1st Generation Specific (1979-1985) 1979-1985 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections

turbo or Supercharge...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-01-02, 11:46 PM
  #1  
rEv got me gOne

Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
OriGiNaL TyPe R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Conyers, GA.
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
turbo or Supercharge...

i was able to add this to the poll but wanted to voice my opinion:




new comer here but had quick cars and ran them into the ground( young dumb and hating pistons)...i had a 1st gen street port with a jackson supercharger $3500 custom made...with a street port motor...and holley...the CAR WAS TOO MUCH...talk about fast smoking tires in third like it was 1st...i sold the setup to move...i've been in turbos and don't like the fact that you have to WAIT for the boost(had a TII with hgher than stock boost) it was fast but not like the sc...i like both to be honset ...the turbo for the cost and the sc for the power but money is not a issue in the ? so sc it would be ...

buy the way the guy i sold the set up to...is having a hard time keeping the chassi on the car(mazda GLC) he put the set up in straight to get a good time but it running 11's and that was 6yrs ago and the motor still runs..strong
Old 10-01-02, 11:55 PM
  #2  
I can has a Hemi? Yes...

iTrader: (2)
 
Directfreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: 3OH5
Posts: 9,371
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Pics?
Old 10-02-02, 01:06 AM
  #3  
add to cart

 
Manntis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Saskatoon, SK & Montreal, PQ
Posts: 4,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
er... what was the question?
Old 10-02-02, 01:37 AM
  #4  

 
rx7passion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Phoenix, Az
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i really hate the whole "turbo lag" thing if someone properly sizes a turbo and does some research a turbo will kick a super chargers *** in all catagorys. not to mention the whole drag from a super charger loosing hp

but yeah what is your question??
Old 10-02-02, 02:25 AM
  #5  
Lapping = Fapping

iTrader: (13)
 
Jeff20B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Near Seattle
Posts: 15,725
Received 83 Likes on 76 Posts
I think he answered his question. I think he prefers superchargers.
Old 10-02-02, 05:25 AM
  #6  
Driven a turbo FB lately?

iTrader: (1)
 
MIKE-P-28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Branch, Indiana
Posts: 6,444
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Turbo for me, the SC is mucho dinero $$$$$ .... Also i like the ability to change boost at a flick of the switch
Old 10-02-02, 09:53 AM
  #7  
8/1 Building/Drive Ratio

iTrader: (1)
 
82streetracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orono, MN
Posts: 2,397
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
actually, I chose a sc because it was cheaper.
(this is my situation)

turbo cost
TII motor and tranny: $1000
intercooler and piping setup, 500-1000
new exhaust from turbo back 500
blow through carb i wouldnt touch so FI=1500+
total: around 4 grand.

supercharger
TII motor and tranny $1000
supercharger 2400
exhaust: done + different header
carb, ebay for like 400cks
total cost: $3000

also, I dont have to set up my intercooler right away, I can do it when I have the money but thats only like $300
Old 10-02-02, 09:54 AM
  #8  
8/1 Building/Drive Ratio

iTrader: (1)
 
82streetracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orono, MN
Posts: 2,397
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
sorry, forgot fuel,

turbo: new pump, lines, regulator, fuel rail. $500 +

super: no change
Old 10-02-02, 01:05 PM
  #9  
mazdaspeed 3 coming soon

 
hondah8er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 1,761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LOL. how do you like turbo for the cost and supercharger for the power? turbochargers have the potential to make MUCH more power.
Old 10-02-02, 03:48 PM
  #10  
8/1 Building/Drive Ratio

iTrader: (1)
 
82streetracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orono, MN
Posts: 2,397
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
yes, but then I would be wasting the money I spent on my exaust and fuel 850+

plus, to get a turbo swap to run right takes huge amounts of tuning and patience.

a supercharger system is much simpler. Bolt it on, it works, thats it,

maybe a jet change or something. When I get my intercooler setup going and I start increasing boost then more tuning might be required.
Old 10-02-02, 08:55 PM
  #11  
Full Member

 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by 82streetracer
yes, but then I would be wasting the money I spent on my exaust and fuel 850+

plus, to get a turbo swap to run right takes huge amounts of tuning and patience.

a supercharger system is much simpler. Bolt it on, it works, thats it,

maybe a jet change or something. When I get my intercooler setup going and I start increasing boost then more tuning might be required.
HMMMM.....Don't quite think so. Here's the real deal difference between turbos and supercharger resultant gains:

Engine power is nearly linearly proportional to the DENSITY of the fuel/air mixture. (Not the pressure!... important distinction...review the ideal gas law and basic thermodynamics if in doubt.)

When you compress the incoming air with either a turbo or a supercharger, you have increased the temperature of that air. (think diesel engines...compression = elevated temperature). So you have somewhat increased the density by compression, but this is offset by the increase in temperature, which actually lowers the density.

So a turbo then sends this compressed air through an intercooler, which is nothing more than a compact heat exchanger. The optimum design for an intercooler is to minimize the pressure drop of the compressed air as it flows through it, while maximizing the heat transfer out of the compressed air and therefore lower the temperature. The combined result is increased pressure AND decreased temperature, which equals an increase in density and hence more power.

A supercharger, lacking an intercooler, must use another means of cooling the air: Atomized fuel. In order to suffeciently cool the compressed air the carbs on superchargers are set up to run rich.....in my experience REALLY rich. But since the goal is not economy but speed, drag racers don't care about the wasted fuel. So yeah, you can get a lot of power out of a supercharger, but I wouldn't consider it to be streetable.

And yeah, as previously mentioned, a properly designed and matched turbo/intercooler should have minimal lag time.

I've worked on a couple of intercooler designs, and its not easy coming up with an optimum design, mostly given the size constraints. On several cars I've worked on that had stock turbos, in most cases considerable gains could be realized by replacing the stock intercooler to one with a superior design....

Wish I had money to play with my GS....as it is now its just going to have to remain stock....If I want to go fast I ride my bike. And yes, I am an engineer and don't play one on TV
Old 10-03-02, 08:00 AM
  #12  
Nikki-Modder Rex-Rodder

 
Sterling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Trying to convince some clown not to put a Holley 600 on his 12a.
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 6 Posts
"Blah blah blah blah..."

hondah8er -
"LOL. how do you like turbo for the cost and supercharger for the power? turbochargers have the potential to make MUCH more power."

***Not if you friggin do it right!

strider-
"HMMMM.....Don't quite think so. Here's the real deal difference between turbos and supercharger resultant gains:

Engine power is nearly linearly proportional to the DENSITY of the fuel/air mixture. (Not the pressure!... important distinction...review the ideal gas law and basic thermodynamics if in doubt.)

When you compress the incoming air with either a turbo or a supercharger, you have increased the temperature of that air. (think diesel engines...compression = elevated temperature). So you have somewhat increased the density by compression, but this is offset by the increase in temperature, which actually lowers the density.

So a turbo then sends this compressed air through an intercooler, which is nothing more than a compact heat exchanger. The optimum design for an intercooler is to minimize the pressure drop of the compressed air as it flows through it, while maximizing the heat transfer out of the compressed air and therefore lower the temperature. The combined result is increased pressure AND decreased temperature, which equals an increase in density and hence more power.

A supercharger, lacking an intercooler, must use another means of cooling the air: Atomized fuel. In order to suffeciently cool the compressed air the carbs on superchargers are set up to run rich.....in my experience REALLY rich. But since the goal is not economy but speed, drag racers don't care about the wasted fuel. So yeah, you can get a lot of power out of a supercharger, but I wouldn't consider it to be streetable.

And yeah, as previously mentioned, a properly designed and matched turbo/intercooler should have minimal lag time..."

***Why is everyone always diving into these futile "turbo vs supercharger" arguements holding up a different fruit, and pointing, "See? See?!"
WTF?!
Yeah, sorry- Any forced induction is gonna suck *** without the use of an intercooler!
It's like someone saying, "Turbos are **** when ya compare 'em to turbos!"...WTF would that mean? It would mean, "Yeah, nonintercooled turbos are **** when compared to intercooled ones.

All I'm saying, is "DAMNIT, PEOPLE - SET YER FRIGGIN APPLICATION PARAMETERS FOR THIS CONVERSATION!"

This arguement happens ALL THE TIME, and half the people who are talking superchargers are talking about centrafugal, and half are talking PD. Then half of each of them are talking intercooled (with that "Well, of course!" attitude), and the other half are'nt.

You people need to think outside the freakin box! I'm pulleying my Eaton M-90 project so it produces the highest boost possible without killing the blower. Then I'm simply going to bleed off unwanted boost to regulate it down to more realistic levels. But I will, at the turn of a **** on my console, be able to regulate my boost.
WTF is so hard about that concept? It's plumbing!
I will be using an intercooling system of my own design.
And when I finally complete this thing, I can't wait to show everyone that they can have THE MOST simple, kick-*** carbed forced induction system on a 1rst gen 12A for under 2500 bucks!
(I want every backyard mechanic with thin wallets to know they can do this, too!)

I'm sorry, but you can't use the bolt-on Atkins Camden 7 inch supercharger as "the" quintessential example of a supercharger in the "Turbo vs Super" arguement. You're taking a limited, non-intercoolable supercharger, and holding that up against the wonders of a turbo...just to make your point!
Old 10-03-02, 08:10 AM
  #13  
Airflow is my life

 
Rx7carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Orlando, Fl
Posts: 6,736
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
You tell em Sterling! Not to fan the flames, (oh hell I love to instigate) but if turbo's had more potential hp gain than superchargers then why do top fuel and funnycars use supercharging?
Old 10-03-02, 10:20 AM
  #14  
mazdaspeed 3 coming soon

 
hondah8er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 1,761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: "Blah blah blah blah..."

Originally posted by Sterling
hondah8er -
"LOL. how do you like turbo for the cost and supercharger for the power? turbochargers have the potential to make MUCH more power."

***Not if you friggin do it right!

strider-
"HMMMM.....Don't quite think so. Here's the real deal difference between turbos and supercharger resultant gains:

Engine power is nearly linearly proportional to the DENSITY of the fuel/air mixture. (Not the pressure!... important distinction...review the ideal gas law and basic thermodynamics if in doubt.)

When you compress the incoming air with either a turbo or a supercharger, you have increased the temperature of that air. (think diesel engines...compression = elevated temperature). So you have somewhat increased the density by compression, but this is offset by the increase in temperature, which actually lowers the density.

So a turbo then sends this compressed air through an intercooler, which is nothing more than a compact heat exchanger. The optimum design for an intercooler is to minimize the pressure drop of the compressed air as it flows through it, while maximizing the heat transfer out of the compressed air and therefore lower the temperature. The combined result is increased pressure AND decreased temperature, which equals an increase in density and hence more power.

A supercharger, lacking an intercooler, must use another means of cooling the air: Atomized fuel. In order to suffeciently cool the compressed air the carbs on superchargers are set up to run rich.....in my experience REALLY rich. But since the goal is not economy but speed, drag racers don't care about the wasted fuel. So yeah, you can get a lot of power out of a supercharger, but I wouldn't consider it to be streetable.

And yeah, as previously mentioned, a properly designed and matched turbo/intercooler should have minimal lag time..."

***Why is everyone always diving into these futile "turbo vs supercharger" arguements holding up a different fruit, and pointing, "See? See?!"
WTF?!
Yeah, sorry- Any forced induction is gonna suck *** without the use of an intercooler!
It's like someone saying, "Turbos are **** when ya compare 'em to turbos!"...WTF would that mean? It would mean, "Yeah, nonintercooled turbos are **** when compared to intercooled ones.

All I'm saying, is "DAMNIT, PEOPLE - SET YER FRIGGIN APPLICATION PARAMETERS FOR THIS CONVERSATION!"

This arguement happens ALL THE TIME, and half the people who are talking superchargers are talking about centrafugal, and half are talking PD. Then half of each of them are talking intercooled (with that "Well, of course!" attitude), and the other half are'nt.

You people need to think outside the freakin box! I'm pulleying my Eaton M-90 project so it produces the highest boost possible without killing the blower. Then I'm simply going to bleed off unwanted boost to regulate it down to more realistic levels. But I will, at the turn of a **** on my console, be able to regulate my boost.
WTF is so hard about that concept? It's plumbing!
I will be using an intercooling system of my own design.
And when I finally complete this thing, I can't wait to show everyone that they can have THE MOST simple, kick-*** carbed forced induction system on a 1rst gen 12A for under 2500 bucks!
(I want every backyard mechanic with thin wallets to know they can do this, too!)

I'm sorry, but you can't use the bolt-on Atkins Camden 7 inch supercharger as "the" quintessential example of a supercharger in the "Turbo vs Super" arguement. You're taking a limited, non-intercoolable supercharger, and holding that up against the wonders of a turbo...just to make your point!

I wont even get into a supercharger turbocharger debate. Waste of time
Old 10-03-02, 10:55 AM
  #15  
Full Member

 
jrios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tampa
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i say, whatever works for you...i personaly prefer turbo charged, but thats just for me
Old 10-03-02, 02:10 PM
  #16  
spoon!

 
Kenku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dousman, WI
Posts: 1,192
Received 42 Likes on 29 Posts
Hell yeah, Sterling! Good for thinking outside the box! I mean goddamn, think of where we'd be if people never tried anything new.

"Change the port timing? If you could get more power that way, Mazda would have done it stock." "Transplant a 13BT into a first gen? Are you nuts?" "You can't get that much airflow out of a Nikki, get a Weber..." "The stock ignition is good enough..."

... anyway. Tubo vs. Supercharger does not need to be gone into, I don't think. I respect all of you enough to think that you know both sides of the argument. If not, hit search; I'd be surprised if this hasn't come up before.
Old 10-03-02, 04:27 PM
  #17  

 
rx7passion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Phoenix, Az
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Rx7carl
You tell em Sterling! Not to fan the flames, (oh hell I love to instigate) but if turbo's had more potential hp gain than superchargers then why do top fuel and funnycars use supercharging?
easy cause they were banned, they had turbos back in the early 80s and stuff and just went nuts. huge 500ci motors with methonal/alcohol and a monsterous turbo. they allowed superchargers to help limit the advancement of the motors, now days they also are cutting back on the % of nitro they can use in the cars..
Old 10-03-02, 04:43 PM
  #18  
Airflow is my life

 
Rx7carl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Orlando, Fl
Posts: 6,736
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
wow, no ****? Thats interesting. Shows what I know about drag racing LOL.
Old 10-03-02, 04:50 PM
  #19  
Wassup!!

 
Rotor13B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Longmont Co.
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Yep, turbos were banned because teams were making ludicrous amounts of power on those big block engines.

edit: not that 5000 hp isn't insane already...
Old 05-15-03, 12:02 AM
  #20  
35r 13b first gen

iTrader: (3)
 
zaridar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Richland Center WI
Posts: 1,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey sterling when you gonna have this 12a supercharger project done? I am really considering putting a supercharger on a rebuilt ported 12a. i was wondering what kinda hp that would produce also?

Thanks
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FD7KiD
3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002)
15
02-26-21 10:12 PM
Th0m4s
Build Threads
25
02-26-19 02:04 AM
C. Ludwig
Single Turbo RX-7's
49
01-30-19 06:31 AM
ChrisRX8PR
Single Turbo RX-7's
18
08-21-15 01:56 PM
FD7KiD
Single Turbo RX-7's
1
08-17-15 11:50 PM



Quick Reply: turbo or Supercharge...



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 AM.