Vote Now Or Forever Hold Your Peace. Super Or Turbo

OK I HAD TO DO IT!

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE FOR WHICH YOU PREFER AND WE WILL GET THIS OVER ONCE AND FOR ALL. YOU CAN POST AN EXPLANATION IF YOU WANT, I'LL LET YOU.

FOR ME I'D SAY TURBO. IT'S ALOT MORE TUNABEL THAN A SUPERCHAGER AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE A PULLEY FOR BOOST. ALTHOUGH I DO LOVE THE WHINE OF A SUPERCHARGER. EVERYBODY KNOWS 93 R/T STEALTH TT'S ANSWER!!!!

IF YOU ARE A NEWBIE AND DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE AND HAVE THE COURAGE TO ASK....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/noshun/FOOL.jpg

I my self will say turbo charger. I love t3h giggle juice and cannot run it on a supercharger. At least the ones made by GM.... vrooooooomm.....pssss.. gotta love BOV's..

I my self will say turbo charger. I love t3h giggle juice and cannot run it on a supercharger. At least the ones made by GM.... vrooooooomm.....pssss.. gotta love BOV's..


pssstttt GM doesnt make superchargers, they borrow them from Eaton. And you can run dry shots through them. And wet shot direct port. Im supercharger all the way, i couldnt be happier with the results and reliability i have gotten from my supercharger. Nothing compares to whine of a supercharger at 6,000 RPMS. And newer superchargers are now being built with wastage gates so you can control the PSI just as easily as a turbo. Not to mention a roots supercharger is just as efficient as a turbo, but doesnt require all the pipping, oil lines, cooling down time, intercoolers, more frequent oil changes, ect.

pssstttt GM doesnt make superchargers, they borrow them from Eaton. And you can run dry shots through them. And wet shot direct port. Im supercharger all the way, i couldnt be happier with the results and reliability i have gotten from my supercharger. Nothing compares to whine of a supercharger at 6,000 RPMS. And newer superchargers are now being built with wastage gates so you can control the PSI just as easily as a turbo. Not to mention a roots supercharger is just as efficient as a turbo, but doesnt require all the pipping, oil lines, cooling down time, intercoolers, more frequent oil changes, ect.

The Eaton Roots style supercharger has a built in Vaccuum plate that works in unison with the throttle to bypass the blower. But even if you can regulate boost. most supercharger applications cannot make as much boost as a turbo. It is a close one for me but I think that I 'JUST' prefer Turbos!

ummm what do you mean cant make as much boost? The eaton M62 blower that is being used on the Redlines and Cobalt SS's, makes 12.6PSI on its stock pulley.

ummm what do you mean cant make as much boost? The eaton M62 blower that is being used on the Redlines and Cobalt SS's, makes 12.6PSI on its stock pulley.

I'm saying that you can only lower the boost and that a t3/t4 hybrid can hit about 25 psi!
T28 30 I think. But i'm sure R/T will correct me!

how do you know you can only lower the boost? The boost is going to be electronically controlled, you most likely will be able to increase the boost. If not you just add a new pulley that makes say 15 PSI, thats alot of PSI to play with. ANd anways even if you could make 25 PSI of boost, that would be the least of your worries. Not many people run 25 PSI of boost on a 4 banger or any street car. Who cares if it makes that much boost, you cant use it.

how do you know you can only lower the boost? The boost is going to be electronically controlled, you most likely will be able to increase the boost. If not you just add a new pulley that makes say 15 PSI, thats alot of PSI to play with. ANd anways even if you could make 25 PSI of boost, that would be the least of your worries. Not many people run 25 PSI of boost on a 4 banger or any street car. Who cares if it makes that much boost, you cant use it.

The only way to 'up' an sc's boost is to change the pulley. It's driven by the pulley and that how it makes boost and the speed it spins is a direct result of engine speed and the s/c's pulley. An s'c that makes 12psi peak with a boost controller will still only make 12 psi max, all the controller will allow is lessend levels of boost!! If you make say 10 psi with you current pulley and want 20 psi the circumference will have to be halved. You can use the equations below.

original pulley= p, it's Diam= d, it's circum = c
new pulley = P, diam = D. circum = C

for p, c=3.142d

for P, C=3.142D

C=2c therefore

C= 2(3.142d)

C/2 = 3.142d

d = (C/2)/3.142

and C = 3.142D

so d =(3.142D/2)/3.142

d/3.142= 3.142D/2

2(d/3.142) = 3.142D

and so

D= 2(d/3.142)/3.142

3.142 is pi the T thing with 2 stalks



so if the orig diam for 10 psi was say 3" then the diam of the pulley for 20 psi would have to be

D = 2(3/3.142)/3.142

D= 2(0.955)/3.142

D= 1.91/3.142

D= 0.6" or 6 tenths! So would have to be damn small!!

duh, but who says that the charger on its stock pulley only makes 12.6PSI of boost. Maybe GM just limited it to 12.6PSI of boost. Ever think of that? AND NEW SUPERCHARGERS ARE BUILT WITH WASTAGES! How do you know GM doesnt set the wastage to 12.6PSI? It has a wastage for reason. If all the charger could make was 12.6PSI of boost, why would they put a wastage on it?

duh, but who says that the charger on its stock pulley only makes 12.6PSI of boost. Maybe GM just limited it to 12.6PSI of boost. Ever think of that? AND NEW SUPERCHARGERS ARE BUILT WITH WASTAGES! How do you know GM doesnt set the wastage to 12.6PSI? It has a wastage for reason. If all the charger could make was 12.6PSI of boost, why would they put a wastage on it?


It's an Eaton M62. They don't make much more then that by design!!

Also the likelyhood of GM putting in an electrical device to lower the boost is extremely unlikely as they would not put something that would cost mare in the car, they would work with Eaton to see what level of boost they want and then go from there and make the correct sized pulley.

Also those equations need to used for the running surface of the pulley that the belt runs on not the outer flange!

This is the Eaton website

http://www.automotive.eaton.com/product/engine_controls/superchargers/whysuperchargers.asp

absolutely no mention of a wastegate. Anyhow a wastegate is part of a turbo that allows exhaust gasses to by pass the turbo to limit the boost. A boost controller changes the signal to the wastegate and stop it from opening as soon. You can also change the Actuator to highten the boost. The only way the boost is controlled on the Eaton SC is though the Vaccuum valve which just cuts the sc out completely!

that website is out dated. If you look at their stats, the Eaton M62 blower should only be making around 5-7 PSI at 65000 RPMS, thats not the case. The Ion redline with the Eaton M62 blower makes 12.6 PSI and revs to something like 6500 RPMS. I wouldnt use that website as a judge anyways, it shows very very little technical data about the superchargers.

here's my view on the two..

Everyone knows Superchargers run off the pulleys, so they are limited by the speed of the engine.

And of course everyone knows Turbos run off the exhaust gas pressure, so they are limited by the speed of the air leaving the motor.

Think about this. Engine speed is linear, meaning from 1rpm to 10,000rpm, speed is consistent. Air speed is different, say you have 2.2 liters of displacement, it takes 2.2 liters of air/fuel to fill the cylinders, but when that air/fuel is ignited and released into the manifold it becomes something like four times that amount (not sure, not a scientist but you can imagine how much it expands)

There is alot more room for speed with a turbo.

if turbos are so great, how come top fuel dragsters dont use them?

jayson,how many psi of boost are you pushing through yur s.c. to run into the 14's??

both are nice... but id have to say supercharger because its using wasted energy

4.5 PSI, and mangoamerica, please tell me you made a typo.

if turbos are so great, how come top fuel dragsters dont use them?

If you know what fuel 'top fuel' dragters run, you'll know why! A Turbo gets' litterally red hot and usually glow! I know someone who used to light ciggarette off of a T2 turbo on an english Ford Fiesta RS Turbo.

If you had methanol running though a red hot turbo the best way the turbo wouldn't last too long but the worst way, BANG!!!!!! It's like saying why don't they make blimps full off Hydrogen anymore the the hindenburg!! It's far too volatile to run through I turbo. It would blow the car to kingdom come!!!

Both are fun, but blowers are a bit easier on the oil.

Besides my buick turbo seized (it had oil up to this point) on I-4 in orlando. rods and crap all over the road, had to close the lane for clean up. It was an ugly mid-80's model anyway. After that I got a nice 413 wedge, dual quad, N/A. No more problems.

I vote for Supercharger. (unless I build a diesel generator)

Turbo a Top Fuel?

That would be catastrophic! They are running 90% Nitro Methane! BOOOM! Superchargers are safer yes?

Turbo a Top Fuel?

That would be catastrophic! They are running 90% Nitro Methane! BOOOM! Superchargers are safer yes?


Grazi. We all know he has a Supercharger and that's cool but he needs to justify it! I don't know why, If he has a sweet ride and he likes it I don't know why he has to bring the beef!

4.5 PSI, and mangoamerica, please tell me you made a typo.
really?!? thats it....you think yur safe to run 6-8lbs??

yeah the fuel mods i have and engine would be more than fine at 6-8 PSI, i wouldnt be worried till i got to 10 PSI. I can easily get 6-8 PSI if i get a smaller puller, 2.7 inch instead of the 2.8 inch.

NA all the way!

Then you can laugh at all the forced induction guys...

A lot more work though

NA all the way!

Then you can laugh at all the forced induction guys...

A lot more work though

But you can't go as high as with forced induction. With the same type of work just parts with different specs used to get say the ld9 to about 250hp which could be possible with comp ratio at about 11:1. Changing the same internal and then glueing on a turbo would yield a lot higher number. Obviously I mean lowering compression and not raising it and just using harder valve spring, valves rods etc. Turbo would more than likely work best on stock cams instead of pref cams so there some saving for the turbo there and then when installed and the boost dialled in possibly up to 20 psi you could be looking at a motor that runs in excess of 300 hp for a little more green at this point! So all though NA is better for circuit racing you won't get FI results without FI!

what is not to love aout turbos? Vrroooooom (spool) VVVWWAAAHHHH PSSST! you dont even need a radio because that blowoff valve NEVER get's old.

a twin turbo setup whips a supercharger any day. You get the high boost potential of the turbo setup, with lots free revs, and you dont get the parasitic drag of a big pulley. Turbos are great on smaller 4 and six cylinders, due to them more readily revving higher. Superchargers are great on v8's, cuz that parasitic drag does not cost them as much as the tiny 4 banger. Now, a twin turbo, or even a single, on a v8 setup, thats the awesomest thing you ever seen.

oh yea, and that turbo sounds is awesome, but a supercharger whine with a big ass exhaust note is kick ass as well.

a twin turbo setup whips a supercharger any day. You get the high boost potential of the turbo setup, with lots free revs, and you dont get the parasitic drag of a big pulley. Turbos are great on smaller 4 and six cylinders, due to them more readily revving higher. Superchargers are great on v8's, cuz that parasitic drag does not cost them as much as the tiny 4 banger. Now, a twin turbo, or even a single, on a v8 setup, thats the awesomest thing you ever seen.

but what about the huge back pressure a turbo creates? neither system is flawless!

you are correct, and both systems only create those awesome performance numbers with unrestricted flow infront of and behind the engine(intake/exhaust)

One thing I love about the sound of a supercharged V-8 is the way it idles, up and down, up and down.

Come on, it changes with the car, a old big enigine should use a supercharger and a small new civic like engine should use a turbo!

Come on, it changes with the car, a old big enigine should use a supercharger and a small new civic like engine should use a turbo!

please explain to us all why this is so?

please explain to us all why this is so?

yeah bwoi, splain you-self!

I think he says that because that is how it traditionally is, personally I feel that whatever boost you want you should have, he just bases his argument around what SPIKE TV tells him...

psst guess what turbo uses excess power to make power supercharges take power and put more back in even though i still prefer the supercharged

they both take power they both give power. i personaly like the turbo myself

personally I feel that whatever boost you want you should have
I guess ure rite there. Now correct me if im wrong, but, a supercharger could yeild higher hp gains than a turbo, but its goin to take up a lot more space. Try cramming another 120+ CI under a Focus' hood.

i would have to say turbo cuz they have more potential then super chargers....25 PSI is alot and most likely would never be used on a 4 banger but you can keep the same turbo and when you do more work on the engine...you can up the psi without upgrading the charger itself

i would have to say turbo cuz they have more potential then super chargers....25 PSI is alot and most likely would never be used on a 4 banger but you can keep the same turbo and when you do more work on the engine...you can up the psi without upgrading the charger itself

most turbos that you would pout on a 4 cyl would only be capable of about 18psi max and if you usually run less this would be pointless as you'd only screw yourself with turbo lag. for a fwd 4 banger a centrifugal sc with intercooler is best as it doesn't give a shit load of low end power/toque and so you can pull away better without shredding your tires and busting clutches, grenading transmissions etc. Power is nothing without control! -Words to live by!

id say sc just b/c of the turbo lag u can get and i like my car to be more responsive. Although turbos have come a long ways there is still lag there no matter what so my vote is sc and jayson is right bout the amount of boost u can only use so much.

I would have to say turbo theres much more potential than a s/c by almost any means unless you have a huge s/c with a small ass pulley, im talking a kenne bell 2.4 with a 2.6 inch pulley. They both have there good sides and there dark sides. For instance a turbo can make more boost but theres the dreaded turbo lag, and a s/c can make more but you need a smaller pulley and considering how many pulleys we send out a week that seems to be a really trustworthy option. But everyone over looks one thing a root style s/c can make boost up to a certain point after that point the air starts to keep spinning with the screws and it no longer forces the huge amounts of air into the motor they get stuck in the screw spiral. And centrifugal superchargers can only spin up to a certain rpm before you see the transmission on the s/c get fucked up(we have about 7 or so of these in the shop mainly novi 2000's) or it stops making boost. Who said that a s/c needs a wastegate thats like a saying a roots style s/c needs a BOV.

But im more into imports so the turbo is more than likely the better option yeah there is turbo lag but once the turbo is spooled up to a constant speed there is no way for it drop pressure other than drag on the bearings and so forth. My vote turbo but theres is no sound like a s/c wining as it gets up some rpm.

left foot breaking or a anti lag system cure lag! Lag in a fwd car can be beneficial anyhow or you just spin the tires and go nowhere!

Lag in a fwd car can be beneficial anyhow or you just spin the tires and go nowhere!

TRUE!
This is where a supercharged FWD would be beat in a road race with a Turbo FWD. Too much low end. RWD would benefit more from a SC due to the weight transfer to the rear wheels. I still believe a turbo can do a lot more, FWD or RWD, much more top end.

most turbos that you would pout on a 4 cyl would only be capable of about 18psi max and if you usually run less this would be pointless as you'd only screw yourself with turbo lag. for a fwd 4 banger a centrifugal sc with intercooler is best as it doesn't give a shit load of low end power/toque and so you can pull away better without shredding your tires and busting clutches, grenading transmissions etc. Power is nothing without control! -Words to live by!

low end torque is not really a problem with the right suspension and tires. I run 2.0 flat 60s on stock tires and suspension. Also a centrifigual s/c is the worst kind of FI. Its the most inneficient. Grant it that it can be intercooled, but if im gonna use an intercooler im gonna use a turbo.

low end torque is not really a problem with the right suspension and tires. I run 2.0 flat 60s on stock tires and suspension. Also a centrifigual s/c is the worst kind of FI. Its the most inneficient. Grant it that it can be intercooled, but if im gonna use an intercooler im gonna use a turbo.

that only depends on who made the blower and what profile the veins on the compressor wheel have and what is used for the step-up trans be it chain gears, belt of traction rollers

Supercharger gets my vote. Why? Because it is easier to maintain than a turbo, and you don't get any turbo lag. Power is there when you want it.

When I drove my friends 04 Neon SRT, the boost gauge jumped to 14 PSI almost instanly when I floored it at about 2,400 RPM, lag was only a tenth of a second or two, plus a turbo keeps that 14 PSI to redline, where a SC would drop boost at higher revs. SC are easier to maintain though, but a turbo is TITS!

When I drove my friends 04 Neon SRT, the boost gauge jumped to 14 PSI almost instanly when I floored it at about 2,400 RPM, lag was only a tenth of a second or two, plus a turbo keeps that 14 PSI to redline, where a SC would drop boost at higher revs. SC are easier to maintain though, but a turbo is TITS!


a supercharger drops boost in higher rpms? Thats news to me. In case you dont know, the faster the engine spins (RPMS) the faster the charger spins. Boost does not drop in higher RPMS with a supercharger, it increases. . .

Man i wish some people would at least look into it before saying something like that. First off the supercharger is just like the turbo once spinning it is free to go but as it drops rpms it needs to be spooled up again just like a turbo. The only difference is that instead of exhaust spinning the s/c its a gear box driven off the motors belt system. Once the s/c reaches a certain rpm however it will no longer be able to make boost mainly because the gearing on it can only handle a certain rpm range. Unlike the s/c however the turbo has the possibility im not saying it will but it can spin up to 1 million rpm if the bearings, the turbo housing, impeller and any other moving parts on the turbo can handle that speed only because the turbo is a direct drive shaft and not a gearbox.

To the comment on centrifugal s/c being inefficient we have people racing making well over 50psi on that type of blower considering they need high rpm to make bosst yeah there inefficient that way. Unlike the roots style s/c which makes its power at low rpm they each have there advantages and disadvanteges low rpm power but limited boost, or high rpm and an insane amount of boost. I still say turbo for high revving motors and supercharger for low revving motors, its all about how much power you want.

i can run my supercharger up to 6500 RPMS and the whole time it will hold boost all the way. It doesnt drop. ANd this is with a smaller pulley.

6500 rpm isn't high! also roots s/c do loose stop produncing bost when they spin above a certain rpm this is becuase of their desin, also centrifugal blowers cannot spin above a certain speed because you get two problems, pulsing where the boost produced can not go into the motor quick enough and it cause pulses in the charge pipes and it makes a loud sound and ultimately destros tha thrust beaing inside the compressor wheel. Also if the tip of the veins travel faster than the speed of sound it will go into 'choke' this is where air cannot be pulled into the compressor as it travels too fast and it 'cjokes' the motor! it's not just a case of the faster it sping the more boost.

i can run my supercharger up to 6500 RPMS and the whole time it will hold boost all the way. It doesnt drop. ANd this is with a smaller pulley.

Of course, that's because the SC is producing more boost then needed, which is normal. The amount of boost USED and displayed on your gauge stays the same, because it is limited to 7 PSI, or whatever you have it set to. The SC maybe making 20psi at 4000rpm and 10psi at 6500 psi, but the gause will still display 7psi, or whetever it's set to. When the RPMs increase, as noshun said, there is a design problem in regards to the aerodynamics of the blower, and boost will drop. Correct me if I'm wrong, like you thought earlier, LOL!

-

From my understanding of the basics of boost, superchargers use the mechanical power of the engine (belt, etc.) which is limited by redline. Turbos, of course, are powered by the amount of air moving through/out of the engine. A turbo is limited by the maximum speed/amount of the air leaving the engine, which increases dramatically with higher RPMs, and can also change with throttle position.

Think, common sense, an engine at a constant RPM speed spins a SC at the same speed. Let's say the engine is turning 4000 RPM and, imagine this, the engine cannot deviate from that speed, regardless of throttle position. The SC will keep the same amount of boost whether it's WOT or not, but the amount of air moving through the engine will change with throtle position, even at the same speed/RPM.

Now imagine the same scenario except it's a turbo setup, when throttle position changes the amount of boost will change, even though the engine remains at 4000 RPM, due to the change in the amount of AIR moving through the engine.

Is anybody following me on this? Sometimes I go into too much detail and it confuses people, you may have to read it a couple times to get my point.



But the point remains, a SC runs STRICTY off the speed of the ENGINE, the air exiting the motor has no affect on produced boost.

The turbo runs STRICTLY off the speed of the AIR exiting the engine, engine speed has SOME affect to produced boost because the motor moves more AIR with more engine speed.

So I'm saying air speed has more potential to create power versus engine speed. There's my post for the day...

uhhh thanks captain obvious. . . you have shown us your never ending knowledge by telling us the difference between a supercharger and a blower. Please can you now teach us the difference between a V8 and an I4? Just try not to use so much detail this time, all those numbers and physics you were talking about were to much, oh wait you didnt talk about anything that wasnt beyond a very basic understand of superchargers and turbos.

Im not gonna say that superchargers dont have a mechanical limit, but incase you dont know, turbos have a mechanical limit as well. Lets do a comparison. A eatonm45 which is a smaller supercharger, compared to a T3 turbo. Lets use the same engine in our comparison, the LD9. The eaton M45 supercharger i have seen make 10 PSI with smaller pullies. And its still being efficient. The turbo will only be able to make about 10 PSI as well and still be efficienty. Sure you might be able to get it higher, but turbos that are making more PSI than what there efficiency level is are just wasting air and burning up the turbo and destroying the bearings. Not to mention its making a shit load of head for the engine.

The more important thing when it comes to forced induction isnt PSI. Its how much CFM or volume of air the machine can punch into the engine. Its also its efficiency. You can have a t3 turbo pushing 15 PSI with say 1500 CFM of air, but that air is going to be really hot, so the engine is going to retard its timing to prevent detonation so you will actually lose power, unless the turbo is intercooled enough. But an intercooler causes you to lose about 1-2 PSI. With a supercharger you still have the same problem but to a lesser effect. Compressed air means heat, there is no way around that. THe more you compress the more heat you generate. But a supercharger will create less heat when compressing air than a turbo because of the fact that the turbo is driven off the exhaust gases.

I know turbos are more efficient that superchargers. That should be obvious. But in my eyes a supercharger is way more refined than a turbo. With a supercharger you just bolt it on and go. Its completely self contained. YOu dont have to worry about overboosting, its always the same PSI. With a turbo you have to tap your oil pan, run oil through it, deal with it leaking oil (most turbos leak a very small amount of oil, its normal), worry about overboosting and destroying your engine, changing your oil more frequently, adding an intercooler, running all the pipping thats needed, and all the complications that come along with turbos.

This thread sucks.

Yeah, I agree that a SC is much cheaper and it's easier to maintain and install, plus it is safer.

I was pointing to the difference in air and engine speed as means to produce extra power, not so much the diff. in SC and turbo.

Engine speed is linear, from 500 to 5000rpm.
Air, as in CFM, is not linear, it can be different at the same RPM depending on throttle position. My point was the fact that exhaust CFM is much higher than intake CFM, because of combustion.

This may be obvious to you and I, I was just stating this for the non-performance oriented. Thanks for the nickname, captain obvious is hilarious.

oh yea, and that turbo sounds is awesome, but a supercharger whine with a big ass exhaust note is kick ass as well.

Agreed. I love the whine of a supercharger.

PS- is your handle supposed to say "cavimportstomper"? Just cursious....

ok i don't come here often because of all the bs. but i can now talk from first hand experience. i now know 3 people currently running the Eaton M45 all at 8 psi. a guy (sponsored by rsm black and silver cav with oragne strip name is steve borgsman) had the gm charger then rsm installed the vortech running 8psi. he prefers the vortech but i don't know if he's just saying that due to sponsorship. i do however have a buddy that has a turbo'd sunfire recently completed. running 14 psi although the turbo is huge and well capable of up to 25 psi if he dropped the comp ratio. This car is by far faster then all of the s/c'd cars. the vortech is probably slowest as it is a full show car running four twelves in the trunk and a fuk load of amps (also sponsored by polk momo!) so in my opinion talking from experience i would turbo my car and am currently considering it seeing as i now have someone to fully guide me through it. so i would most definitely go turbo and make a custom kit similar to my friend chris. he set out to make it look 100% stock and it does. i'll get a vid tonight if i can.

I'm too lazy to read this entire thread..but did anyone point out that when you turbo a Z24 Manual you run a really high risk of frying your shifter linkages due to the turbo's heat?

...just a heads up, buddy.

LOL...this thread went pretty hardcore in the debate...personally if i had the money to burn i would keep mine n\a and work it so much that its almost if not JUST as fast as any turbo or sc cav or sunfire...but i dont have that kinda funding..so if i had to pick it would prolly be the SC just becuz its safer..simple to maintain..just as effective as a street car, you go with a turbo and your going to have to work the internals to a crazy degree to be able to manage the high compression cuz if you dont then BOOM!!! dish out some money for a new engine...with the SC just strap and go with 4-5 psi...maybe change some pistons...7-8psi..point being..ya the turbos got more potential..but really...on the street you cant use the full out power..and on the track..your gonna have to have some more work besides just the SC or turbo...so for a SC change the pully..and put some better internals and raise the psi...turbo..raise the psi and run the risk of frying the linkages of the shifter on the Z24 and also launching the rods thru the hood (ive seen it done before funny shit)
so id have to vote for the SC

LOL...this thread went pretty hardcore in the debate...personally if i had the money to burn i would keep mine n\a and work it so much that its almost if not JUST as fast as any turbo or sc cav or sunfire...but i dont have that kinda funding..so if i had to pick it would prolly be the SC just becuz its safer..simple to maintain..just as effective as a street car, you go with a turbo and your going to have to work the internals to a crazy degree to be able to manage the high compression cuz if you dont then BOOM!!! dish out some money for a new engine...with the SC just strap and go with 4-5 psi...maybe change some pistons...7-8psi..point being..ya the turbos got more potential..but really...on the street you cant use the full out power..and on the track..your gonna have to have some more work besides just the SC or turbo...so for a SC change the pully..and put some better internals and raise the psi...turbo..raise the psi and run the risk of frying the linkages of the shifter on the Z24 and also launching the rods thru the hood (ive seen it done before funny shit)
so id have to vote for the SC

not true. my buddies turbo fire makes near 300 crank! good luck making and ld9 do that n/a!!! this car is wat faster than any of the s/c cavs i know

300 Horses? An LD9, Supercharger, smaller pulley, intake/exhaust/headers and some better pistons and cams. You should wind up just passing the 300 HP mark and it'd be relatively constant boost over a turbo.