4, 2002
397
0
0
northern new jersey
Jan 5, 2004
#13
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #13
I went s-trim on my rig , I can still work on car very easily and it is damn FAST!!!!!!! I hear of horror stories about shredding,slipping ,throwing belts ,but i experience none of this! lucky(?)
 

powertrax91

Founding Member
Mar 13, 2002
598
0
17
New York
Jan 5, 2004
#14
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #14
go turbo!!!
 

TT91

Active Member
May 23, 2003
1,536
0
36
Paramus, NJ
Jan 5, 2004
#15
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #15
"A supercharger can break the snout off of your crank shaft because the 5.0 was never designed to take that kind of load in the front"...
--(Have you ever honestly seen a supercharger break the "snout" off a crank shaft....no but Im sure youve heard ALL about it..)

"the stock block has weak main journals that don't like much more than 500 hp." ---(The stock block doesnt have "weak" journals, 90% of the time youll split the block right down the lifter valley....AS YOULL SEE OVER IN TURBOMUSTANGS.COM...BS FORUM.)

I would go for the turbo because it's cheaper"---(show me..)

Another thing to think about is that a turbo basically has three parts: the housing, the bearings and the impeller/compressor. A supercharger has many more parts. (ok a supercharger-a Housing, bearing, impeller, and what??? A PULLEY!! many many more parts....MY BAD ) More parts means more things that can fail. I'm sure that a properly set up turbo will last longer than a properly set up supercharger.( are you SURE about that? cuz it sounds like you have no idea what your talking about..) That's why you see so many turbo diesels and almost zero supercharged diesel engines.( LOL..you see many turbo diesel engines because the TRUCK that the turbo diesel engine is in NEEDS TORQUE to get itself and whatever else its pulling moving. NOT INSTANT HORSEPOWER...but then u have you rare occastion like VW TDI motors.)

"Of course, a race motor usually isn't what I would call properly set up( HUH??) and they are usually compromised for power rather than reliability, so you can probably find multiple examples supporting either arguement."..yes we can Capt obvious..

Get somone who knows what there talking about, if your interested in turbos, check out Turbomustangs.com Their tons of help, opposed to the random Turbo guru youll find polluting this board with their endless amounts of KNOWLEDGE.
 

hllon4whls

BANNED
Founding Member
Jan 17, 2002
2,567
0
46
Covington
Jan 5, 2004
#16
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #16
sirsureshot39 said:
"A supercharger can break the snout off of your crank shaft because the 5.0 was never designed to take that kind of load in the front"...
--(Have you ever honestly seen a supercharger break the "snout" off a crank shaft....no but Im sure youve heard ALL about it..)

"the stock block has weak main journals that don't like much more than 500 hp." ---(The stock block doesnt have "weak" journals, 90% of the time youll split the block right down the lifter valley....AS YOULL SEE OVER IN TURBOMUSTANGS.COM...BS FORUM.)

I would go for the turbo because it's cheaper"---(show me..)

Another thing to think about is that a turbo basically has three parts: the housing, the bearings and the impeller/compressor. A supercharger has many more parts. (ok a supercharger-a Housing, bearing, impeller, and what??? A PULLEY!! many many more parts....MY BAD ) More parts means more things that can fail. I'm sure that a properly set up turbo will last longer than a properly set up supercharger.( are you SURE about that? cuz it sounds like you have no idea what your talking about..) That's why you see so many turbo diesels and almost zero supercharged diesel engines.( LOL..you see many turbo diesel engines because the TRUCK that the turbo diesel engine is in NEEDS TORQUE to get itself and whatever else its pulling moving. NOT INSTANT HORSEPOWER...but then u have you rare occastion like VW TDI motors.)

"Of course, a race motor usually isn't what I would call properly set up( HUH??) and they are usually compromised for power rather than reliability, so you can probably find multiple examples supporting either arguement."..yes we can Capt obvious..

Get somone who knows what there talking about, if your interested in turbos, check out Turbomustangs.com Their tons of help, opposed to the random Turbo guru youll find polluting this board with their endless amounts of KNOWLEDGE.
Click to expand...


Tell us how you really feel, dont hold back this time!
 

TT91

Active Member
May 23, 2003
1,536
0
36
Paramus, NJ
Jan 5, 2004
#17
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #17
hey im an honest guy, some things needed to be cleared up..i shoulda used a few of these--->
 

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end
15 Year Member
Nov 11, 2003
6,945
1,598
223
Northern KY
Jan 5, 2004
#18
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #18
you can build a twin turbo 351W for about 3k with Thunderbird Turbo Coupe turbos. http://www.toohighpsi.com/BudgetTT/BudgetTT.htm
 

89Notch

Founding Member
Oct 21, 1999
1,669
0
0
MSU
Jan 5, 2004
#19
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #19
turbo is better hands down, but it will create more hassles, such as engine heat, lack of room in the hood, and maybe a custom exhaust. If you don't have a dying need for a turbo, and want something easier a s/c might be better.
 

1Stang2Go

Founding Member
Feb 4, 2002
389
16
39
CT
Jan 5, 2004
#20
  • Jan 5, 2004
  • #20
I'm all for superchargers. BLOWN 5.0....It just sounds cool..
I've never seen any stang break a crank because of load on the crank pully. I've seen a few race motors with big superchargers and high boost wax the crank bearings, but never break a crank. I'm sure it happens, but its very unlikely on a normal street driven SC 5.0.
HP is HP no matter how you make it. To each is own. I would stay away from the turbo kits just because of the comlexity of the install, cramped working space, and extra under hood heat. All the extra plumbing adds weight and takes up valuable working space.
I've got a Blazer with a turbo diesel. It had 116k on the motor with the original turbo. It was still making the 8# of boost it was when it was brand new. I replaced the turbo with a GM#8 turbo pumping out 14#'s of boost. Now my truck hauls. I know turbos are reliable and last long, but a properly cared for SC will last a good amount of time too. The same goes for the motor that they are on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Forced Induction On3 Turbo Kit- Parts list NEEDED - 302 Stock Motor
  • Hirothecool1
  • Feb 27, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Mar 7, 2026
slow84lx
S
S
S302 Saleen supercharger help
  • sschoup
  • Nov 19, 2025
  • 2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk
Replies
2
Views
339
2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk Nov 19, 2025
sschoup
S
A
Help ID - Turbo GT, SVO differences
  • aldoelmalo
  • Jun 2, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
91
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 2, 2026
aldoelmalo
A
Engine Suggestions on an engine rebuild. Stock cam/GT40Ps or aftermarket on both for a fun weekend driver?
  • MadSquirrelTech
  • Apr 28, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
839
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 7, 2026
MadSquirrelTech
J
Help Figuring Motor Choice(Possible future turbo)?
  • jaygee15
  • Dec 14, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
13
Views
655
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 3, 2026
Jarhead67
J
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?