Forced Induction

Alright, I'm concidering a 93-02 camaro z28 5.7 liter, but I was wondering which would be better for it, Supercharger or a Turbocharger, I'd like to hear any suggestions and if you know where I can find some for a newer camaro I'd love for you to share, suggestions and reasons are greatly appreciated

supercharger. no doubt. i dont think anyone will disagree with me on this one. superchargers are for low revving high torque engines (v8s). turbos are for low displacement high revving engines. most imports would fall into that category. except bmws, they are pretty low revving too... some factory bmws come with superchargers.

I'd say Turbo. Don't see too many turbo'd V8's. I don't know where to find them but i'm sure Google would tell you. There are many superchargers. JUST TRY A SEARCH.

A S/C because for a Cmamaro it's cheaper, more available, and in an already cramped engine bay easier to install.

Yeah my thoughts were first set to supercharger too, and plus, when you think american cars you dont think turbo... you think SUPERCHARGERS, but now, if anyone has suggestions for superchargers i'm up for it, would a 4.5 lb or a 6 lb be better overall for the camaro?

:rolleyes:

I would say, don't waste your time with a supercharger. The bad aspects outweigh the good. The turbo is by far your best option and I don't get why most people don't see this. With that engine you already have plenty of low-end torque which presents traction problems as it is. With the supercharger you're only adding to that. With the turbo you've already gotten traction on the launch by the time it spools up and then your car takes off. It is what a friend of mine called a cargasm. :iceslolan

In every aspect the turbo is the better option.

I'm not a big american muscle fan. But regardless of motor type a turbo makes the most sense. Superchargers use up so much power just to spool up. Turbos use the energy that would normally just go to waste. Backpressure is not a real issue, takes about 10 hp to spool a Turbo. With a good turbo kit lag is not much of a factor

supercharger. no doubt. i dont think anyone will disagree with me on this one. superchargers are for low revving high torque engines (v8s). turbos are for low displacement high revving engines. most imports would fall into that category. except bmws, they are pretty low revving too... some factory bmws come with superchargers.

Turbo Chargers work regardless of revs. Aircraft engines use turbo's all the time. An opposed 6 cylinder aviation engine makes it's full rated hp at about 3000 rpm. Diesel truck engines turbo up to insane numbers like 30 psi and they are not "high" revving

theres a vid floating round the net of a guy with a LS1 trans am turboed doing 180 all i'm going to say.

supercharger or turbo both will boast the car a bunch! but granted you got the low end torque and what not go turbo.

I've seen turbo V8 S-10's at the track and wow! not to mention look at all the vettes that ligenfelter and calloway did turbo ;) turbo's will take off like a raped ape in the high end.

I dont regret going the supercharger route it hauls ass up to 6 grand, the most my car has seen is 5 grand in 5th and I believe thats roughly 147 in my car with the gear ratios and all.

If you have a lot of cash, go with the Turbo. If your on a budget, go with a Centi Supercharger, they act just like a turbo, just use power off the crank to spool. If you want more torque, then go with a Roots. Roots will use more gas generally.

Its amazing that people think that all superchargers are created equally, producing more torque, its only the Roots that do that.

I don't know how you can say a Turbo is always the best option. I think to many of you have the cost of owning a turboed from the factor or using a junkyard donor in your heads. For a Mustang it will always cost way more to Turbo it than S/C both being brand new. Plus money or your time spent on installation is much less.

Also I think many of you think to much of the parasitic loss caused by the old screw style blowers. Just like turbos have been improved to reduce lag S/C have been dsigned to be more effiecient. Also like Skyline said there are many different types of S/C. A centrifugal S/C is basically a turbo running on a pulley and in being so will not make torque and low-end power like a roots or twin-screw but will make more top-end HP like a turbo.

Ya, what he said. :)

Alright, any good brands/sites to find em at you would recommend? turbos and superchargers, price isnt an issue(yet) but i'm sure it will be

How's about a remote located turbo?
http://www.ststurbo.com/featured_products
Doesn't sound or look to bad and its only 3k for an Lt1 kit.

go turbo if you have the money!

Ok, time for the voice of experience to speak. <cracks knuckles>

Turbochargers are capable of producing incredible torque at very low engine speeds.

I'll cite first the Audi 2.2 liter 5 cylinder, which makes 258lb-ft@1950rpm. That's 117lb-ft/liter, and you'll be hard pressed to find diesels that make that kind of torque. How does it do this? High static compression, and a boost controller with a knock sensor integral to it. It has 9.3:1 compression, so there is lots of exhaust pressure to spool that turbo, even as low as 1200rpm. This is with an old sleeve bearing turbo too, not like the fancy dual ball bearing units we have these days, which can spool even faster.

http://www.s-cars.org/urs4s6/Tech/tech.html

The VW 1.8t engine, is built on the same architecture as the 2.2 5 cylinder, but with a newer turbocharger. This engine has lower compression at 9.0:1, but is less undersquare, so it only makes 207lb-ft@2200 rpm, for a specific output of 115lb-ft/liter.

The big advantage here that that torque holds it's peak all the way from those low RPMs right through to 5000rpm. So who says that turbos can't make low end torque? People who don't know about turbo tuning :iceslolan

I've got another question, if i wont really have an every day driver, should i plan on doing this or waiting till i have another car to drive for everyday driving?

What's wrong with having a turbo on an everyday-use car? Where I am (Melbourne), and more specifically my suburb's area, there is a very high amount of cars that people use every day with turbo on them. Granted, heaps of them are sports cars (Skylines, Supras, etc... we sat around one day watching them drive past and an average of every 4/5 cars was a sports car) but it shouldn't make that huge a difference on your everyday driving. Fuel usage isn't increased by much and the overall driving experience should be more fun for you. :iceslolan

If you put a T100 on a car, with say 272in/ex cams. That is a Turbo, is it streetable, hell no.

Look, its the whole marriage on the engine components, tune, clutch, tranny gearing, rear end gears and tires that make a car streetable, not just saying a turbo or a superchargers is better for the street.

You screw up on one component, it is not streetable.

Blanket statements do not work.

A centrifugal S/C is basically a turbo running on a pulley
What truly is the difference between a centrifugal supercharger and a turbocharger besides the fact one uses a belt? As CBass stated turbos are capable of making large torque a low rpms, is the only real difference that centrifugals will never have a "lag" problem regardless of boost settings?

"capable of making large torque a low rpms"

So can a N/A engine. :)

"capable of making large torque a low rpms"

So can a N/A engine. :)

But not as much as a f/i engine of the same size.

"But not as much as a f/i engine of the same size."

Duh

Hmm, well... Question is who can tune your car if you go with a turbo? I always hear more horror stories about turbos than sc when it comes to the tune, cost, and engines crapping out. :dunno:

Do they insall different engine management systems for a turbo? Tuning incompasses the same for both.

Do they insall different engine management systems for a turbo? Tuning incompasses the same for both.
Being that there isnt that many turboed V8s running around, its safe for me to assume that there arent many places that can tune one so it wont eff up on you :dunno:

A tuner should not care what type of forced induction is being used.

"But not as much as a f/i engine of the same size."

Duh

Just replying to your blatantly obvious statement with another.

fatninja19,

Everything is subject to laws of physics, so in a way all these statements are pretty obvious.

fatninja19,

Everything is subject to laws of physics, so in a way all these statements are pretty obvious.

True, but some things are more obvious than others. :icon16:
Like common sense.

Tru Dat! :biggrin:

Centrifugal is just the type of compressor wheel. So i would say that besides the belt and gears not a whole bunch

What truly is the difference between a centrifugal supercharger and a turbocharger besides the fact one uses a belt? As CBass stated turbos are capable of making large torque a low rpms, is the only real difference that centrifugals will never have a "lag" problem regardless of boost settings?

Anything can be set-up to make large torque numbers at low-rpms or high hp numbers at the top end, it's just that some designs will inherently do one better than the other. CBass gave an excellent example of a turbo making low-end torque but the cars top-end hp is down for a turbo engine of that size. It's all about trade-offs and choosing which part is best suited for what you want to do.

With that being said a Centrifugal will make more torque 90% of the time than a turbo but usually less than any screw type S/C. Centrifgual don't have lag but the do need some rpm's before cranking out full boost but nothing like a turbo in comparisions. A centrifugal will make 90% of the time more top-end hp than a screw style compressor but less than a turbo. These are what each does well and what they do best but like anything you can force it to do something else.

So it makes more top end the the screw type, but what about the root blowers? Is there any advantage a centrifigul has over that?

So it makes more top end the the screw type, but what about the root blowers? Is there any advantage a centrifigul has over that?


They're generally more efficient, produce more boost uptop, generate less heat.

Plus you can intercool them, I don't think I've ever seen a roots with any type of intercooling system.

Just to clarify NO BMW's cane factory with a supercharger. NONE. I know i usta work for them. Infact they had turbochargers. in the 2002, and ther european turbo desiels:)

Tim

They're generally more efficient, produce more boost uptop, generate less heat.

Plus you can intercool them, I don't think I've ever seen a roots with any type of intercooling system.

Oh no my Chevy driving friend look no further than the Ford Lightning for a intercooled roots S/C. :biggrin:

A turbo can make just as much torque as a supercharger, there are just a lot of variables concerning where and when that torque is.

Those Audi and VW engines are undersquare, and have high static compression, which makes them torquey to start with, and makes for lots of off boost exhaust gas pressure to the turbines, for quick spool up even at very low rpms. The turbos keep those cylinders stuff full of the good stuff, and the result is massive torque all throughout the street range of engine speed, 2000-5000rpm. It's a street motor, if it was a track motor, you could retune it with a little lower compression, some longer duration cams, and more boost, and your peak torque would be more, and at a higher rpm, making it less streetable.

Now, most diesels i know are either n/a or turbocharged. how popular are s/c'ed diesels out there? What would be the pro's/con's of s/c'd diesel?

Now, most diesels i know are either n/a or turbocharged. how popular are s/c'ed diesels out there? What would be the pro's/con's of s/c'd diesel?


The old roots blower design like the 6-71 and 8-71 for instance were originally used on old Catapillar Diesel motors if I remember right.


It was either Catapillar or Detroit diesels... I'm drawing a blank. :banghead:

Oh no my Chevy driving friend look no further than the Ford Lightning for a intercooled roots S/C.
Ya know that popped into my head hence why I was going to make this reply, but ya beat me to it :smokin:
Same goes for the Cobra right?

Personally I'm going with a Procharger brand centrifigul for the S-10, comes with a 3-core intercooler so heat shouldn't be a big deal.

Yes the 03 Cobra is also, sorry I shoulda said that too.

For a S/C I would want either Kenne Bell's 2 screw autorotor liquid coooled or a Vortech centrifugal liquid cooled.

Personally I'm going with a Procharger brand centrifigul for the S-10, comes with a 3-core intercooler so heat shouldn't be a big deal.


Ya!! Procharger is badddd!!!

Yeah I don't really have a choice when it comes to the different types of superchargers though, from what all I've seen there is no twin screw or roots blower for the 4.3

The old roots blower design like the 6-71 and 8-71 for instance were originally used on old Catapillar Diesel motors if I remember right.


It was either Catapillar or Detroit diesels... I'm drawing a blank. :banghead:

Actually, Redneck, it was GMC truck diesels that first received the classic 6-71 blower. Set the way back machine to (I believe) the mid-thirties to see these boost beasts in their factory application.

Actually, superchargers were pretty common during the first golden age of motoring. Alfa Romeo, Bugatti, Bentley, Auburn, Duesenberg, and Mercedes-Benz all used them on their biggest and brightest of motoring masterpieces.

Look at Kenne Bell he might make one for the Chevy 4.3

Even if they do though it probably doesn't have the option for a intercooler, there isn't any kit out there on the market right now from a company that provides one. The one I'm buying is something customized a guy made himself which basically uses a lot of parts from Procharger. Sure I don't really need the intercooler and just run a lower boost setting, but I'm kinda liking the fact that I can use 10 psi and not have any problems on a stock engine. No risk of detonation or anything like that.

The last KB I worked with ('03 Cobra) ate itself alive. It's a trash can in the shop now. The Lightning intercooler is pretty intriguing. It's nice to see that Ford improves on their products as opposed to GM's idea of improvement(let's make EVERYTHING look retro).

Did I also read something about turbos only working well on low displacement, high revving motors? Hah, that's good shit. I better tell that to Dan Millen and Bob Reiger so they can take the turbos off their cars. :uhoh:

Hmm... Last I checked GM was going with different style themes for all their divisions (Chevy=bold heritage styling, Pontiac= aggresive European style, Buick= what Buick has always done since it's a lame duck division, Saturn= continue to develop separate brand image, Cadillac= hard edged "angry appliances", and so forth) while Ford was concentrating on digging old designs out of the closet and rehashing them ('05 Mustang, '02 Thunderbird, 427 concept, Forty-Nine concept and so on).

Makes me wonder if the next generation of Focuses will have styling cues lifted from the Pinto.

As a professional mechanic, I can tell you that Ford's so-called "improvements" are more of a bother and waste of money than anything else. For instance, the belt tensioner on 1997 Lincoln MkVIII's was one huge integrated bracket/pulley that costs about $400 to replace, as opposed to a single removable pulley like they'd used the year before which only cost about $75. And guess what, that bracket pulley had a tendency to grenade its bearings over 100,000miles with little warning in the way of noise or vibration. as one of my customers learned. Cost him not only that $400 bracket, but also a water pump, a belt, and a radiator (the shrapnel from the blown pulley bearings went through the radiator).

Yeah, big improvement.

Everyone is starting to do a little of the retro look. Dodge and the giant front end of that Ram, based off their older trucks. Chevy has the SSR which again is based off an older truck. And of course Ford, which has already been said so not bothering...

Even if they do though it probably doesn't have the option for a intercooler, there isn't any kit out there on the market right now from a company that provides one. The one I'm buying is something customized a guy made himself which basically uses a lot of parts from Procharger. Sure I don't really need the intercooler and just run a lower boost setting, but I'm kinda liking the fact that I can use 10 psi and not have any problems on a stock engine. No risk of detonation or anything like that.

How long untill you get the s/c??

I'm hoping by mid summer to have saved enough.