# Turbo or Supercharger???



## purplehaze (Dec 27, 2005)

I need some professional opinions... which one would be better overall performance wise? Turbo's or charger???


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

Turbo....


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

if money is not a problem = turbo..


----------



## purplehaze (Dec 27, 2005)

what is the noticable difference?


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

purplehaze said:


> what is the noticable difference?


Power and torque is phenominal -vs- supercharger....


----------



## Firstgoat (Oct 1, 2005)

GTODEALER said:


> Power and torque is phenominal -vs- supercharger....


Oh yes, but you also forgot to mention the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and tuninig issues. And the extreme heat developed under the hood!
Basicly you will develop more low end torque with a turbo vs. a centrificul supercharger but it gets pretty even up top.
A roots type gets the nod for low end torque but being positive displacement it runs out of power around 5500 rpm.:confused 
IMHO the best bang for your buck is the Centrificul supergharger.


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

I've got a STS turbo car that we built here and I'd put it up against any other "bolt on" centrifigal s/c kit out there. It's a base STS kit with intercooler and 8lbs of boost. If money is not an option (like HTRDLNCN said earlier) then it's the best out there, I've personally seen highly modded GTO's with Prochargers barely break into the 11's, I've seen STS cars run 9's. As far as the heat issue, every turbo kit out there puts the turbos under the car, gets rid of the heat issues. As far as where the power is made, the turbo will have tons more low end torque and higher top end than a centrifigal..... the only down side I can see is the money.
BTW, two identical 04 GTO's, one with STS (8lbs intercooled) another with Procharger (8lbs intercooled), both cars had custom tunes and underdrive pulleys.
Procharger - 440 rwhp 418 rwtq
STS - 481 rwhp 531 rwtq
I've got dyno sheets and cars to prove it........


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

there no centrifugal in the world that can outpower a turbo.. Thats why Turbos are banned in a lot of classes and racing series.
early Indy engine made 800-1000hp out of 80-100 cubic inches using ungodly amounts of turbo boost.

ALL superchargers use the crank to drive them. A typical vortech/ ATI / whipple at 10-12lbs will take 50+hp to turn. Maggies even more.. Turbos take NO power to turn so even if they are otherwise identical the turbo would make 50 extra rwhp. Turboes arent connected to the crank so boost comes in as fast as you can spool it making for incredible low end torque (if sized correctly) yet will stillout power a supercharge on the top end. 
Like was stated above, drawback is the cost and complexity of install.

PS: and as for best bang for the buck,,that would be Nitrous..


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

Case in point.... my SRT4, 2.4 liters and makes 330+ whp......


----------



## DallasSleeper (Jan 3, 2006)

isn't that 330 *F*whp? :rofl:


----------



## J.E.T. (Sep 30, 2005)

HTRDLNCN said:


> there no centrifugal in the world that can outpower a turbo.. Thats why Turbos are banned in a lot of classes and racing series.
> early Indy engine made 800-1000hp out of 80-100 cubic inches using ungodly amounts of turbo boost.
> 
> ALL superchargers use the crank to drive them. A typical vortech/ ATI / whipple at 10-12lbs will take 50+hp to turn. Maggies even more.. Turbos take NO power to turn so even if they are otherwise identical the turbo would make 50 extra rwhp. Turboes arent connected to the crank so boost comes in as fast as you can spool it making for incredible low end torque (if sized correctly) yet will stillout power a supercharge on the top end.
> ...


So what's the best turbo out there and cost to install?.........LMK as I'm in the market right now for my '05.

JET


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

DallasSleeper said:


> isn't that 330 *F*whp? :rofl:


Uh, yeah, I guess I could put the "F" there....... not really sure how that makes it funny (the fact that my 2.4 makes as much as an 05 GTO stock, to me that should be respected.....).


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

J.E.T. said:


> So what's the best turbo out there and cost to install?.........LMK as I'm in the market right now for my '05.
> 
> JET


This is the best you can get....
http://www.airpowersystems.com.au/ls1/us_gto.htm


----------



## dealernut (Oct 22, 2005)

DallasSleeper said:


> isn't that 330 *F*whp? :rofl:



Get em Sarge. 

Everyone realizes that we have to continue to give Steve a hard time about his -Radio Flyer-


----------



## DallasSleeper (Jan 3, 2006)

330 is respected, just remembering the avatar you had up 2 weeks ago....


----------



## HotRodGuy (Jan 9, 2006)

IMO, turbo's are a lot more fun then SC's


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

DallasSleeper said:


> 330 is respected, just remembering the avatar you had up 2 weeks ago....


Hey I still hate the fact that she's fwd, I do like the fact that the guys at SRTFORUMS has managed to get 1.5-1.6 60 ft's in these things.


----------



## DallasSleeper (Jan 3, 2006)

respectable times... so no hard feelings?


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

DallasSleeper said:


> respectable times... so no hard feelings?


Oh no, no problem! Long day, I get a little snappy toward 5:30........ no problem at all!:cheers


----------



## dealernut (Oct 22, 2005)

AH bull SH*# S Sarge. You cannot let up on -Radio-. That FWD POS would be walked on. 


sorry dunno know where that came from. back in my military days I guess. 

Seriously steve that is awesome from a 4 cl FWD car. It just sucks you had to get rid of ol' fatbitch. 

Anyways back on topic. I drove a STS turboed 04 goat and that thing was wicked torquee. Definetely a good way to go. 

BTW Steve - Are they making the rear mounted turbos for the 05's? if so, how is it piped? Does it route both exhaust into one or what?


----------



## DallasSleeper (Jan 3, 2006)

easy now, don't put me in the middle here, I am trying to buy a car from you and get the rice boy to build it for me...


----------



## UFOGTO (Dec 18, 2005)

GTODEALER said:


> This is the best you can get....
> http://www.airpowersystems.com.au/ls1/us_gto.htm


So roughly how much would such a setup cost? I looked throgh their website but didn't see a price


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

Not sure but probably around $10-12k
STS system is more affordable and will make more power than the LS1 engine can take. You would be looking at $7-8k for a tuned and installed system .


----------



## J.E.T. (Sep 30, 2005)

HTRDLNCN said:


> Not sure but probably around $10-12k
> STS system is more affordable and will make more power than the LS1 engine can take. You would be looking at $7-8k for a tuned and installed system .


Know a speed shop in central FL that offers the STS system, installed?

JET


----------



## ftlfirefighter (Jun 6, 2005)

The APS system cost's $9000 plus shipping and install (35-40hrs).


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

DallasSleeper said:


> easy now, don't put me in the middle here, I am trying to buy a car from you and get the rice boy to build it for me...


:lol: You said your gonna get rice boy to build your Austrailian V8 muscle car.... kinda ironic, isn't it.....:rofl:


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

dealernut said:


> BTW Steve - Are they making the rear mounted turbos for the 05's? if so, how is it piped? Does it route both exhaust into one or what?


Here is a link to one installed on a '04, STS is still trying to "work out" the system on an 05.
http://www.ststurbo.com/gto_installation_pics
BTW, I'm not sure if I've said this before but I sold my GTO to my, recently demoted from fiance', girlfriend...... that way I still get to see her everyday, I just can't get enough of her sexy ass....... uh, sorry about that.


----------



## purplehaze (Dec 27, 2005)

i like those picture, the question about the exhaust.... is it dual or single?


----------



## HotRodGuy (Jan 9, 2006)

anyone recently done their own custom setup and gone w/ a true stand alone management system?


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

purplehaze said:


> i like those picture, the question about the exhaust.... is it dual or single?


04's are single and 05's split into a dual setup.....


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

HotRodGuy said:


> anyone recently done their own custom setup and gone w/ a true stand alone management system?


You can do a custom setup but there is no reason to go with a stand alone system.....


----------



## camcojb (Dec 23, 2005)

UFOGTO said:


> So roughly how much would such a setup cost? I looked throgh their website but didn't see a price


I have that system in my shop for my 05. The kit is $8995 and the only thing you'll need besides the kit is larger fuel injectors and fuel pump, plus tuning. The workmanship is awesome.

Jody


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

camcojb said:


> I have that system in my shop for my 05. The kit is $8995 and the only thing you'll need besides the kit is larger fuel injectors and fuel pump, plus tuning. The workmanship is awesome.
> 
> Jody


Thanks for clearing that up for us! That price is not _that_ bad considering the quality of it.:cheers


----------



## derf (Aug 3, 2004)

HTRDLNCN said:


> Turbos take NO power to turn so even if they are otherwise identical the turbo would make 50 extra rwhp.


Why do people keep posting this foolishness?!?

It's basic physics people. You can't get something for nothing.

Turbos dramatically increase the backpressure in the exhaust, putting a higher load on the engine during the exhaust stroke. As you go up in boost pressure, the load on the engine increases to match. It takes loads of energy to compress air even to 5-6psi.

I will bet any amount of money that if you hooked up a turbo to an external air supply and compared it to a turbo hooked to the exhaust, you'd make at least 10-20% more power.


The only reason turbos make more power than superchargers is the relative efficiency of the drive mechanism. Turbos consume 10-20% of the power compressing the air. Superchargers consume 20-40% of the power driving the belt and pulleys.


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

camcojb said:


> I have that system in my shop for my 05.
> The kit is
> $8995
> and the only thing you'll need besides the kit is
> ...


Which when you add up $8995+inj+fuel system+tuning+labor= $11-12k


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

derf said:


> Why do people keep posting this foolishness?!?
> 
> Turbos consume 10-20% of the power compressing the air. Superchargers consume 20-40% of the power driving the belt and pulleys.


Most Turbo cars have no exhaust system as such they are reducing the backpressure already so it compensates somewhat and I belive you are running the high side of the map there as far as the percentages. A well designed turbo will not need that much power to be extracted from the engine.

But you are correct that I should not have said "no" hp, I should have stated "very little" hp.. I will try and be more precise in the future.


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

HTRDLNCN said:


> Which when you add up $8995+inj+fuel system+tuning+labor= $11-12k


:agree


----------



## BuffGTO (Dec 29, 2005)

purplehaze said:


> I need some professional opinions... which one would be better overall performance wise? Turbo's or charger???


Turbo. Uses a waste by-product, exhaust gas, and makes into useable power. More expandability. Little more maintence, but well worth it. S/C are lame IMHO.


----------



## BuffGTO (Dec 29, 2005)

HTRDLNCN said:


> Which when you add up $8995+inj+fuel system+tuning+labor= $11-12k


$9K. FRRRUCK! I can build a system for cheaper than that. :cheers


----------



## BuffGTO (Dec 29, 2005)

purplehaze said:


> what is the noticable difference?


Perfect example:

Stock Engine making 140whp & 155whp
S/C that engine w/ 8 PSI 201whp & 189wtq
Turbo that engine w/ 8.5 PSI 245whp & 255wtq.

Point and case. :seeya:


----------



## camcojb (Dec 23, 2005)

HTRDLNCN said:


> Which when you add up $8995+inj+fuel system+tuning+labor= $11-12k



I won't have nearly that much in mine, but I do my own install and tuning (as long as HPTuners shows). The fuel pump and boostapump are about $370 which Lingenfelter claims is good to 625-650 rwhp. Won't be enough for my 402 but will be fine on the stock motor.

Jody


----------



## derf (Aug 3, 2004)

HTRDLNCN said:


> Most Turbo cars have no exhaust system as such they are reducing the backpressure already so it compensates somewhat and I belive you are running the high side of the map there as far as the percentages. A well designed turbo will not need that much power to be extracted from the engine.


You can make all the assertions you want but basic physics is basic physics. Hooking up your engine to power what ammounts to an air compressor does consume a substantial amount of energy. This energy is consumed by the turbo creating resistance in the exhaust path (i.e. inducing more backpressure) There's no way around that. Sure, you can change the size and the shape of the header and exhaust pipes to reduce any additional loss but it takes a fixed amount of energy to compress the incoming air. That energy comes from the engine pushing the exhaust gases through the turbo.

I can't make it any more clear than that.



HTRDLNCN said:


> But you are correct that I should not have said "no" hp, I should have stated "very little" hp.. I will try and be more precise in the future.


10%+ is not "very little" of anything. And it really does take that much. Go look it up if you don't believe me.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger



> However, there are some parasitic losses due to heat and exhaust backpressure from the turbine, so turbochargers are generally only about 80% efficient, at peak efficiency, because it takes some work for the engine to push those gases through the turbocharger turbine (which is acting as a restriction in the exhaust) and the now-compressed intake air has been heated, reducing its density.


----------



## camcojb (Dec 23, 2005)

I will say this. The Lightning guys are now going turbos. EVERY dyno so far they've picked up 100-150 rwhp more than the KB twin-screws or Eatons at the same boost level. Now I know these aren't centrifugals, but I have never seen a turbo dyno without a substantial gain over any belt driven blower, boost for boost.

Jody


----------



## baron_iv (Nov 17, 2005)

Ah, the age old debate about which is better...turbo vs supercharger.
It depends on what you want. Answer these questions and I'll be better able to help you.
1) Does low-end torque concern you (ie. do you want MORE of it)?
2) How much money are you willing to spend?
3) At which RPM range would you like to pick up the extra power, or do you want it across the entire range?
4) Have you heard of turbo lag?
5) Where do you spend most of your time driving? (Highway, road course, drag racing, etc)
6) What is your ultimate goal, more dyno-proven horsepower or SOTP (seat of the pants) feel?

If you can answer those six questions, I could probably help you figure out what you need. There are some very fundamental differences in turbos and superchargers, and then there are even differences within those two categories too. There's a lot to consider when making such a purchase, a heck of a lot more than just those 6 questions, but they'll help me help you. I've had multiple supercharged vehicles and one turbocharged car. I've done a ton of research on both when determining what I wanted for my previous vehicles. Google is your friend.


----------



## purplehaze (Dec 27, 2005)

baron_iv said:


> Ah, the age old debate about which is better...turbo vs supercharger.
> It depends on what you want. Answer these questions and I'll be better able to help you.
> 1) Does low-end torque concern you (ie. do you want MORE of it)?
> 2) How much money are you willing to spend?
> ...



let me clarify something, i am new to the performance arena. i have my car sittin in texas while i sit in kuwait. i have the time and money to spend. i am learning as i go. this forum has been great with all the advice, and knowledge. in the end i have one goal.... to take down the competition. can anyone blame me  please let me benefit from your experience.


----------



## baron_iv (Nov 17, 2005)

Well, taking down the competition from one stop light to the next is completely different than taking out the competition in a road race, or drifting, or on a circle track or under any of a million other racing situations.
A turbo and a supercharger will each give you tons of power, the difference is where and how the power is made. I really can't help you if you don't tell me exactly what you want.


----------



## The_Goat (Mar 10, 2005)

I'll just go with that 200mph 2 stroke leaf blower


----------



## baron_iv (Nov 17, 2005)

lol, well, ya just can't beat the leaf blower. Unfortunately, it is a bit noisier than a supercharger or turbo.


----------



## putergod (Jan 12, 2006)

Both work well and you'd be happier with either. A turbo is capable of much more streetable power and is the most efficient, but at higher cost, more complexity, and more maintenance. A centrifugal SC is capable of very nice power gains, easy to install, and very efficient (for SC's). A roots or screw type SC (i.e. a positive displacement SC) will provide a metric ****-ton of low end torque, is relatively easy to install, but is not very efficient (screw types are more efficient than roots) and you have to be conservative on boost, especially without a liquid to air intercooler, or you may suffer engine blowing knock. With all you have to be careful with boost on stock compression, but the more efficient the unit (i.e. the less heat introduced into the compressed air) the more boost you can use before knock. So, a quick, and not a scientific answer is...
Turbos:
Pros: Efficiency, maximum power capability
Cons: Cost, complexity, maintenance, turbo lag
Centrifugal SC:
Pros: Easiest to install, medium efficiency, cheaper than turbos, good power gains, decent torque gains
Cons: Still relatively expensive, medium efficiency, maintenance (most require oil line plumbing like turbos)
Positive Displacement "Blowers" (roots/twin screw):
Pros: massive torque gains, most immediate throttle responsiveness, relatively easy to install (if a kit), relatively inexpensive (if piece mailed from easy to find/fabricate parts), very little maintenance, and lastly, but most importantly (and the reason I love them so much) there is nothing better than the "Blissful Whine" of a blower... and they just look cool as hell...
Cons: very inefficient (not as bad with twin screw), can be more expensive than a centrifugal if a kit, can be very difficult to install if piece mailed together

Overall, it depends on tastes. All of them are capable of a lot of power. Turbo will give more top end power; blower will give more bottom end torque. Centrifugals can flop either way, but will never match either. But, if it helps you any... here are a couple of facts to shed some light on things...

The Ferrari F40 had a 2.8L V8 with twin turbos. It put 680HP to the pavement...
All SERIOUS drag cars are blown...

So, what do you want to do??


----------



## baron_iv (Nov 17, 2005)

putergod, excellent rundown of the differences between the supercharger and turbo(s). I disagree with you on one small point...you said that turbos and centrifugal superchargers are more streetable. I tend to disagree. This is a topic that is widely open to debate, so there is no RIGHT answer, but I thought I'd give an alternative opinion...
The best thing about the positive displacement superchargers is that you have that power available at virtually ALL RPM ranges...from about 2200 up. In my opinion, that makes them much more streetable. After all, having the power there when you need it is what is important, right? With a turbo, you will have to wait for the turbo to spool up, and with the centrifugal, you will only see substantial power gains at higher RPMs. The fact that you have gobs of power available at and around 2000 RPM, which is where most people are at when they're cruising around. Not many people cruise around at 4000+ RPMs. Personally, I feel that centrifugal superchargers are for racing cars, which would be running in the higher rpm range most of the time. 
I DO agree, however, that both centrifugal and turbos are more efficient than the positive displacement superchargers. The PDs do create a lot of heat, which does limit the amount of boost you can safely run...especially on a high-compression engine like ours. Detonation is a sure-fire way to destroy your engine.
I just wish I had a dollar for everytime I saw/heard someone complaining about their new centrifugal supercharger not having much additional power...they just don't realize that the power is there...it's just at high RPMs, which does average joe driver no good on the highway or putting around town. The first thing that the centrifugal owner starts doing is looking for ways to spin up the supercharger sooner, creating boost at lower RPMs...which inevitably means more heat and increased chance for engine damage. So I always tell people to do research, and if possible, take a ride or drive a car with a turbo/centrifugal SC and then in a PD supercharged car...just so that they can tell the difference and decide for themselves. I can tell people this until I'm blue in the face, but it kinda seems to go in one ear and out the other. 
Keep in mind that this is a $6000+ purchase, it should be researched just like if you were buying a car, house, or any other thing which could be considered "expensive" by the unwashed masses. 
Now, this is just my opinion, people are free to disagree with me, just as I disagreed with what was said above. I'm not saying it's WRONG by any means...because it's not. It's one of those things that is open to debate. So don't flame me 'cause I get mean. 
Have a great week everyone and good luck with the turbo/sc purchase.
--Scott


----------



## camcojb (Dec 23, 2005)

One other thing I'd add is with a turbo the kit and turbo makes a big difference. You can have a great street kit that makes full boost by 2500-3000 rpms. You can also have one that doesn't spool until 4500+

Jody


----------



## Firstgoat (Oct 1, 2005)

Come on guys, how many of you actully own a turbo car or a supercharged one?
I currently own a 98 Corvette with a P1SC I installed myself in 2001 and believe me I'm seeing boost before 2000 rpm and no oil lines!
I also have an ECS alky kit on it to control detonation @ 9.5 lbs boost @ 6000rpm. With an auto trans it has the power to break the tires from a 70 mph roll or anywhere else in between. (I will admit to some other mods also). But no cam or heads and a stock bottom end. A GREAT STREET DRIVER, YOU DON'T KNOW ITS THERE TILL YOU STICK YOUR FOOT IN IT!

I also traded in a 99 GTP for my GTO and it had a roots type S/C and boost was there right off idle, it was a great car except it had FWD, but I needed that in Michigan where I used to live. Another great street driver, it just ran out of steam at the high end. (But still made 300 fwhp).

I have never owned a turbo car but have driven many of them when I worked for GMPG. A properly set up turbo car will have no lag and does produce the most power of all the FI setups. It is also at least double the price of a good centrifugal set up and twice the complexity!
The previous poster that mentioned "theres no free power" is absolutly correct. However a centrifugal is much closer to a turbo then you might think when it comes to parasitics. After all it's a belt driven Turbo!

A properly set up car involves much more then just hanging on a power adder and saying it's done!
I still stand by my first statement that a centrifugal is the best bang for the buck! 
And NO2 is not even in the same class, try running a road race with it!:cheers


----------



## putergod (Jan 12, 2006)

baron_iv said:


> putergod, excellent rundown of the differences between the supercharger and turbo(s). I disagree with you on one small point...you said that turbos and centrifugal superchargers are more streetable. I tend to disagree.
> --Scott


I think you misinterpreted what I said. I do agree that SC's are more streetable as far as instant oomph... What I said was that a turbo is capable of a lot more streetable power. This is because of efficiency. PD SC's are definitely the way to go for a stop light racer because of the massive torque they put down instantly, but, because of heat, they can only add so much power before the air is heated to the degree of severe detonation, whist turbos, because of efficiency, can add much more overall power before it suffers the same fate.

Overall, I feel we are in complete agreement actually... :cheers


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

Firstgoat said:


> Come on guys, how many of you actully own a turbo car or a supercharged one?


My previous car,Novi2000 supercharger,Lincoln LSC,stock 5.0 shortblock,suspension,tranny and rear,4240lbs,[email protected],1.7 60ft,25mpg highway. Its a shame we cant get the Novi for the GTO.


----------



## baron_iv (Nov 17, 2005)

Firstgoat, I have owned both supercharged and turbocharged cars/trucks in the past, and have dealt with many more. My knowledge comes from owning these vehicles and troubleshooting them, along with helping friends/family with forced induction vehicles as well. I am by no means a guru, nor do I claim to know everything about FI vehicles, but I have done a LOT of research and had a good deal of experience.
There have been excellent points given throughout this thread and a lot of great information has been shared. 
The decision still comes down to personal preference. Some will be happy with the low-end torque and overall power that a positive displacement supercharger provides. Others will want more high-end horsepower and the more overall maximum power that a centrifugal or turbo/twin-turbo system can offer. Do your research, ask around, ride in a couple of turbocharged/supercharged vehicles if possible and make your decision based on ALL of those things. A finely tuned PD system can be a helluva lot of fun to drive, just as a centrifugal/turbo car. 
Now, for ME, there's no alternative to the positive-displacement supercharger, and when I get around to supercharging my goat (I've only had it for a little over a month), that's what will be going on there. Some of the other guys have turbos, twin-turbos and centrifugal superchargers in their goats and they're extremely happy. Nobody should really be telling anyone else that one type is better for them (or their car) than any other type, because it's really not. It's what YOU want for YOUR car...keep that in mind and good luck.
The only thing I can say for EVERYONE who puts a supercharger/turbo on their car is to make absolutely SURE that you get it tuned properly. I simply cannot emphasize enough that good tuning is VERY important to forced-induction cars. A well-tuned, properly-maintaned FI vehicle can last as long as any naturally aspirated engine.


----------



## purplehaze (Dec 27, 2005)

Thanks Baron, you are absolutely right I obviously need a lot more time to research this. Everyone makes very good points across the board. Time to get into some vehicles with some of these kits in them to see what is really going on. 

Thanks again everyone.


----------



## pumpkinking81682 (Jan 5, 2006)

turbo, if u have the money. i heard it runs $15grand for twin turbo and it's like 8 grand for super charger if u dont have a hook up. hahah let me know what your getting.


----------



## baron_iv (Nov 17, 2005)

A TWIN-turbo setup eliminates many of the bad things about a turbocharged system. However, you can pay up to 3x as much as you'd pay for any of the supercharger systems. Now, that money will be well-spent. A twin-turbo system can produce MASSIVE amounts of hp/torque. It can take your somewhat mild-mannered GTO and turn it into a complete BEAST. It can shred a set of tires faster than the blink of an eye. It will also completely empty out your wallet. With a good system costing anywhere from $10-15k, it's not cheap. It's certainly nowhere close to the most bang for your buck. If you simply MUST have the fastest GTO, and you have your very own money tree, a twin-turbo may be the way to go. Don't skimp though, be prepared to spend every dollar of that $15k, and then even more for tuning. 
For me, I'll stick with my cheaper positive-displacement supercharger which will get the job done without having to take a mortgage out on my house.


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

pumpkinking81682 said:


> turbo, if u have the money. i heard it runs $15grand for twin turbo and it's like 8 grand for super charger if u dont have a hook up. hahah let me know what your getting.


Dont know what you are talking about..
Procharger kit complete is $5250 , 
Vortech is $4850
no "hookup" needed..
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/New-...ryZ33741QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## baron_iv (Nov 17, 2005)

Those are minus installation and tuning though. Depending on who installs it, it can get quite expensive. This is one of those things it's better to pay to have done correctly though.


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

He didnt mention any of those things,,he just said they were 8 grand.
Both kits alreay come with tuners to get you up and going. Wont make max but it will be safe at least.
Install should be less $1000 (anyone charging more is ripping you off) and tuning by some of the best like Jeremy is 550-750.
On the LS1GTO there are plenty of guys with both kits and they have installed it themselves.
In my case ,except for the tuning no one works on my car except me. If I cant do it the car doesnt get it.


----------



## streetphish2 (Jan 20, 2006)

i figured i would jump in,
TURBO=non reliable. i am not that familiar with turbos in the goats, but i know that most engines have more trouble with the tuner then with the turbo itself. Too many people have terrible A/F, lean and then detonation. Or run into so many other problems, but for strict numbers the turbo does the trick. Aint nothing like it pushin 20 lbs. 
SC=rather reliable
less tuning and less pipes and less leaks. i think some are plug and play but i could be wrong. idk just from what i have heard from peoples experiences. well thats my .02 cents and i figure ill get flamed for it. ha -pat


----------



## camcojb (Dec 23, 2005)

streetphish2 said:


> i figured i would jump in,
> TURBO=non reliable. i am not that familiar with turbos in the goats, but i know that most engines have more trouble with the tuner then with the turbo itself. Too many people have terrible A/F, lean and then detonation. Or run into so many other problems, but for strict numbers the turbo does the trick. Aint nothing like it pushin 20 lbs.
> SC=rather reliable
> less tuning and less pipes and less leaks. i think some are plug and play but i could be wrong. idk just from what i have heard from peoples experiences. well thats my .02 cents and i figure ill get flamed for it. ha -pat


Turbo's are very reliable, not sure I understand your point. You say non reliable but then seem to defend them. Turbos have been on factory cars and trucks for many more miles than superchargers.

Jody


----------



## Hummer (Jan 16, 2006)

camcojb said:


> Turbo's are very reliable, not sure I understand your point. You say non reliable but then seem to defend them. Turbos have been on factory cars and trucks for many more miles than superchargers.
> 
> Jody


Turbos are reliable in a factory turbo vehicle. They are a lot more tricky when installed aftermarket with added engine management and tuning. My last car was a heavily modified STI and I am ready to go back to superchargers with the GTO. Superchargers deliver smoother linear power with less headaches{and a lot less money} IMO.


----------



## baron_iv (Nov 17, 2005)

The reliability of a forced induction car CAN be equal to a Naturally aspirated car. It does require a bit more maintenance though.
I have had a supercharged vehicle last for 120,000 very HARD miles, but I also took exceptional care of that engine and I did NOT increase the boost to unreasonable amounts.
Now, I had another vehicle, which lasted 2000 miles. I was constantly fiddling with the amount of boost and tuning. No matter who I took it to, they could never get it tuned PROPERLY. 
Proper tuning is the key to a reliable supercharged/turbocharged engine, along with proper maintenance. If you can keep those two things in mind, you'll be just fine...and so will your engine.
I will soon be getting my goat supercharged, and I'll be going with the magnuson. To me, that seems like a no-brainer if you love the low-end torque. I'll also write a full review with dyno sheets and any problems that I ran into along the way as well as any extra maintenance/costs required. It'll be sort of a long-term review. Hopefully that will help someone else make the decision about what they want.
Something else I really need to add...
The 10.9:1 compression ratio of our vehicles are NOT condusive to being able to run a lot of boost, which means you'll never be able to run a LOT of boost without detonation. The guys who are having trouble probably haven't done things the right way, which would begin with LOWERING the compression of the engine before installing the turbo/supercharger. The optimum compression ratio for boosted applications is 9.0:1 or 9.1:1. If you want to build a forced-induction engine that will make serious horsepower (safely), you must lower the compression...period.


----------

