Turbocharged Vs Supercharged

whitelion · November 7, 2010

I know the difference in how they work and the pros and cons of both. Im interested in giving my truck some forced induction once im out of school and im just curious to know what you guys would use on your trucks considering price no option. so if you were adding one to your truck would you use a turbo or a supercharger and why?

stlavsa · November 7, 2010

Turbo hands down. Look at the numbers they make per lb of boots. More efficient, more effective, more fun. Look at STS remote turbo kit. I would do a turbo like that. BUT fabing up a turbo kit like that isnt hard it could be done for 2/3 of the price of the sts kit and 1/2 the price of a supercharger.

The only possibly advantage there are a supercharger is the linear powerband of roots type or twin screw charger. Basically you would sacrifice some overall power to have instant, even boost through out the entire rev range. BUT none of the superchargers for these trucks are like that, they are all centrifugal superchargers. Essentially they work like a turbo charger, but they run off of the motor, not off of the exhaust gas, so it robs power, and needs to spool just like a turbo. Dumb design IMO

For the simplicity, and power per $ spent ratio, the turbo is the only FI choice worth considering.

Edit: after reading a couple other posts I see that there are some roots type charger like magnacharger.. BUT then i found this http://www.lysholm.us/ Twin screw if u were going to do a supercharger thats the only one I would even consider.

RED-85-Z51 · November 8, 2010

Turbo hands down. Look at the numbers they make per lb of boots. More efficient, more effective, more fun. Look at STS remote turbo kit. I would do a turbo like that. BUT fabing up a turbo kit like that isnt hard it could be done for 2/3 of the price of the sts kit and 1/2 the price of a supercharger.

The only possibly advantage there are a supercharger is the linear powerband of roots type or twin screw charger. Basically you would sacrifice some overall power to have instant, even boost through out the entire rev range. BUT none of the superchargers for these trucks are like that, they are all centrifugal superchargers. Essentially they work like a turbo charger, but they run off of the motor, not off of the exhaust gas, so it robs power, and needs to spool just like a turbo. Dumb design IMO

For the simplicity, and power per $ spent ratio, the turbo is the only FI choice worth considering.

Edit: after reading a couple other posts I see that there are some roots type charger like magnacharger.. BUT then i found this http://www.lysholm.us/ Twin screw if u were going to do a supercharger thats the only one I would even consider.

I wouldnt say the centrifugal type needs to spool like a turbo, Ive driven Paxton Novi charged vehicles and the power, while it wasnt instant low end grunt, was nearly lag free. Ive driven turbo vehicles and you can actually feel the boost come in after you take off. The bigger the turbo, the more total power, but the more lag you get.

Obviously a twin screw is the best, low end torque city.

It really is a shame that Ford put the Eaton roots type charger on a truck unfit for towing (svt lightning).

If it was me...considering the amount of HEAT involved in a turbo or TT setup, Id go with a centrifugal style, based on simplicity alone.

L29er · November 8, 2010

Whipple screw, or vortec screw, or manacharger roots.

purely for easiest install, most reliable setup and best for towing. everything i need.

stlavsa · November 8, 2010

Turbo hands down. Look at the numbers they make per lb of boots. More efficient, more effective, more fun. Look at STS remote turbo kit. I would do a turbo like that. BUT fabing up a turbo kit like that isnt hard it could be done for 2/3 of the price of the sts kit and 1/2 the price of a supercharger.

The only possibly advantage there are a supercharger is the linear powerband of roots type or twin screw charger. Basically you would sacrifice some overall power to have instant, even boost through out the entire rev range. BUT none of the superchargers for these trucks are like that, they are all centrifugal superchargers. Essentially they work like a turbo charger, but they run off of the motor, not off of the exhaust gas, so it robs power, and needs to spool just like a turbo. Dumb design IMO

For the simplicity, and power per $ spent ratio, the turbo is the only FI choice worth considering.

Edit: after reading a couple other posts I see that there are some roots type charger like magnacharger.. BUT then i found this http://www.lysholm.us/ Twin screw if u were going to do a supercharger thats the only one I would even consider.

I wouldnt say the centrifugal type needs to spool like a turbo, Ive driven Paxton Novi charged vehicles and the power, while it wasnt instant low end grunt, was nearly lag free. Ive driven turbo vehicles and you can actually feel the boost come in after you take off. The bigger the turbo, the more total power, but the more lag you get.

Obviously a twin screw is the best, low end torque city.

It really is a shame that Ford put the Eaton roots type charger on a truck unfit for towing (svt lightning).

If it was me...considering the amount of HEAT involved in a turbo or TT setup, Id go with a centrifugal style, based on simplicity alone.

Your right about the heat, BUT with a remote turbo system, which are very popular with these trucks, there is no heating issue, infact its much less than any supercharger for these trucks. WIth the remote turbo, none of the engine bay heat is present, AND its easier to intercool a turbo than it is a supercharger. YOUR IAT would be less with with remote turbo. If its properly sized, the lag wont be there. It can easily make full boost by 2000 rpms like the twin screws, and still be more efficient on the top end. Its only when u want to achieve monster HP numbers above anything that the superchargers are even capable of making that you would need turbo big enough to be laggy.

stlavsa · November 8, 2010

When made the first reply, I wasnt aware of the twin screw chargers for these trucks. I am a big fan of those chargers. Linear powerband, able to be bypassed, and that sound can be totally hair raising.

BUT the decision then is dependant on what the OPs goals for the truck are? Is it just to have a fast truck? if so the turbo is gonna be the fastest 1/4 mile and will give best hp numbers... If hes trying to tow with the truck i would say twin screw.

I honestly cant see ANY application where the centrifugal charger is the best application for any situation. If u want a supercharger for low end, get a twin screw, if u want a drag motor with big power, get a turbo. i just dont see the niche those centrifugals are supposed to fill? Equal boost and equal setups for all three typs, and the centrifugal would be worst at towing, AND slowest 1/4 mile ET...

RED-85-Z51 · November 8, 2010

The Niche is mainly reliability and space.

In cars with virtually no hood clearance, a twin-screw or roots type is not an option, and maintain the factory hood.

Im getting a 2002 Mustang early next year that had the little eaton roots type, and it was nice, and it worked..but you cant intercool it, and it had ALOT of rotating mass. He replaced it with a Centrifugal PAxton Novi-2000, it's lighter, has less parasitic drag, it's intercooled and methanol injected, and because the impeller doesnt make contact with anything it is quiet in operation...a total sleeper.

By just changing pulleys, the little paxton can support 900rwhp..

stlavsa · November 8, 2010

The Niche is mainly reliability and space.

In cars with virtually no hood clearance, a twin-screw or roots type is not an option, and maintain the factory hood.

Im getting a 2002 Mustang early next year that had the little eaton roots type, and it was nice, and it worked..but you cant intercool it, and it had ALOT of rotating mass. He replaced it with a Centrifugal PAxton Novi-2000, it's lighter, has less parasitic drag, it's intercooled and methanol injected, and because the impeller doesnt make contact with anything it is quiet in operation...a total sleeper.

By just changing pulleys, the little paxton can support 900rwhp..

Ahh your right very good points. I ran into the intercooler issue on my RSX type-S way back in about 2002. Alky injection is the only option for some of them because of space. Looks like u can do an air to water intercooler on the twin screws just the same as the centrifugals on these trucks.

The sound of the different setups is all a matter of opinion. I love the whine of those twin screws they sound flat out scary its like a banshee screaming at you!!

I didnt realize that centrifugal type blowers can make that much power.. thats a decent ceiling. I just did a search and I didnt realize that the twin screws can make major power too thats suprising! I mean ur limits still alot bigger with the turbo, but i'm sure anything capable of doing 5-600 HP should be good enough for a majority of buyers of any system.

RED-85-Z51 · November 9, 2010

The Niche is mainly reliability and space.

In cars with virtually no hood clearance, a twin-screw or roots type is not an option, and maintain the factory hood.

Im getting a 2002 Mustang early next year that had the little eaton roots type, and it was nice, and it worked..but you cant intercool it, and it had ALOT of rotating mass. He replaced it with a Centrifugal PAxton Novi-2000, it's lighter, has less parasitic drag, it's intercooled and methanol injected, and because the impeller doesnt make contact with anything it is quiet in operation...a total sleeper.

By just changing pulleys, the little paxton can support 900rwhp..

Ahh your right very good points. I ran into the intercooler issue on my RSX type-S way back in about 2002. Alky injection is the only option for some of them because of space. Looks like u can do an air to water intercooler on the twin screws just the same as the centrifugals on these trucks.

The sound of the different setups is all a matter of opinion. I love the whine of those twin screws they sound flat out scary its like a banshee screaming at you!!

I didnt realize that centrifugal type blowers can make that much power.. thats a decent ceiling. I just did a search and I didnt realize that the twin screws can make major power too thats suprising! I mean ur limits still alot bigger with the turbo, but i'm sure anything capable of doing 5-600 HP should be good enough for a majority of buyers of any system.

Essentially, I think of a centrifugal type as a turbo without limits....and by that I mean that really a turbo is limited in speed by the velocity and flow of the exhaust. It's only going to move so much air out at WOT, and that is the fastest the turbine will spin, the higher the boost blow off, the lower the ceiling will get, until you get to "the limit".

A centrifugal is positively driven, the limit becomes how much rpm the engine can spin, and at what boost the engine's life is at risk.

You can literally take a centrifugal S/C, put on a tiny pulley, with a tight 8 rib belt, overdrive pulley on the crank, and spin it to 8K engine speed..and with the right compressor..make ungodly boost numbers, more than enough to damage a built engine. And honestly not put any real stress on the S/C at all..

A roots type, they they can make some serious boost too...with ease ,and with no piping beyond the intake...but to intercool you need an elaborate setup like on the Chevy LS9 in the ZR1. and the S/C will become less efficient as heat soak sets in..

Wingnut · November 9, 2010

Turbo hands down. Look at the numbers they make per lb of boots. More efficient, more effective, more fun. Look at STS remote turbo kit. I would do a turbo like that. BUT fabing up a turbo kit like that isnt hard it could be done for 2/3 of the price of the sts kit and 1/2 the price of a supercharger.

The only possibly advantage there are a supercharger is the linear powerband of roots type or twin screw charger. Basically you would sacrifice some overall power to have instant, even boost through out the entire rev range. BUT none of the superchargers for these trucks are like that, they are all centrifugal superchargers. Essentially they work like a turbo charger, but they run off of the motor, not off of the exhaust gas, so it robs power, and needs to spool just like a turbo. Dumb design IMO

For the simplicity, and power per $ spent ratio, the turbo is the only FI choice worth considering.

Edit: after reading a couple other posts I see that there are some roots type charger like magnacharger.. BUT then i found this http://www.lysholm.us/ Twin screw if u were going to do a supercharger thats the only one I would even consider.

Couple of points here...

1. Boost is boost, no matter where it comes from. Parasitic loss that comes about when driving a supercharger is pretty minimal these days. A TVS1900 is capable of producing a LOT more horsepower than a stock truck's internals are capable of supporting. So is a twin screw. So is a turbo. So is a centrifugal. At the horsepower levels we're talking here, any of them will work wonderfully and his truck will go like stink.

2. OP really needs to share a bit more about how he intends to use the truck. ** If he lives in the sticks, goes mudding, etc...A rear mount turbo is a very bad idea (other than appearance, this is a big reason why I'm not a fan of rear-mounts on trucks).

3. "Cheaper" isn't a word that should ever be used when talking FI. If you cheap out on any of it, you'll spend more in the long run, and you WILL break shit. Hell, you're going to break shit anyway.

4. Everybody I've known with a rear mount on a full size truck that was driven daily had quite a few problems with it. Condensation, plumbing problems, etc.

** On forced induction on a pickup:

-If I were building a track-only truck, it would have a (front mount) turbo on it the size of Kansas.

-If I were building a truck that gets driven normally a lot, and taken to the track frequently as well, I'd put a centrifugal supercharger on it.

-If I were building a truck that I used normally like a truck (towing, daily driving, spirited stoplight runs, etc) with occasional trips to the track, roots/twin screw is the route I would take.

$0.02

stlavsa · November 9, 2010

Turbo hands down. Look at the numbers they make per lb of boots. More efficient, more effective, more fun. Look at STS remote turbo kit. I would do a turbo like that. BUT fabing up a turbo kit like that isnt hard it could be done for 2/3 of the price of the sts kit and 1/2 the price of a supercharger.

The only possibly advantage there are a supercharger is the linear powerband of roots type or twin screw charger. Basically you would sacrifice some overall power to have instant, even boost through out the entire rev range. BUT none of the superchargers for these trucks are like that, they are all centrifugal superchargers. Essentially they work like a turbo charger, but they run off of the motor, not off of the exhaust gas, so it robs power, and needs to spool just like a turbo. Dumb design IMO

For the simplicity, and power per $ spent ratio, the turbo is the only FI choice worth considering.

Edit: after reading a couple other posts I see that there are some roots type charger like magnacharger.. BUT then i found this http://www.lysholm.us/ Twin screw if u were going to do a supercharger thats the only one I would even consider.

Couple of points here...

1. Boost is boost, no matter where it comes from. Parasitic loss that comes about when driving a supercharger is pretty minimal these days. A TVS1900 is capable of producing a LOT more horsepower than a stock truck's internals are capable of supporting. So is a twin screw. So is a turbo. So is a centrifugal. At the horsepower levels we're talking here, any of them will work wonderfully and his truck will go like stink.

2. OP really needs to share a bit more about how he intends to use the truck. ** If he lives in the sticks, goes mudding, etc...A rear mount turbo is a very bad idea (other than appearance, this is a big reason why I'm not a fan of rear-mounts on trucks).

3. "Cheaper" isn't a word that should ever be used when talking FI. If you cheap out on any of it, you'll spend more in the long run, and you WILL break shit. Hell, you're going to break shit anyway.

4. Everybody I've known with a rear mount on a full size truck that was driven daily had quite a few problems with it. Condensation, plumbing problems, etc.

** On forced induction on a pickup:

-If I were building a track-only truck, it would have a (front mount) turbo on it the size of Kansas.

-If I were building a truck that gets driven normally a lot, and taken to the track frequently as well, I'd put a centrifugal supercharger on it.

-If I were building a truck that I used normally like a truck (towing, daily driving, spirited stoplight runs, etc) with occasional trips to the track, roots/twin screw is the route I would take.

$0.02

The rear mount plumbing is crap with the sts kit. Thats why I said you could have it fabbed up with vband clamps and more solid pieces (less connections) and you eliminate all those problems, AND save money vs paying for the turbo kit. Turboing a vehicle is different than supercharging. Superchargers u buy the kit and slap it on its the best way to do it. If u decide to turbo, buying a "kit" isnt a smart move. You build the kit, you can buy better parts for less money, AND custom size your turbo for your application, etc etc. Its the best way to truely get exactly what you want.

With that said, If iwere to do a remote turbo kit on a truck, I wouldnt do the standard remote mount, I would hack a hole in the bed of my truck and and build a little box and plumb it up to there. The thing that sucks about that is having to cut a hole in your bed, but it hardly takes up any bed space, and gets it out of the way for offroading. I have seen pics online of it done and trucks on youtube with it but i cant find them now.

Saying boost is boost, well thats true to a point, but there is such a thing as CFM and hp/lb of boost. A turbo is going to make more power/lb of boost. Always does. If your just worried about what going to move the truck down a straight line faster, the turbo is going to win if its sized right.

WIth all that said, I have been doing some more research on these FI kits for these trucks, and if it were my i would totally be buying a twin screw, probably from these guys http://www.lysholm.us/ or maybe the whipple. THe bypass is nice feature, and quite frankly if you have ever owned a twin screw charger (i had on an rsx type-s) they just sound amazing.

Jennabear · November 9, 2010

Boost is overrated, stick with NA.

Wingnut · November 9, 2010

lol

Wingnut · November 9, 2010

Turbo hands down. Look at the numbers they make per lb of boots. More efficient, more effective, more fun. Look at STS remote turbo kit. I would do a turbo like that. BUT fabing up a turbo kit like that isnt hard it could be done for 2/3 of the price of the sts kit and 1/2 the price of a supercharger.

The only possibly advantage there are a supercharger is the linear powerband of roots type or twin screw charger. Basically you would sacrifice some overall power to have instant, even boost through out the entire rev range. BUT none of the superchargers for these trucks are like that, they are all centrifugal superchargers. Essentially they work like a turbo charger, but they run off of the motor, not off of the exhaust gas, so it robs power, and needs to spool just like a turbo. Dumb design IMO

For the simplicity, and power per $ spent ratio, the turbo is the only FI choice worth considering.

Edit: after reading a couple other posts I see that there are some roots type charger like magnacharger.. BUT then i found this http://www.lysholm.us/ Twin screw if u were going to do a supercharger thats the only one I would even consider.

Couple of points here...

1. Boost is boost, no matter where it comes from. Parasitic loss that comes about when driving a supercharger is pretty minimal these days. A TVS1900 is capable of producing a LOT more horsepower than a stock truck's internals are capable of supporting. So is a twin screw. So is a turbo. So is a centrifugal. At the horsepower levels we're talking here, any of them will work wonderfully and his truck will go like stink.

2. OP really needs to share a bit more about how he intends to use the truck. ** If he lives in the sticks, goes mudding, etc...A rear mount turbo is a very bad idea (other than appearance, this is a big reason why I'm not a fan of rear-mounts on trucks).

3. "Cheaper" isn't a word that should ever be used when talking FI. If you cheap out on any of it, you'll spend more in the long run, and you WILL break shit. Hell, you're going to break shit anyway.

4. Everybody I've known with a rear mount on a full size truck that was driven daily had quite a few problems with it. Condensation, plumbing problems, etc.

** On forced induction on a pickup:

-If I were building a track-only truck, it would have a (front mount) turbo on it the size of Kansas.

-If I were building a truck that gets driven normally a lot, and taken to the track frequently as well, I'd put a centrifugal supercharger on it.

-If I were building a truck that I used normally like a truck (towing, daily driving, spirited stoplight runs, etc) with occasional trips to the track, roots/twin screw is the route I would take.

$0.02

The rear mount plumbing is crap with the sts kit. Thats why I said you could have it fabbed up with vband clamps and more solid pieces (less connections) and you eliminate all those problems, AND save money vs paying for the turbo kit. Turboing a vehicle is different than supercharging. Superchargers u buy the kit and slap it on its the best way to do it. If u decide to turbo, buying a "kit" isnt a smart move. You build the kit, you can buy better parts for less money, AND custom size your turbo for your application, etc etc. Its the best way to truely get exactly what you want.

With that said, If iwere to do a remote turbo kit on a truck, I wouldnt do the standard remote mount, I would hack a hole in the bed of my truck and and build a little box and plumb it up to there. The thing that sucks about that is having to cut a hole in your bed, but it hardly takes up any bed space, and gets it out of the way for offroading. I have seen pics online of it done and trucks on youtube with it but i cant find them now.

Saying boost is boost, well thats true to a point, but there is such a thing as CFM and hp/lb of boost. A turbo is going to make more power/lb of boost. Always does. If your just worried about what going to move the truck down a straight line faster, the turbo is going to win if its sized right.

WIth all that said, I have been doing some more research on these FI kits for these trucks, and if it were my i would totally be buying a twin screw, probably from these guys http://www.lysholm.us/ or maybe the whipple. THe bypass is nice feature, and quite frankly if you have ever owned a twin screw charger (i had on an rsx type-s) they just sound amazing.

8 psi is 8 psi is 8psi. Doesn't matter the source, it's the same. The only difference is the parasitic loss of how you get there. And superchargers these days are pretty damned efficient. I think Magnuson states that at 60 mph, the supercharger eats 1/3 of 1 horsepower. Supersizing my fries does that. Obviously it produces more drag on the crank when you're in it to win it, but it produces quite a bit more than it drags.

I'm not saying that turbos are better or worse by any stretch (never had one, only helped install a couple). Just that for ease of install and upkeep, it's going to be really tough to beat a Maggie. Virtually zero upkeep at all, and you can slap it on in a day with time left over for beer drinkin' and tire burnin'. Not in that order though

stlavsa · November 9, 2010

PSI isnt just PSI.. Theres this thing called corrected CFM that comes in to play. 8PSI can vary drastically depending on IAT. ACFM vs SCFM, volumetric efficiency, density of the air, however u want to put it.

Quick copy past off of superchargersonline.com

Efficiency

This is the turbo's biggest advantage. The turbocharger is generally more economical to operate as it as it is driven primarily by potential energy in the exhaust gasses that would otherwise be lost out the exhaust, whereas a supercharger draws power from the crank, which can be used to turn the wheels. The turbocharger's impeller is also powered only under boost conditions, so there is less parasitic drag while the impeller is not spinning. The turbocharger, however, is not free of inefficiency as it does create additional exhaust backpressure and exhaust flow interruption.

Heat

Because the turbocharger is mounted to the exhaust manifold (which is very hot), turbocharger boost is subject to additional heating via the turbo's hot casing. Because hot air expands (the opposite goal of a turbo or supercharger), an intercooler becomes necessary on almost all turbocharged applications to cool the air charge before it is released into the engine. This increases the complexity of the installation. A centrifugal supercharger on the other hand creates a cooler air discharge, so an intercooler is often not necessary at boost levels below 10psi. That said, some superchargers (especially roots-type superchargers) create hotter discharge temperatures, which also make an intecooler necessary even on fairly low-boost applications.

Your also misquoting the efficiency rating of 1/3 of 1hp to run the charger.. thats 1/3 of EVERY HP that its producing. It takes wayyyyy more than 1/3 of a hp to pump out 700+CFM with a roots type blower... hell it takes way more than 1/3 HP to pump ur power steering!! Thats saying that your adiabatic efficiency is 66% for that kit. This is taken right from magnachargers website. "Magna Charger, Inc. applications have an adiabatic efficiency that stays above the 50% mark over the full operating range of the engine, from 2000 to 6000 rpm."

Learn about adiabatic efficiency of a supercharger vs a turbo.. magnacharger is happy with 50% or more over the rpm range, with a VE of 98% (98 is good).. The efficiency of a turbo is anywhere from say 60% to 90+%.. So depending on appropriate turbo sizing, it can be a HUGE advantage in power of a supercharger.