Supercharger..................................???

I was browsing CarDomain, and I saw a z24 with a supercharger. it's basically just throw it in, get a bigger belt and that's it for one of those, much easier than turbo, but where can you buy one for a 97 z24? I can't find it, I'm thinking about one.

#1 they don't make one for your car, alot of stuff has to be customised to put it on and you will need HP Tuners or equivelant tuning software.
#2 it is not as easy and throw it on and you done.
#3 If you do want one, you need to look for one for a 2000 and up Z-24 Manual.
#4 GM sales them and a couple more companies but they are few. Best bet goto GM.
#5 This will cost you 2 times what a good turbo setup will
#6 A turbo is better hands down. :grinyes:

Good luck either way you go. If you are truely interested I will find the companies who sale them other then GM.

make up your mind, which is it??

#1 they dont make them, or
#4 they do make them???

Oh god, they dont make one for a 97 but they make super chargers for 2000+ and if he wants to buy a supercharger and put it in his car, he has to buy one that was made for a 2000+ z24 manual and do ALOT of custom work to make it fit and working, a turbo would be SOOOO much easier to install then a supercharger in his situation... and a turbo is better then a supercharger in the long run...

actally a supercharger is alot easier to put on and is more reliable than a turbo

Perhaps you missed #3 Jakegday

#3 If you do want one, you need to look for one for a 2000 and up Z-24 Manual.

Yeah, because the supercharger is not for a 97 z24, he has to modify the 2000+ z24 supercharger to work with his 97 z24...

word. i would also go with a supercharger over a turbo. easier to install, easier to maintain, and easier on the engine. that and i just personally love the whine..... it should fit any 2.4 twin cam, they are the same engine. i dont see any need to fabricate anything, i could be wrong, i dunno...and it would not be harder to install than a turbo, not by a long shot. u wouldnt have to worry about nearly as many vaccuum lines, oil lines, blah blah blah... go with the supercharger, even IF it may take some work, it would still be worth it.

I am not trying to start a fight or an argument here by no means. But why does everyone thing a supercharger is so much easier to maintain and more reliable then a turbo? I have been around vehicles and working on them for almost 18 years now. And in my time i have seen just as many superchargers cause problems as turbos. The only diffrence is, is with a turbo you should change your oil more often.

Also I don't remember what all has to be done, but I used to have the write up on how to mount the 2000+ GM s/c onto the 96-99 2.4. I will try to find that info for everyone again when i get home tonight.

Straight off the GM Direct Parts website...


DESCRIPTION: 2.4L Twin Cam Supercharger

(Cavalier, Sunfire, Grand Am, Alero)

Add up to 50 HP and 40 lb-ft. of torque! Designed for 2000-2002 GM vehicles equipped with the 2.4 liter twin cam engine (engine code RPO LD9). Kit includes all mounting brackets, air ducts, adapters, Gen II MAP sensor and spark plugs. Can be installed with normal hand tools. Includes new serpentine drive belt.

1 - Doesn't need to be a manual
2 - "Major" mods needed: Have a metal shop fab up plate to block off your EGR, get the computer adjusted approrpiately. That's the only big difference between the 96-99 and 2000+ Twin Cam motors, the emissions are so low that they didn't need an EGR valve to meet emissions anymore (On that note, random trivia!!!! - The 2.4 Twin Cam is a SLEV, Super-Low Emissions Vehicle. It wasn't that far off from a ULEV, ultra-low emissions vehicle)
3 - Superchargers are more reliable and more consistent across the RPM range, turbos generally have higher output capabilities.

You're not going to have to modify much, but a good rebuild would be smart. And the Supercharger is an E45 Eaton-Type. Not too big, but a good solid size. If you go for a rebuild, then you'd probably be okay with a smaller pulley as well. This will require a flash to the computer, GM techs can do it. Just be sure to break the motor in properly.

#2 it is not as easy and throw it on and you done.

#5 This will cost you 2 times what a good turbo setup will
#6 A turbo is better hands down. :grinyes:


**Hi five**

you hit all of the good points and saved me time

**Hi five**

you hit all of the good points and saved me time

Sheesh...you kids make it sound like a supercharger setup and a turbo charger setup are exclusive of each other...

Sheesh...you kids make it sound like a supercharger setup and a turbo charger setup are exclusive of each other...

a properly sized turbo setup is more efficient than a supercharger...plain and simple

a properly sized turbo setup is more efficient than a supercharger...plain and simple
Look up "exclusive" in the dictionary...

Not being exclusive means they can co-exist, often with interesting results, such as the Turbo Ion Redline of which I saw an interesting video a few months back. Exhaust spools the turbo, which compresses the intake air, which is fed into the eaton-type, for lovely a "VROOM" effect.

twin charging has its place.....but again, i would rather have a little lag and a much less expensive turbo setup. There are guys who have twincharged Hondas and Acuras like mine and had great results

i will keep my view on twin charging to myself :screwy:

i will keep my view on twin charging to myself :screwy:

lol....my thoughts exactly.....for the price, i'll build a great turbo setup and not have to bother w/ it

Interesting bit of history I learned yesterday, kinds puts a whole news spin on the language we use around here.

Apparently the full name for the thing we call "TurboCharger" is actually Turbo SuperCharger.

Related to the topic...meh...but interesting...

#1 they don't make one for your car, alot of stuff has to be customised to put it on and you will need HP Tuners or equivelant tuning software.
#2 it is not as easy and throw it on and you done.
#3 If you do want one, you need to look for one for a 2000 and up Z-24 Manual.
#4 GM sales them and a couple more companies but they are few. Best bet goto GM.
#5 This will cost you 2 times what a good turbo setup will
#6 A turbo is better hands down. :grinyes:

Good luck either way you go. If you are truely interested I will find the companies who sale them other then GM.
#1 "Alot"? There's not alot at all, I know you need that alternator from a 00+ I can find out what the others are if someone really wants me to. I know there's not "alot". And you DO NOT need HpTuners, all you gotta do is go to GM and have them reflash it.
#2 It's a hell of alot easier then a turbo set up and more reliable.
#3 It doesn't have to be manual
#4 Correct
#5 DEFINITELY NOT - The GM m45 sc is only $1400 plus whatever the reflash is and other parts to accomodate the SC on a pre 00 Cav, regardless...cheaper then a turbo install and cheaper in the long run because you're motor won't blow over time.
#6 Depends, for the most hp a turbo is better. If you want some extra hp for a decent amount of money, a pretty simple install and definitely reliable because Gm makes it specifically for these cars...the Sc is better.
Get your facts straightened out.

Alright, any wherebouts on getting one? 97 z24 2.4L

I am staying outta this, there is alot of myth, lies, bullshit, and dumbass's flyin around here. But yeah anyways.
I will take a turbo over a supercharger any day of the week and twice on sundays, why? Because they are better. Read the facts and do your research.

not to be mean, but i thought u said u were gonna stay outta this? i mean, dont say it if ur not going to...

now me, im staying outta this. even tho i wouldnt really choose either over the other. its basicly all on money, time, and gain. its up to the owner themself.

o ya, i said im staying outta this...sry. lol

Meh, I just think superchargers sound prettier.

I am staying outta this, there is alot of myth, lies, bullshit, and dumbass's flyin around here. But yeah anyways.
I will take a turbo over a supercharger any day of the week and twice on sundays, why? Because they are better. Read the facts and do your research.
I have done MY research, research from people who HAVE put GM SC's on pre 00 Cavs. So please do stay outta this and do YOUR research.

And what did they say Lance, good or bad??? I can't find where to get one.

From the people who have done it, have had nothing but good things to say about it, they love it. Of course a Sc isn't gonna give you as much hp as turbo would but some people want more hp & reliability over alot more hp and chancing blowing a piston through the block. I eventually plan on getting the Gm Sc myself from www.gmpartsdirect.com

actally a supercharger is alot easier to put on and is more reliable than a turbo



Im going to the way of the suppercharger. Its easy to install more reliable AND IS CHEEPER. and im sorrey these cars nead the bump of a supercherche in the lower RPM's and a turbo just dount do that...

Its more reliable and less work then a turbo but you can only squeeze about 220 hp tops from a supercharger, and maybe alittle more from smaller pulleys and stuff...

A turbo, you can go ALOT faster...

IMO, anyone who chooses a supercharger over a turbocharger is very lazy and dont wanna spend hours working on the car, and also dont wanna spend hours to maintain it...

Its more reliable and less work then a turbo but you can only squeeze about 220 hp tops from a supercharger, and maybe alittle more from smaller pulleys and stuff...

A turbo, you can go ALOT faster...

IMO, anyone who chooses a supercharger over a turbocharger is very lazy and dont wanna spend hours working on the car, and also dont wanna spend hours to maintain it...

Or for the most part are smart enough to know in most cases its their daily driver and dont want to run the risk of blowing their engine yet still want to have some fun with the car. Not everyone has a full wallet and no life to sit in front of an engine bay for days on end. Most people have families and jobs and bills and social lives.

they each have their place and in your guy's case they're pretty evenly matched...the turbo is always going to be more efficient than a supercharger, but you can do whatever you want.

With cars like mine (honda/acura) superchargers are laughed at because they're a cheap "bandaid" for those people who dont want to turbo their cars, but want a little more speed. They just run out of breath up top. Another thing that really hinders supercharger performance is that boost is limited by the fact that you generally cant to anything to cool the intake air charge since the supercharger is attached directly or in place of the intake manifold...you could try meth/alky injection, but now you're getting more complicated and expensive.

IMO Turbo > Supercharger in all aspects any day of the week

IMO, anyone who chooses a supercharger over a turbocharger is very lazy and dont wanna spend hours working on the car, and also dont wanna spend hours to maintain it...
Such a :newbie:....and it shows.

Such a :newbie:....and it shows.

lol...superchargers have their place. Its not for someone who is lazy or can't afford a turbo setup...its all in what you want on your car and what fits in your budget.

Not to mention they're better for daily drivers, obviously for cavs you'd get the GM sc which comes with a warrenty and it's pretty much guarenteed not to ruin your motor (when used properly), if you want just a little more hp to get up and go faster and not insane amounts SC's are better and maybe some people have jobs, school, and kids to worry about so they don't have "hours of time to work on their cars" and can't be without their daily driver when the motor blows from too much boost from the turbo and of course the budget. Also, not everybody can be a "17 YEAR OLD OWNER!" who didn't pay for the car or pays for insurance and doesn't pay rent or anything.

if done properly, either setup will yield good results

The one downfall of roots type blowers is the inability to cool the intake air. On Cavaliers since the performance following is pretty slim, the best option probably is to supercharge. You're not going to max the blower out because the engine/tranny wont support that much power.

Turbos for Hondas and SC's for you guys....either way, they're faster than stock :grinyes:

Turbos for Hondas and SC's for you guys....either way, they're faster than stock :grinyes:

very well put. who cares which is better, as long as they are quicker than stock. thats what we are all trying for isnt it? i do know the getrag 5speed can handle some decent amounts of power if its the tranny most use in 3.8 and other such conversions.

I want a supercharger for my 00 z24 auto. But im worried its not really worth it since the motor already has 180,000 KMS. I recently changed the timing chain, water pump. engine has been taken care of all its life with regular oil changes.

It runs strong and has been reliable, it has a slight tick, my mechanic says its just noisy injectors.

What do you guys think? it is too old for a supercharger?

Hey is the timing chain in that case thing to the left of the engine? thats ataached to it? Mine started clicking today...my engine and parts are under warrantyso need to tell them whats wrong.

I say go for it.

Not to mention they're better for daily drivers, obviously for cavs you'd get the GM sc which comes with a warrenty and it's pretty much guarenteed not to ruin your motor (when used properly), if you want just a little more hp to get up and go faster and not insane amounts SC's are better and maybe some people have jobs, school, and kids to worry about so they don't have "hours of time to work on their cars" and can't be without their daily driver when the motor blows from too much boost from the turbo and of course the budget. Also, not everybody can be a "17 YEAR OLD OWNER!" who didn't pay for the car or pays for insurance and doesn't pay rent or anything.

ROFL Well said Lance... so u guys are going to be putting a turbo in a daily driver and get you what? 250+ hp?? awesome... a wore out engine and eventually the turbo will go too.... with a supercharger u can maybe get 230-240 hp and have it reliable for a good number of years if driven right

Alright everyone, I have a choice, over the winter, save up and either get: Bodywork and Paintjob, OR the GM Supercharger Kit. My concerns with the SC are I have had this car for a year and this is the 3rd engine I have had in it, this one has 165,000KMs, not too shabby, also, what if this one blows, can I easily disassemble and reinstall it if I need another motor? And the biggest thing, I have a 97 2.4, would someone be able to give a COMPLETE list of what I need to do it, what I need to modify, basically a complete writeup on it? I have this car and this car only so it can't be sitting for weeks getting worked on, I need it to go to and from work, I would be able to borrow my dads truck for a few weeks to do this if needed.....so it comes down to this, if someone can provide all the information I need to do it properly, I probably will go the SC, and the paintjob can wait. And to all those about Turbos, sure they are nice, and give a lot of Horsepower, but I am just looking for something to add a little HP, that is reliable and easier on the engine, and that beautiful sound of a winding Supercharger, especially witha smaller Pulley on it, basically sounds like Heaven. And not many around here expect it from a Cavalier, there are no Tuners here with a Turbo or SC, I would be the first, my car is basically stock and runs 16.2 in the 1/4 mile, I am just looking to hit 14's with this car and I would be happy. Thanks once again, and I hope this works out because I would be mroe than happy to have a post dedicated to the SC build with pictures and videos along the way and after its done. :-), and Lefix, let's get up some vids on your Turbo Setup in action, eh?

Wow, yhandor, we're basicly in the same situation, either go with this GM supercharger, or body work. Though personally, despite how much I love the idea of a supercharger, I'm leaning toward body work. I didn't think a supercharger would go well with a engine that has 60,000 miles on it without a nice rebuild (if it could handle that please tell me so, may change my mind) Sure I like going fast, but I'm not gonna street race or anything so I don't think I need my Z any faster than it is. If you go with the supercharger, you gotta let me know how it goes!

miles dont really matter as long as its nothing outrageous. as long as the engine has been taken care of and not taken to hell and back, then you should be good to go. and a supercharger wont put much stress on a stock engine than normal. i would go with the supercharger, but thats just me. i have seen way to many people just get a body kit or paint job then, BOOM, wreck, shopping cart, or some other mishap that totally negates what you just did to the car. just my 0.02

Well read my last post, thats what I am waiting on, :-)

Also an additional question. Every 2 years here we have to Emission Test our cars......since I have a 97 with EGR, and aparently I have to take the EGR tube off and weld a plate over the hole, won't my car fail the E-Test since the motor was designed to run EGR?

I am not trying to start a fight or an argument here by no means. But why does everyone thing a supercharger is so much easier to maintain and more reliable then a turbo? I have been around vehicles and working on them for almost 18 years now. And in my time i have seen just as many superchargers cause problems as turbos. The only diffrence is, is with a turbo you should change your oil more often.

Also I don't remember what all has to be done, but I used to have the write up on how to mount the 2000+ GM s/c onto the 96-99 2.4. I will try to find that info for everyone again when i get home tonight.
Superchargers are limited to how much psi they can push on an engine. Alot of people get dumb when they get a turbo, turn it up a bit 2 much and blow shit up...