[15limited]

Originally Posted by Grady

Superchargers and turbochargers are both great in my opinion. Superchargers are easier to install however they are not simpler or more reliable. In fact a turbo is simpler in operation. It only has 1 moving part(assembly) for boost. A supercharger has gearing, belt, compressor, seperate oil system(except the Vortec I beleive). Then a lot of them add water pump, and more coolant. It is hard to find boost curves for comparison but I can tell you my simple stock AVO kit with stock size exhaust does not have much lag. This data is from my last log tuning out the Delicious boost controller. 3rd gear pull
2k rpm punch is at .01 bar basically 0psi
.8 seconds later 2.5K rpm 1.3psi
.8 seconds later 3k rpm 3.5psi
.8 seconds later 3.5k rpm 5.8psi
.7 seconds later 4K rpm 8.4psi
.5 seconds later 3.9k rpm 10psi

I had a difficult decision when boosting my car. Both had advantages disadvantages. I leaned toward the more reliable system and went turbo.

Both systems if properly installed the one with less moving parts will be more reliable. I will stick with my hot laggy turbo!

Yes yes yes I understand all this, I was just exaggerating the generalised comparison sc vs. turboski the same way Sub86 or whoever compared the insurmountable, chassis balance destroying, weight of the edlebrock sc.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk