turbo or supercharger

[ace184]

hey everyone,

this is my first post here, and i feel a little out of place with all these extremely nice cars. i am in the u.s. air force and own a 2004 v6 mustang. i was wondering what would be better, turbo or supercharger?

i was settled on a supercharger, but just recently i've been thinking about a turbo. i figured that this was the place to ask.

thanks for the help.

jon

[adamk24]

This is a difficult question to anwser for a number of reasons. First off, I'm sure alot of people have asked you, why start with a v6 stang, then try and mod it up. Wouldn't it make more sence to buy a GT or Cobra? Sence yours is rather new, I also have to ask if your interested in trading it up for a new 2005 mustang. They use alot better chassis's and engines in all of their models.

But if you want to mod your V6, here are a few sites to check out. First take a look on http://www.3.8mustang.com/ they offer alot of advice for people looking to make more power from their v6.

Also have a look at http://www.extremev6racing.com/ . They have alot of good tech info on their site that should help you out.

Let me know just exactly your looking to get from moding your car and I can help you more closely. Do you want a car that feels fast on the street? or are you looking for a track or drag car? What kind of sacrifices in drivability are you willing to make?

[23790554]

i agree with buying a better car to start with, better brakes and suspension set-up which u probably would have to upgrade on the v6 anyway

also think about insurance cost and repair

[ace184]

this car is my daily driver, so i dont want to sacrifice that much drivability. but i also want one that can hold its own at the track.

[papaSMURF]

take out the v-6 (1/2 days work) and replace it with an old school 5.0 or new 4.6 cobra motor, then have fun with turbocharging it.... the systems available for the 5.0 put out around 500+ to the ground on a relitively stock motor, and recently MM&FF proved the reliability of the new F/I 4.6 cobra motor to well over 850hp... your best bet is ditching the engine and trans rather than buying a new car and working out financing all over again

[ace184]

take out the v-6 (1/2 days work) and replace it with an old school 5.0 or new 4.6 cobra motor, then have fun with turbocharging it.... the systems available for the 5.0 put out around 500+ to the ground on a relitively stock motor, and recently MM&FF proved the reliability of the new F/I 4.6 cobra motor to well over 850hp... your best bet is ditching the engine and trans rather than buying a new car and working out financing all over again

i never planned on gettin another car. i plan on sticking with this one for awhile. i dont have the funds to do an engine swap :x

[ZfrkS62]

for efficiency, i would say go turbo. but if you want power right away, and easier installation, go with the supercharger.

IMO robbing power to make power kind of defeats the purpose. I am much more partial to Turbos. but you have to be careful with your boost levels and all that. I would spend a few extra bucks and get a wideband O2 sensor so you can monitor a bit closer just what your engine is doing.

Turbos have a tendency to melt components when not tuned properly. Superchargers too, but not to the same degree. I think 5-6lbs of boost should be sufficient for a daily driver. any more than 8 and you will have to modify a few more things. (injectors, fuel pump mainly) since you don't want to go too lean and melt a piston o_0

Keep in mind, that for the buck, a turbo will give you more bang. Definetly get an intercooler no matter which route you go.

[adamk24]

Ok, well I was hoping for a little more 'specific' info on what you wanted to do, but here is my suggestions.


First off, do research into what other people have done with your engine. From what I have seen, I dont think you will be able to push a ton of power with the stock engine, but I doubt you plan on rebuilding the engine. I take it you just want to add some punch to your car and keep it just the way it is now. :sigh: Here is a little saying that my dad once told me that I find to be more and more true as I learn more.

Cheap, Reliable, Fast. You can only have 2. If you want to make your car a good daily driver with some more punch, it will cost money. If you dont want to spend alot, you can do it cheaply and save money, but you will either have to only slightly increase its power, or will have to risk it blowing up if you want it to go faster.

Simply put, here is my suggestion. With a big engine like the 3.8 v6, turbo lag is a non-issue. Supercharging this engine would not be nearly as much fun as a turbo set up. It is possible for it to make as much power, or for it to be as fast, but you wont feel it on the street. I dont want to get into it to deep here ( http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20209 for that ) but basically super chargers increase power with rpm, and therefor dont make the 'low down' power most people think they do (at least not most of them, there are exceptions, such as gearing a super charger to bypass air after it reaches peak pressure, allowing it to make boost at lower rpm) but a turbo is the way to go.

Dont buy a kit. Save the money from having someone put it together for you, and build your own kit from junkyards and ebay. The money you save can be spent on engine management, which means you can get some more of that fast, reliable part of the equation. Get it tuned properly and you car can be wicked fast, just dont expect it to be a rocket sled. Keep things realistic and just remember that you want a car thats fun to drive, not to own. So when the guy in the stripped civic hatch with crazy loud exhaust and no passenger seat beats you at a drag race, just remember he has to drive like that all the time. It may be fun to win the occational race, but enjoying your car every day is alot better, so keep that in mind.

Well just do some research and try and figure out just what you want to do, and if you need any help just let us know :mrgreen: . But for the record, your engine matches up with a turbo alot better than a supercharger.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Go with Turbo, for 6-cylinders it better, and it makes a cool noise when the turbo(s) spool up.

[ace184]

Go with Turbo, for 6-cylinders it better, and it makes a cool noise when the turbo(s) spool up.

u better say turbo. ur the one that got me thinking bout it more than the supercharger.

[FoxFour]

First off, decide on how much money you want to spend on either set up. Also, you might want to consider having a spare car because things may not turn out (Like things breaking) the way you expected it. Even though I love turbos, drove one for many years, it was a factory engineered car. If you want to go for it, look at Vortech's Centrifugal supercharger made for the 3.8. Their kits include every nut and bolt as well as a reprogrammed computer so everything you need is in the package. But be forewarned, 3.8 liter heads are notorious for blowing head gaskets and such. Why don't you try looking for another Mustang, like a GT or Mach 1? Palmetto Ford on Savannah Hwy had four or five last time I looked, even had a Mach 1. That way you can enjoy the car instead of getting frustrated with it.

[adamk24]

If you want to go for it, look at Vortech's Centrifugal supercharger made for the 3.8. Their kits include every nut and bolt as well as a reprogrammed computer so everything you need is in the package.

I would not recommend this kit for a street car, not because it is not a good kit, its fantastic. It makes good power and is one of the most reliable setups I have ever seen. However, I have also driven alot of cars with this kit or ones just like it, and the problem is that it doesnt make alot of power until higher RPM. You cant feel the power during street driving. I know its ounds wierd, but its not that much fun, because you cant play with it like you can a turbo.

Also, at around $3200 for the base kit and $800-$1200 more for the pretty much required water/air charge cooler, it is by no means cheap compared to a custom turbo kit.

[ace184]

Why don't you try looking for another Mustang, like a GT or Mach 1? Palmetto Ford on Savannah Hwy had four or five last time I looked, even had a Mach 1. That way you can enjoy the car instead of getting frustrated with it.

i would i just dont have the funds to get outta the car i have now.

[findleybeast]

does anybody make a good twin-screw supercharger for the V6? (or mustangs in general)

[ZfrkS62]

does anybody make a good twin-screw supercharger for the V6? (or mustangs in general)

they are also called scroll-type. try www.jegs.com

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

I just had an idea, aside from the turbo(s). if you decide to waite a lil longer you could go to www.dssracing.com and get 4.6L for like $3k-$5k, and they are able to handle any were up to 700hp.......But that's if you decide on holding off........If not i still stand with Turbo(s)

[Wutputt]

does anybody make a good twin-screw supercharger for the V6? (or mustangs in general)

they are also called scroll-type. try www.jegs.com
I think with twin-screw he means a screw supercharger like a Lysholm, not a scroll supercharger like VW's G-charger.

[findleybeast]

does anybody make a good twin-screw supercharger for the V6? (or mustangs in general)

they are also called scroll-type. try www.jegs.com
I think with twin-screw he means a screw supercharger like a Lysholm, not a scroll supercharger like VW's G-charger.

Yeah that is what I meant. I've actually never seen a supercharger like the G-Charger, thanks for the info. I've seen Lysholm's referred to as scrolls or twin scrolls (well at least the screws inside were called scrolls) so I didn't think differently about what he said.

Anyway I was just suggesting as a good choice for superchargers, since centrifugal superchargers are extremely peaky with an exponential delivery of boost, and so don't improve low rpm torque too much. Since ace184 said he was concerned about driveability, I just suggested the twin screw since it delivers massive boost at even low rpms.

I haven't done much research as to what is available commercially, so that's why I asked if anyone made a good one for the V6 stang. But just for reference, the SLR, Ford GT, and Koenigsegg CCR all use twin screw superchargers...

[karamurat]

Turbo
reason is sound :mrgreen: , especially blow -off

[espen]

And for the same reason (sound) - avoid Lysholm! They are shockingly noisy unless you have a perfect induction system - which means the kind only OEM manage to do ;) (Yes, I've heard a "silenced" Lysholm from BBR. If this is silent, I guess I'd really hate "noisy" :mrgreen:)

Turbos are generally superior to superchargers - particularly so on a large-ish engine such as this one. If it were my car, I'd go for a 4.6 swap, but it's not so 8)

A V6 engine lends itself nicely to a twin setup, but that of course incurs nearly twice the cost. Still, two small turbos helps packaging and heat loss - even if the old "two small tubos are faster than one big" axiom is at best marginal. On a 3.8 engine and at only half a bar, I guess you could run a T3. Theyre cheap and very common. You can get 350hp out of a T35 on a two litre engine with barely a hint of lag, so... it's really not much of an issue..!

[T-Bird]

Well I think that Superchargers are better than Turbo's on Ford Engines. There is soo much you would have to do to the 3.8 to make it handle the power a nice turbo setup would make. The 3.8 had some big engine block problems with them cracking

[lerex29]

no no no....the reason is taking unused power and reverting it to more power for small displacement engines. superchargers rob a slight amount of power 0X

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

A Ford V6 is not realy a small displacement motor.
And a SC only takes about 5-11hp to first start up, then after that it stops robbing what lil power it was taking.
And a turbo does a simular thing ex: New Headeers, Highflow Cats, New cat back system, frees up to 45hp. throw a turbo or 2 on, and that gets rid of the headers( -20hp) and then it finaly spoils up and they then it stops saping power, but then it takes away from the exhust note, wich to some people is important.

[espen]

Wow, amazing. So if you fit a supercharger to a Ford engine it defies physical laws? Seeing as how the work required to compress air is the same for a turbo and a supercharger, and the turbo taking most of that energy from exhaust heat (not pressure, heat) - where does the energy compressing the air on the supercharged engine come from?

Even in a 1.8 engine putting out 200hp at 1.2 bar, just the mechanical work of compressing enough air is 22KW. Add to that an efficiency of 70% (which is utopia on a G-lader pushing 1 bar) or so and you are putting 240hp through the crank and pretty much loading the crank bearings to their max. Same engine (very same engine) made 201hp at the wheels running a turbo setup boosting 1.2 bar.

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

I'm not realy sure what your talking about, but you have have 2 styles of superchager to choose from, twin screw, or the turbo style. eather way they both are gonna run off the belt and consume the same 5-11hp. But the turbo style just has longer time to get back to the motor as aposed to the twin screw wich replaces the intake manifold, there for cutting the distance and time. here is the turbo one (centrifugal):http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/products/units/

and the twin screw: http://www.automotive.eaton.com/product/engine_controls/superchargers/whysuperchargers.asp

And i'm not bashing turbos, i'm just saying you have to consider both options carefuly. Recently in a Mustang boook, they tryed to figure witch is the best all around power getter, between: Singal Turbo, Twin Turbo, Centerifugal SC, Eaton or Roots style SC, and one other. Basicaly, they were not trying to get top end like alolt of people go for, but rather: Good off the line, mid range and top end. But becuase they did this on a V8, results would more then likely vary on a 4 cylinder. But with those restrictions set, the twin screw ended up being the better every day/some time raceing power getter. And they used the 2003 Mustang Cobra V8 Block as the test bed. They said the twin turbo set up was nice but you realy hade no low end power. and the Cetrifugal SC, was a better way, but it made way too much power, but only way up in the power band that ould only be used for raing , and usless for the street.
Oh and i for got they put a limit on the RPM band, kinda for real world situations. if iI rember wear i did with the book i'll do a chart or some thing.

[Wutputt]

and the twin screw: http://www.automotive.eaton.com/product/engine_controls/superchargers/whysuperchargers.asp

That's not really a twin screw supercharger, but a Roots-blower/supercharger. It may have rotors with 3 lobes that look like screws, but they aren't screws ;)

An example of twin screw superchargers: http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com or the 'founder' of the twin screw or Lysholm supercarger: http://www.lysholm.se or http://www.rotor.se

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

I was actualy at the Whipple site earlyer, but i was not 100% sure if i was rite, but you seem to find the same one lol :)

[ESR_balla]

Im my opinion, your best option would be to get A V8 engine out of a Mustang GT.

[espen]

Agreed! Or at least acknowlede that air does not magically compress itself inside the supercharger. Mercedes dropped superchargers after realizing that in order to make 500hp, the IHI Autorotor supercharger on their V8 comnsumes 90 KW (~120hp). So basically, you're putting over 600hp trough the crank, while getting truly attrocious mileage. Oh, and while getting spanked every possible way by MBs equal size and equal hp twin turbo engine.

[T-Bird]

Agreed! Or at least acknowlede that air does not magically compress itself inside the supercharger. Mercedes dropped superchargers after realizing that in order to make 500hp, the IHI Autorotor supercharger on their V8 comnsumes 90 KW (~120hp). So basically, you're putting over 600hp trough the crank, while getting truly attrocious mileage. Oh, and while getting spanked every possible way by MBs equal size and equal hp twin turbo engine.

since when did Merc stop using Superchargers? I can name a few...
SLR, S55, SL55, G55

[Wutputt]

^^^^
I think he means the upcoming 63 AMG models wil be NA.

[espen]

No new MB or AMG engines will use superchargers. MB announced this a good while back.

[T-Bird]

What do you mean by new? any all new cars or cars being built now are getting new engines?

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Agreed! Or at least acknowlede that air does not magically compress itself inside the supercharger.

Not sure what you ment by that, seeing as to how super chargers do the same thing a turbo does, just in a diff matter. After Koenigsegg agrees with you, thats why there SuperCharged V8 only puts 800+hp http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=1931
--The Koenigsegg CCR engine is equipped with a Lysholm Screw Compressor, which has several advantages to the common centrifugal compressor. It creates a higher boost-pressure at lower rpm, thus significately increasing both acceleration and control at low speed. Lag time during shifts and on-off throttling are reduced to a minimum. The twin screw principle is also highly energy efficient, which contributes to the extreme power and torque of the CCR machine. Boost-pressure in the CCR carbonfibre plenum reaches levels as high as 1.3 bar, considerably higher than that of any competitor. The Lysholm supercharger is the alone on the market today to combine both a positive displacement design for maximum low-end torque and highly effiecient top-end horsepower output. Also emission levels at high speed and boost are lower than with other turbo- and supercharging systems. --

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

http://www.karkraft.com/engines.htm Hey here is a Place to get a new GT or Cobra motor for under $5k, and thealso have a Ford GT motor, but it is $39,995 but you get all 550hp, and its unused.

[espen]

Koenigsegg has chosen Lyshom because of drivability and drivetrain issues. Turbos were considered too powerful and hard to handle for novice drivers in a car without any elecrtonic help. Besides, there are rather few manual trannies that can handle 1200Nm. Btw, notice how "low end torque" translates into a 4900 rpm torque peak :lol:

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

Actulay when they interviewed Mr.Koenigsegg, he metion nothing about such turbo talk, it's mainly becuase if you want low end torgue, you have a super charger, not a turbo, after all inoder to get that low end torgue out of a turbo you have to alwas rev it up to build up pressure prior to launching it. And if your going after the world speed record like he is, masive high end power will only get you sa far, you still need to get off the line quike and be able to get up to speed were your high end hp starts to come into to play. And besides turbos make way more heat then a supercharger does, and when you have heat, it has to be disipated, wich adds weight, and weight kills speed.

And you never explained your self when you said "At least acknowlede that air does not magically compress itself inside the supercharger" becuase the last I was aware, air is sucked in the front, compressed by the screws and shoot straight into the intake, and a turbo does the same thing, it just has further to go.

[Blip]

Agreed! Or at least acknowlede that air does not magically compress itself inside the supercharger. Mercedes dropped superchargers after realizing that in order to make 500hp, the IHI Autorotor supercharger on their V8 comnsumes 90 KW (~120hp). So basically, you're putting over 600hp trough the crank, while getting truly attrocious mileage. Oh, and while getting spanked every possible way by MBs equal size and equal hp twin turbo engine.

since when did Merc stop using Superchargers? I can name a few...
SLR, S55, SL55, G55

Also the 2005 C320 Kompressor
http://www.mbusa.com/brand/models/C230K.jsp

[homemade wrx]

with the V6 mustang you will be limited wiht the power your driverain can handle for starters. you have better weight distribution than the V8 though incase you are going to try and use it for auto-x or raod courses.
Depending on what you want to use the car for, it could go either way. if you need instant power from downlow then the supercharger, but for almost all other applications i would say turbo.
:edit: sorry for bumpnig this thread, I didn't realize how old it was

[OVERLORD_CHRIS]

sorry for bumpnig this thread, I didn't realize how old it was

Hey don't worry about Ace checks every now and then, but some jack ass ran into a pol out side his place and knocked out his enter net, so i'v been telling him whats going on.

But know he is going to be station in Germany in a few months, so now it need to be set up for the autobaun. He still wants a turbo, but we are having trouble trying to find a kit for him. And now what ever he finds, it HAS to be a kit, since it will be shipped over to germany and he is not sure if they are used to working on american cars, so if he gets bolt on kits every thing will be a lil easyer.

So in short, High speed Germany Highways with winter mixed in.

[SafirXP]

supercharger -> takes power from crankshaft for spinning the fan!
turbocharger -> takes power from the engine exhaust to spin the fan itself!

in terms of efficiency turbos are better, but the drawbacks are i guess the lag, more expensive because of the special exhaust system, etc.

supercharging's simple and cheaper! but for myself, i'd always go with the turbochargers! dunno, like the efficiency factor and the name sounds good too. turbo sounds better than super!

[Mezevenf]

super chargers increase power with rpm, and therefor dont make the 'low down' power most people think they do (at least not most of them, there are exceptions, such as gearing a super charger to bypass air after it reaches peak pressure, allowing it to make boost at lower rpm) but a turbo is the way to go.

LIES! :D

Turbo's have lag, and lag is the devil, and yes most superchargers increase with the RPM, but as you say not all.

I was planning on supercharging my lil 2.5L, and doing it with an Eaton modified roots-type, positive displacement. This has full-boost from idle, and will shut down most turbo and screw-type equivalents in a straight line and in the hills. Turbo's are all good and have the whole "we don't rob power (which is also bullshit, more backpressure = drag on the engine) and make a cool noise with BOV" which will get you the praise of every ricer-boy in your area :)

Anyway I'm rambling, but I say go with a positive displacement supercharger for reliability and full boost from idle.

But what you should really do is what adamk24 says, and research what people have done on *your* car, what works for one car will not always work the best with another.

I hate turbo lag, it feel cool and all, but I like winding hill passes, and lag mid corner isn't the greatest.

I'm partial to superchargers. You have my opinions.

[ace184]

im back. i to am partial to superchargers, but i have decided on the turbo like chris said. i have found a cpl TT kits, but i dont know what germany's auto parts stores r like.

[kompak]

for me i would rather have the turbo rather than having a supercharger....because i love when the turbine start whistling.....

but..i won't ignore the supercharger because of its drive belt sound.....

so for me....i go for the turbo