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.
Whats a better choice, turbo or supercharger?
- Thread starter 93steeda
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
http://www.kennebell.net/superchargers/ford/blowzilla-flowzilla/blowzilla-flowzilla.htm
TrophyHead said:
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
Turbos give your exhaust a different sound too, quiets it. I personally don't like it. The supercharger doesn't effect sound quality.
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.
supercharger! i tried a turbo but there was too much downtime. NEVER UNDERESTIMATE A TURBO 5 LITER THOUGH! 
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.
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.
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(?)
"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.
--(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.
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.
"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.
Tell us how you really feel, dont hold back this time!
you can build a twin turbo 351W for about 3k with Thunderbird Turbo Coupe turbos. http://www.toohighpsi.com/BudgetTT/BudgetTT.htm
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.
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.
