Which is the most practible method of boost?

[tx2000gt]

Turbo or a Procharger? By practicle I mean, the least loss in gas mileage, which makes more power, and how expensive are turbos when compared to a 3.5k Procharger?

Also, do turbos make you tap into your oil lines for installation? Because the whole self-contained thing the Procharger has is mighty attractive to me .

 

[GRGT1994]

Turbos are generally much more involved. Either you spend more for a kit, or do lots of custom fabrication on your own. Supercharges, by comparison are nearly plug and play.

As far as fuel economy, boosted applications have marginal impact on mileage . . until you put your foot into it. And since the whole point of boost is to use it, you will be burning more petrochemicals per distance travelled.

As far as which one gives you more power, it seems there is more headroom with turbos.

Run some searches. Both are very popular topics, and there are plenty here who know far more about both than my lowly NA brain.

 

[FoxBodyGT]

I don't have either form of boost, but I have done a ton of "research" on the subject.

Turbos are more efficient, meaning less horsepower needed to make power. Superchargers are run off of the crank, which means they "rob" horsepower. Turbos are driven by the exhaust gas that is already coming out of your engine.

Yes, turbo kits are expensive. But for most of the kits out there, they are pretty complete. The HP kit or the Helion kit includes everythign you would need to boost your car. Yeah, they are expensive, but not so much more than a supercharger if you factor in the exhaust pieces, fuel parts, etc that you get in the kits. If you think about the cost of a supercharger, full exhaust, fuel parts, etc, I think both forms of boost are pretty equal cost-wise. Not to mention the fact that you can build your own turbo kit--lets see you try to build your own supercharger.

As far as oil, I believe all turbos need to have an oil line run for the same reason the sc''s do--to lubricate the internal parts (also for cooling on the turbo, I think).

But then again, what do I know, my car is stock.

 

[DarkProphet]

How many psi are you trying to do? At higher boost levels I would say a turbo is better, but at lower levels you can get a supercharger damn cheep.

 

[a50sn95]

Superchargers are emmisions legal (some, anyway). Turbos are not.If you're in CA, this matters. Your state may vary. One of the advantages of this, though, is that the kits are well thought out for a stock motor....

 

[MRMATRIX69]

Some superchargers are not self contained either. You have to tap into your oil pan to run a line to your turbo because it needs to lube the bearings because the turbine/compressor shaft spins at thousands of rpms. Also as for ease of installation it's a matter of messing with 2 systems or one. Supercahrger-intake. Turbo-intake and exhaust. Another difference is lag time, which we big displacement engine people don't have to worry about so much. Do you want the power down low(supercharger) or up top(turbo)? Mind you when considering either of those you have to think about fuel and intake concerns. If you want the easiest, cheapest, and least costly way to put power down it's the little red button connected to the nitrous(bad word). You can systems that can use your stock fuel and intake set-up for $500, instead of 3.5K plus upgrades.

 

[OrangeMustangGt]

IMO turbo....A turbo will see full boost at much lower rpm, and will provide more peak horsepower due to no drag on the flywheel. Turbos are also known to get better gas milege than superchargers.

 

[tx2000gt]

I'm just looking to get into the 10's when I install the 331 Stroker Iron Eagle block .

 

[BlackVert]

if you are mechanically inclined and have a welder and skills, you can build your own turbo system for $2500 or less.

http://www.turbomustangs.com