LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

Whats Better

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 26, 2003 | 01:34 PM
  #1  
PumpkinKingZ28's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 84
From: Houston,TX
Whats Better

I just have a question and im sure its been asked before so just bare with me. What is better for performance and for longevity of the engine, a supercharger, turbo, or NOS. A friend told me in the long run nos is better for the engine bc superchargers and turbos put constant stress on the engine, and nos you can turn off. Is this right? if someone could give me more info on that and HP enhancement that would be appreciated.
Old Feb 26, 2003 | 01:53 PM
  #2  
ImportsRsloths's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 146
From: Amelia, OH
You also have to keep in mind what else you have going on........... there is no one clear cut answer to this...

do the superchargers and turbo chargers have intercoolers?

Do you have the right fuel system for each set up?

Is your engine built for that set up?

WHAT PSI is the BOOST SET AT?????

The only way you could have one clear cut answer is in a question like this, whats better for a stock car for longetivity? a intercooled procharger set up with 5 psi, OR, a dry 400 HP nitrous set up used only once in a while ............ lol i hope the answer is obvious!!!!!
Old Feb 26, 2003 | 02:01 PM
  #3  
LimitedEd1LE's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 560
From: Chicagoland Area
Yea there is too many vabiables to include with either setup. It all depepnds if you want to only spend about 500-900 dollars on a N2o kit, or spend a pretty penny on a supercharger or turbo setup. In my opinion, the N2o is the cheater way to get hp, but effective. i say if you have to money to spend, then get the turbo kit, because not many have them. You'll definitly be a threat to many cars out there.
Old Feb 26, 2003 | 07:57 PM
  #4  
PumpkinKingZ28's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 84
From: Houston,TX
i didnt realize there were that many variables in it all, need to do more homework. so overall is the putting stress on the engine factor not something to be too woried about? thanks
Old Feb 26, 2003 | 08:49 PM
  #5  
PatriotTA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,017
From: Toledo, OH
What is better for performance and for longevity of the engine, a supercharger, turbo, or NOS
First of all, I believe you are referring to N20 (nitrous oxide), not NOS. NOS stands for Nitrous Oxide Systems, who sponsored that horrible Fast and the Fartpipes movie. I am also of the belief that nitrous is a quick and cheap way to go (ie imports), but to each his own, you know? Just do some research, and search this board. I'm sure this has been debated a million times over, especially the turbo vs. blower debate. I would have to say that going on the bottle is the most stress on your engine, since its a sudden shot, where as turbos and superchargers build up to it. Check out the links on Brent Franker's site, he has a ton of forced induction and nitrous links.

http://www.bfranker.badz28.com/fbody/links.htm
Old Feb 27, 2003 | 02:20 PM
  #6  
PumpkinKingZ28's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 84
From: Houston,TX
[QUOTE][i] I would have to say that going on the bottle is the most stress on your engine, since its a sudden shot, where as turbos and superchargers build up to it.

now that is interesting, thanks for the help. i know i need to do some research on the subject i was just wanting people to kinda introduce it to me and tell me some things about it. yea bfranker has an awesome site.
thanks
Old Feb 27, 2003 | 02:44 PM
  #7  
phoenix64's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 35
From: st paul
You guys are over complicating this. To get 100hp more to the wheels, from turbo, nitrous, or a supercharger, the nitrous is going to create less wear, because for a charger to work, turbo or super, they have to take HP away. so you have to add say 125 for a turbo to get 100hp at the wheels, and more like 150 for a supercharger, but nitrous you only add 100 because it creates no parasitic drag on the engine. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure this is how it works, and you have to factor in that the charger is going to be there creating wear all the time.
Old Feb 27, 2003 | 03:18 PM
  #8  
Kraest's Avatar
Retired
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,166
From: Inside Uranus
Originally posted by phoenix64
I'm no expert


Mike
Old Feb 27, 2003 | 03:21 PM
  #9  
joeSS97's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,781
From: Detroit area
FWIW turbos do not rob power they are pretty much free power.
Old Feb 27, 2003 | 08:52 PM
  #10  
phoenix64's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 35
From: st paul
lol. turbos don't rob power? c'mon they create 2.5 psi back pressure in your exhaust for every psi you cram down the intake. and you guys though your stock exhaust was restrictive. They don't take as much as a supercharger, but they also add a lot of heat.

BTW if I'm wrong explain to me how. I only visit these boards to learn, and try to pass on knowledge, why be an *** about it.
Old Feb 27, 2003 | 09:33 PM
  #11  
phoenix64's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 35
From: st paul
Seriously, why do people insult, but refuse to offer an explanation? Seems to be only the V8 guys too............
Old Feb 27, 2003 | 10:05 PM
  #12  
treyZ28's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,505
From: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
N20<turbo<blower

nitrous is not compressed air and does not add to the cyld - or so jordan explained to me. pressure like a blower would. also its on about 1/1000th the time a blower is

turbo doens't take 25hp to make 120hp
it seems likes turbo is pretty soft on things (relativly) or so combo told me

blower = worst of them all.

think of it this way, "cylander hp" (if there is such a term
) would be 300hp on a turbo and 335 on a blower, but at the wheels and crank, they make the same about


and lets put it this way-
I'm putting my money on a stock car with a 150 shot over a 10psi blown Lt1 with 425hp
i'm having trouble explaining this
i give up
Old Feb 28, 2003 | 06:57 AM
  #13  
IDOXLR8's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,784
From: Rochester Hills, MI
If you are talking about a stock motor I would say nitrous is definetly the safest, then I would say turbo and finally I would go with a blower. But just like anything if your car is not tuned properly then your motor will grenade quickly with any of the above setups. On the other hand on a built motor I would go with a set of turbos. I like the fact that you can install a boost controller inside your car and controll your boost level. My friend has a Grand National that run's 9.7's and if he wanted to he could drive his car from Michigan to California with no problem. The biggest downfall to a turbo is the costs involved. The nice thing about a turbo over a blower is that it does not rob hp because it uses wasted exhaust gas to spool the turbo as oppose to using the engine crank to turn the blower.
Old Feb 28, 2003 | 09:19 AM
  #14  
treyZ28's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,505
From: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Originally posted by IDOXLR8
If you are talking about a stock motor I would say nitrous is definetly the safest, then I would say turbo and finally I would go with a blower. But just like anything if your car is not tuned properly then your motor will grenade quickly with any of the above setups. On the other hand on a built motor I would go with a set of turbos. I like the fact that you can install a boost controller inside your car and controll your boost level. My friend has a Grand National that run's 9.7's and if he wanted to he could drive his car from Michigan to California with no problem. The biggest downfall to a turbo is the costs involved. The nice thing about a turbo over a blower is that it does not rob hp because it uses wasted exhaust gas to spool the turbo as oppose to using the engine crank to turn the blower.

I have heard of people using blow off valves for blowers and adjusting boost with that
I havn't read much about it


my dillema with turbo is the damn installation. too many pipes and wires. too confusing. turbo would actually cost me less (yeah i have some pretty INSANE turbo hookups )
Old Feb 28, 2003 | 09:39 AM
  #15  
IDOXLR8's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,784
From: Rochester Hills, MI
Originally posted by treyZ28
I have heard of people using blow off valves for blowers and adjusting boost with that
I havn't read much about it


my dillema with turbo is the damn installation. too many pipes and wires. too confusing. turbo would actually cost me less (yeah i have some pretty INSANE turbo hookups )
The boost on a blower is determined by pulley size and not by blowoff valves. You are not winning this arguement, lol. Do a search on blowoff valves to get a better understanding. I would explain it to you myself but I am lazy


Yeah I remember you saying that you get deals on turbos and piping but the little things are what adds up. Fuel system, Wastegates, etc. If you could do a turbo system for less than a blower then what the heck are you waiting for . I guarantee you by the time you are all done with it you will have more into your turbo setup than a blower. You can get a used blower kit for 2000.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 PM.