1993-1997 turbocharger

[93TransAm]

I was wondering if the 1993-1997 camaro or firebird v6 had a turbo charger, the reason im asking is my friends thinking of buying one and he's always loved turbo's (dont ask me lol) and was wonderinf if they had any for those engines.

Also what mods do you think it would take to get him in the 13's?

Thanks in advance

[CamarosRsweet94]

What year camaro is he interested in buying? 93-95 1/2 had the 3.4L v6 that makes 160hp. Then in 95 1/2 they came with the 3.8L V6 with 200hp. I liked my 94 but the 3.8s are just better engines and are much easier to find aftermarket performance parts for. I am not sure if there is a turbo setup for it but where there is a will there is a way. It'll probably cost an arm and a leg to get it setup. It would probably just be cheaper and easier to go with a V8 powered camaro. Just my opinion though.

[hasvold]

i was wondering if i should get a super charger, or a tubo charger for my lt1? whats the difference? can anyone tell me? does the turbo have to wind up and the super charger , the power is just there or what?

[ikeyballz]

supercharger is almost as efficient as a turbo, but its cheaper, easier to install, less hassle. a turbo will have turbo lag unless you get twins or a really small turbine, but that cuts down on the amount of boost you get.. a supercharger will take a bit of power away from your engine to create more power where as a turbo will create backpressure..

well, so ive heard anyways. im thinking of doing a supercharger on my LT1 later on, since turbos are a bit more complex!

[FormulaLT1]

Those rear mounted STS turbo's should work on V6's too. I can't see that type of set up being specific to a V8. I agree with the supercharger being the cheaper, easier option and nearly as efficient.

[stone_mound_camaro]

Originally Posted by ikeyballz

supercharger is almost as efficient as a turbo, but its cheaper, easier to install, less hassle. a turbo will have turbo lag unless you get twins or a really small turbine, but that cuts down on the amount of boost you get.. a supercharger will take a bit of power away from your engine to create more power where as a turbo will create backpressure..

well, so ive heard anyways. im thinking of doing a supercharger on my LT1 later on, since turbos are a bit more complex!

what? turbos cost way less than s/c's. s/c's are easier to install tho

[FormulaLT1]

Originally Posted by stone_mound_camaro

what? turbos cost way less than s/c's. s/c's are easier to install tho

The head units themself, yes but the turbo kits cost alot more than the Charger kits because of the extra space that turbo's take up with all the plumbing and the lack of much room in the F-body bays. Things need to be very precise and the amount of time in developing these kits make them cost alot more than your average run of the mill charger kit.

[poormillionaire2]

You should also consider how much boost you want to run when making the turbo/super charger debate. Theoretically, a turbo can provide an infinite amount of boost because it is runs off of exhaust gases. A supercharger, on the other hand, is limited to belt spin. Sure, you could get a smaller pulley, but that still has its limits.

[blindeyed]

Originally Posted by 93TransAm

I was wondering if the 1993-1997 camaro or firebird v6 had a turbo charger, the reason im asking is my friends thinking of buying one and he's always loved turbo's (dont ask me lol) and was wonderinf if they had any for those engines.

Also what mods do you think it would take to get him in the 13's?

http://www.force-fed-fabrications.com/index2.htm

They specialize in making turbos for the V6's.. though they are quite pricey. I would suggest to your friend though that it would be alot wiser to first build up the motor before planning on boost. It would greatly increase the longevity of the engine. 13's shouldn't be too far out of reach with boost, but again, your friend will see alot better gains by working on the motor first. Also depends on which engine your friend has. Building up and boosting the 93-95 1/2 3.4L motors is quite a tedious task (especially trying to get a tune for them, which I still have yet to come across anyone or any program that can) compared to the 3.8L in the 95 1/2-97's.

[2.2 Straight six]

Originally Posted by ikeyballz

supercharger is almost as efficient as a turbo, but its cheaper, easier to install, less hassle. a turbo will have turbo lag unless you get twins or a really small turbine, but that cuts down on the amount of boost you get.. a supercharger will take a bit of power away from your engine to create more power where as a turbo will create backpressure..

well, so ive heard anyways. im thinking of doing a supercharger on my LT1 later on, since turbos are a bit more complex!

no, turbos are far more efficeint, a supercharger isn't so effiecient as it saps engine power to drive it. whereas a tubo is self-contained and doesn't need anything other than the exhaust gases to power it, it's as close to a 100% effient forced-induction device as you can get. the leat efficient being the traditional screw-type blowers, which are often only 50% efficient.

[viperh]

Originally Posted by 2.2 Straight six

no, turbos are far more efficeint, a supercharger isn't so effiecient as it saps engine power to drive it. whereas a tubo is self-contained and doesn't need anything other than the exhaust gases to power it, it's as close to a 100% effient forced-induction device as you can get. the leat efficient being the traditional screw-type blowers, which are often only 50% efficient.

I concure with this guy. It depends on what your friend wants performance wise. A supercharger gives you all that power instantly and you need to be able to feather the gass to take off on the street with street tires. A turbo because of the lag will launch stock like then when the turbo kicks in it will throw you back in your seat.
-Nate

[FormulaLT1]

In my opinion if you are looking for the most power possible and don't really have cost or streetability in mind and are just looking for most boost. Turbo all the way, a turbo is not 100% efficient due to back pressure because of the interruption of the exhaust stream but it is as mentioned more efficient than the charger which is driven directly off the crank and eats up a larger percentage of the extra power it is making.

I would also like to touch upon the reason in many applications why it becomes better suited to supercharger vs turbo. Like in my case. I already stated many times I am not looking to make most potential power possible but maybe 40 - 50% more horse which is very achievable with supercharger's and the 5 - 10 % extra parasitic loss doesn't bother me all that much when the goal isn't a 7 second 1/4 drag car. My goal is a 10 second street car.

The extra plumbing, need for intercooler and extra heat in the engine bay didn't appeal to me all that much either. The cost or personal time creating turbo headers or exhaust manifold for this project was a factor as well. I wanted simple and cheapest possible boost, Which the charger is going to meet. I would also like to add that while chargers may eat up 5 - 10 % of the potential power created when you look at some units capable of making 20PSI+ with the right pulley set up (mines limited to around 14 - 15PSI with a few exchange of parts) it will far make up for that loss and create 3 times over the potential for handling that much boost in the majority of stock applications.

Besides Turbo and chargers are all in the same family, the process after they are driven is identical.