blowers vs. turbos...why are more and more people switching to/going the turbo route?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 470
From: Detroit, MI
blowers vs. turbos...why are more and more people switching to/going the turbo route?
i have noticed that alot of the cars running 10s and lower on tv, as well as alot of high performance street cars these days are going with turbos as opposed to superchargers. i really cant say im biased to either, but for some reason ide prefer a blower on my car as opposed to a turbocharger. what are the benefits of using one over the other, i know turbos recirculate exhaust gases to create boost thats why they need an intercooler, but how would a turbo be better than an intercooled blower. superchargers being belt driven use fresher denser air and the idea of adding an intercooler to them makes them even better. somebody explain this whole turbo frenzy for me...is it all just a matter of preference?
Registered User
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 331
From: Memphis, TN
Re: blowers vs. turbos...why are more and more people switching to/going the turbo route?
Originally posted by chevyboy_z28
i have noticed that alot of the cars running 10s and lower on tv, as well as alot of high performance street cars these days are going with turbos as opposed to superchargers. i really cant say im biased to either, but for some reason ide prefer a blower on my car as opposed to a turbocharger. what are the benefits of using one over the other, i know turbos recirculate exhaust gases to create boost thats why they need an intercooler, but how would a turbo be better than an intercooled blower. superchargers being belt driven use fresher denser air and the idea of adding an intercooler to them makes them even better. somebody explain this whole turbo frenzy for me...is it all just a matter of preference?
i have noticed that alot of the cars running 10s and lower on tv, as well as alot of high performance street cars these days are going with turbos as opposed to superchargers. i really cant say im biased to either, but for some reason ide prefer a blower on my car as opposed to a turbocharger. what are the benefits of using one over the other, i know turbos recirculate exhaust gases to create boost thats why they need an intercooler, but how would a turbo be better than an intercooled blower. superchargers being belt driven use fresher denser air and the idea of adding an intercooler to them makes them even better. somebody explain this whole turbo frenzy for me...is it all just a matter of preference?
Super chargers actually rob power to make power, i.e. it takes a certain amount of power to spin the super charger, granted the turbo has added back pressure but doesnt take near the power it takes to spin the super charger.
P
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 28
Turbo's make more power per lb of boost due to the efficiency of being driven b exhaust energy. Properly sized...they will provide a better torque curve and more hp than a given centrifigual with the same boost pressure and charge air temp. Generally you'll have the same manners without boost as the vehicle was before the turbo install. Can typically use the factory camshaft in up to medium boosted applications. The vehicle will operate fairly quiet compared to it's power output.
The downside. Installation can be a PITA. Cost is usually abit more than your typical supercharger kit.
I've been through all the power adders at many different levels. N20 being my least favorite, then the centrifigual and finally the turbo. I've never owned a roots but, did some work on a whipple charged BBC. Next to a turbo, that made some serious low/mid rpm torque!
The downside. Installation can be a PITA. Cost is usually abit more than your typical supercharger kit.
I've been through all the power adders at many different levels. N20 being my least favorite, then the centrifigual and finally the turbo. I've never owned a roots but, did some work on a whipple charged BBC. Next to a turbo, that made some serious low/mid rpm torque!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,784
From: Jacksonville
Also, many turbos can produce full boost at low RPMs. Typically, a supercharger doesn't really make boost until ~3000 rpms (depending on which pullies are used) and builds boost in a linear fashion.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,450
From: Belleville, IL
The two biggest downsides of a turbo is that the install CAN be a pain and tuning is pretty difficult on a stock ECM w/o some add-ons (BTM).
I ran a Procharger for just over 3 years and had lots of fun with it. I went with the turbo setup because it'll be easier for me to upgrade and for the price I'm getting it done at, I don't think I could even get a D-series Procharger.
I ran a Procharger for just over 3 years and had lots of fun with it. I went with the turbo setup because it'll be easier for me to upgrade and for the price I'm getting it done at, I don't think I could even get a D-series Procharger.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 221
From: Raleigh, NC
A friend of mine had a vortech blower on a 93 Cobra. 12.65 was the fastest it ever went, with a peak of 12 psi. He swapped out the vortech for a non-intercooled TO4E set-up that he bought off E-bay. The car went 12.2 with the same peak boost (12 psi) and no other changes. He has since upgraded the turbo, added an intercooler, alcohol injection, 42 lb injecotrs, a calibrated MAF and a cam. With no tune, and the base timing at 2* he went 11.3 at 124 mph. With a friggen stock block and head 302.
The turbo cars are just plain faster.
The turbo cars are just plain faster.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 472
From: Mobile, Alabama
Dennis, I PM'd you about camshafts a day or so ago, if you didn't get it please let me know.. I'm beyond serious. We're going max effort this year and I'm open to input on camshaft selection regarding big turbo/small cube combinations. I'd rather talk to people who are actually running the combinatoin versus people who are looking at computer simulations and peddling camshafts. Any ifo would be appreciated, I've gathered alot so far and I'll continue to do so for another month or so...
Don't worry about the competition thing, I'll always be slow.
All my engine specs are in the PM
thanks
...*****
Don't worry about the competition thing, I'll always be slow.
All my engine specs are in the PM
thanks
...*****
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,082
From: San Juan PR
Honestly... turbos do remove A LOT OF POWER.. if not... do this brady... get your boost side hoses off and sealed and see how it runs... you'll see the turbo ROBS GOBS OF power too to move that turbine.. the pistons LITERALLY PUSH on that backpressure which is always in the range of 1.5-2:1 vs boost...
The advantage is that since they spin a lot more they get more boost down low and with drag radials they are easier to get better times since you get boost OFF the line and all the way...
on a street car.. boost down low is just loosing plain traction...
A fair fight would be that they compare similar CFM superchargers to similar CFM turbines and see how it goes... There will be very little difference and advantages to each!
I personally like the supercharger because i feel it gives me more top end and less down low where i spin 1st and second.
The advantage is that since they spin a lot more they get more boost down low and with drag radials they are easier to get better times since you get boost OFF the line and all the way...
on a street car.. boost down low is just loosing plain traction...
A fair fight would be that they compare similar CFM superchargers to similar CFM turbines and see how it goes... There will be very little difference and advantages to each!
I personally like the supercharger because i feel it gives me more top end and less down low where i spin 1st and second.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 884
From: I reached back like a pimp and smacked that LS1....
While there are pumping losses due to backpressure, some is recovered from pumping gains (as in boost pressure pushing down on the piston when the intake valve opens)
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 28
I've spent alot of time on the dyno with each of these combinations. I'll re-direct and say the differences are abit more than you think.
Compare a 76mm unit @ 88lbs/min and 1275cfm vs a D1 Procharger @ 96lbs/min and 1400cfm. We'll make more average and peak power with the turbo than the Procharger on the same engine. As shown by the BSFC, the turbo engine generally is .05-.07lb more fuel efficient, therefore doesn't consume nearly the same power.
Since the turbo is not mechanically coupled to the engine, it does offer the distinct advantage you spoke of regarding "boost down low" This is can be tailored to a street, street/strip or race only vehicle. The peak boost can not only be adjusted to within a pound (which can be difficult w/ pulley combinations) but, it's curve can be brought on at different rates by switching the a/r and or electronic boost control.
The topend you feel is the blower making some pressure. It's curve is very non-linear (boost quadruples as rpm doubles) to rpm and therefore gives that feeling. The turbo can feel "faded" to some due to it's flat torque curve but, will out accelerate the centrifigual engine.
Either one is better than no boost at all IMO. A high end turbo can be expensive and difficult to get fabbed. Cost is a factor. Depends on what the customer is after.
To me the biggest turbo advantages are:
increase in average and peak power
better boost control
quieter operation
The blower is
typically cheaper
easier installation / takes less space
usually a good warranty (street kits)
This was a good topic. I really enjoy seeing input from peoples experience. Helps the others coming down the road get a better idea of what's best for them.
Compare a 76mm unit @ 88lbs/min and 1275cfm vs a D1 Procharger @ 96lbs/min and 1400cfm. We'll make more average and peak power with the turbo than the Procharger on the same engine. As shown by the BSFC, the turbo engine generally is .05-.07lb more fuel efficient, therefore doesn't consume nearly the same power.
Since the turbo is not mechanically coupled to the engine, it does offer the distinct advantage you spoke of regarding "boost down low" This is can be tailored to a street, street/strip or race only vehicle. The peak boost can not only be adjusted to within a pound (which can be difficult w/ pulley combinations) but, it's curve can be brought on at different rates by switching the a/r and or electronic boost control.
The topend you feel is the blower making some pressure. It's curve is very non-linear (boost quadruples as rpm doubles) to rpm and therefore gives that feeling. The turbo can feel "faded" to some due to it's flat torque curve but, will out accelerate the centrifigual engine.
Either one is better than no boost at all IMO. A high end turbo can be expensive and difficult to get fabbed. Cost is a factor. Depends on what the customer is after.
To me the biggest turbo advantages are:
increase in average and peak power
better boost control
quieter operation
The blower is
typically cheaper
easier installation / takes less space
usually a good warranty (street kits)
This was a good topic. I really enjoy seeing input from peoples experience. Helps the others coming down the road get a better idea of what's best for them.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,082
From: San Juan PR
Originally posted by INTMD8
While there are pumping losses due to backpressure, some is recovered from pumping gains (as in boost pressure pushing down on the piston when the intake valve opens)
While there are pumping losses due to backpressure, some is recovered from pumping gains (as in boost pressure pushing down on the piston when the intake valve opens)
Changing the A/R is a way to choose the combination to your engine... You can do that by changing type of superchargers... There are many different combinations to choose from many different vendors.
Turbochargers create so much underhood heat (not the STS though) that is an advantage for the supercharger...
In the end.. its choice.
Last edited by Highlander; Jan 9, 2004 at 01:15 PM.