# Supercharger or Turbo



## EPTowing (Jan 24, 2010)

I am think about putting a Supercharger on my car but a buddy of mine said I should put a Turbo on it. I am more for the supercharger. But I am just wondering what you guys would use, Turbo or Supercharger & why?


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 17, 2009)

Really just depends on how you use your car. A supercharged car is more reliable for daily use from personal experience with owning NA cars that were either supercharged or turbod. Superchargers also give a much broader power range. But on the other side turbochargers are less expensive and produce more power in most cases, expecially on the mid to high end. If you have a good turbokit builder/tuner id say go for it as long as you maintain it and have proper cooling.

Im saving up and getting a custom turbo kit built and tunned by PBJ automotive here in St.Louis. But ive seen dozens of this guys cars including 500-750hp twin turbo LS1/2/3/7 Vettes, 5th gen F-Bodies, and twin turbo 1000HP streetable Vipers. I'll be his first GTO.

Fully built engine and Turbo kit installed and tunned forright at $6000 vs $6000 for a Supercahrger and tune, installing it myself not counting any internals.


----------



## jetstang (Nov 5, 2008)

Turbos can build way more boost than a street supercharger. Supercharger is an easier install, but limited in boost.


----------



## GM4life (Mar 18, 2007)

Plenty of threads covered this same subject.

There are advantages and disadvantage to both. Most of it depends on what you want out of your car. Plenty of FI systems to choose from Centrifugal, Roots, and Turbos. We have no screw option. Turbos producing more power than a S/C is not fully true, a properly setup centrifugal will produce just as much power. Turbos being more efficent thats true. Turbos, tend to have more parts, heat, and more complicated the S/C's. Centrifugals are basicly belt driven turbos. Centrifugals and turbos produce power in the mid to top end, roots gives you more of a broad power band than any of above, and give more low end grunt. Roots also suffer from heat soak, on the other hand they are more fun to drive on the street.

I went with the Maggie because I spend most of the time on the street, its more reliable hands down, clean and easy install. I don't have to worry about changing the oil in the maggie like in the Procharger every 3-5K miles. Turbos you have to make sure they have a cool down period before shutting them down or you'll cook the turbos. I know because I replaced a few turbos on equipment because of this. Don't get hung up on boost its just engine restriction.


----------



## Huckleberry06 (Feb 19, 2010)

GM4life said:


> Plenty of threads covered this same subject.
> 
> There are advantages and disadvantage to both. Most of it depends on what you want out of your car. Plenty of FI systems to choose from Centrifugal, Roots, and Turbos. We have no screw option. Turbos producing more power than a S/C is not fully true, a properly setup centrifugal will produce just as much power. Turbos being more efficent thats true. Turbos, tend to have more parts, heat, and more complicated the S/C's. Centrifugals are basicly belt driven turbos. Centrifugals and turbos produce power in the mid to top end, roots gives you more of a broad power band than any of above, and give more low end grunt. Roots also suffer from heat soak, on the other hand they are more fun to drive on the street.
> 
> I went with the Maggie because I spend most of the time on the street, its more reliable hands down, clean and easy install. I don't have to worry about changing the oil in the maggie like in the Procharger every 3-5K miles. Turbos you have to make sure they have a cool down period before shutting them down or you'll cook the turbos. I know because I replaced a few turbos on equipment because of this. Don't get hung up on boost its just engine restriction.


Great info. I'd go with the maggie myself. also u can't beat that supercharger WHINE...


----------



## batmans (Aug 16, 2007)

I've owned a RX7 TT in the past. the turbos kicked in at 2k RPMS so lag was minimal.

For the GTO, I got a ride in the STS Turbos and didn't like the lag, which was greater than the RX7 TT.

I went the direction of a roots or twin screw blower since I crave the instant POWer off the line that people expect from a V8.

The ONLY thing about the turbos that I miss in the GTO is that you can crank up or down the boost based on when you use pump or race gas.

With a Supercharger it's fixed.


----------



## SuperchargedLS2 (Apr 16, 2010)

IMO..
Turbo...

1)Generally cheaper
2)more power (with a correct setup)
3)better fuel economy

plus one day you could always twin turbo it into something out of proportion to this planet...LOL That is what I would do...either way would be sweet.:cheers


----------



## SuperchargedLS2 (Apr 16, 2010)

Huckleberry06 said:


> Great info. I'd go with the maggie myself. also u can't beat that supercharger WHINE...


I could also agree with this...I drive a GTP right now planning to ditch it for a GTO in a few weeks and nothing like hearing a SC wine...


----------



## HITMAN803 (Apr 10, 2010)

All depends on what your goals are...I personally like Superchargers......


----------



## HITMAN803 (Apr 10, 2010)

Mongoose said:


> Really just depends on how you use your car. A supercharged car is more reliable for daily use from personal experience with owning NA cars that were either supercharged or turbod. Superchargers also give a much broader power range. But on the other side turbochargers are less expensive and produce more power in most cases, expecially on the mid to high end. If you have a good turbokit builder/tuner id say go for it as long as you maintain it and have proper cooling.
> 
> Im saving up and getting a custom turbo kit built and tunned by PBJ automotive here in St.Louis. But ive seen dozens of this guys cars including 500-750hp twin turbo LS1/2/3/7 Vettes, 5th gen F-Bodies, and twin turbo 1000HP streetable Vipers. I'll be his first GTO.
> 
> Fully built engine and Turbo kit installed and tunned forright at $6000 vs $6000 for a Supercahrger and tune, installing it myself not counting any internals.



Please show where you can buy a (Properly built engine) and turbo kit installed and tuned for 6k...A forged SB 3-5K,turbo kit 4-6K thats not even including the tunes which most run around $400-$600, and I wont want anyone experimenting on my engine. To each his own......but 6K aint happening.......


----------



## LOWET (Oct 21, 2007)

EPTowing said:


> I am think about putting a Supercharger on my car but a buddy of mine said I should put a Turbo on it. I am more for the supercharger. But I am just wondering what you guys would use, Turbo or Supercharger & why?


Go for a supercharger. Maggies and prochargers are both great units and you will be happy with either one. I went with a procharger and could not be happier. No matter what type of F/I you have installed, if you have a stock bottom end, keep the boost on the low side.


----------



## batmans (Aug 16, 2007)

LOWET said:


> Go for a supercharger. Maggies and prochargers are both great units and you will be happy with either one. I went with a procharger and could not be happier. No matter what type of F/I you have installed, if you have a stock bottom end, keep the boost on the low side.


When I was researching my engine rebuild I was told by a few people that the stock crank can handle 1000HP (which is why no one replaces it).

the stock LS2 connecting rods will start to bend at 800RWHP.

The pistons were the weak link (my case too) where they are prone to shattering with bad gas and/or bad tune.


----------



## PBF Bioset (Apr 25, 2010)

EPTowing said:


> I am think about putting a Supercharger on my car but a buddy of mine said I should put a Turbo on it. I am more for the supercharger. But I am just wondering what you guys would use, Turbo or Supercharger & why?


Hi, 
as already mentioned there are serveral good reasons to buy a supercharger or a turbo. OMO it's not only a question of how much will you pay to get it, but also of how you much will you spent on maintenance and repairing it.

I would agree to those, who prefer the supercharger. 

For myself I'd think of a system of procharger combined with an intercooler that works with refrigant in its own seperate coolingsystem, powered by electrical pumps.


----------



## LOWET (Oct 21, 2007)

batmans said:


> When I was researching my engine rebuild I was told by a few people that the stock crank can handle 1000HP (which is why no one replaces it).
> 
> the stock LS2 connecting rods will start to bend at 800RWHP.
> 
> The pistons were the weak link (my case too) where they are prone to shattering with bad gas and/or bad tune.


Little late in my reply to this. I have a lot of faith in the shop I use and when they did my Procharger the told me unless I plan on doing a complete forged bottom end real soon it would be best to keep my boost low [ around 5 PSI ] and keep my RWHP under 600 because the stock unit just will not last for very long. . If I was going to do Rods and Pistons , without a doubt, the crank shaft will also get tossed out.


----------



## jetstang (Nov 5, 2008)

PBF Bioset said:


> Hi,
> as already mentioned there are serveral good reasons to buy a supercharger or a turbo. OMO it's not only a question of how much will you pay to get it, but also of how you much will you spent on maintenance and repairing it.
> 
> I would agree to those, who prefer the supercharger.
> ...


I was thinking the same thing, intercooled using your AC, only problem with running the AC at the strip is you drip water on the strip and the track people freak out. I guess if you catch the condensation it would work well.
I'd like to get a rear mount turbo for my Vette. I saw a guy with one on a stock Trans AM running 8.0s in the 1/8th.


----------

