Supercharger or Turbocharger for AutoX, and Track

[Dr. BRZ]

As the title says, i need help deciding which is best for autox and tracking. the brz is also my dd. if you think a supercharger is best which kits do you suggest and vice versa with the turbocharger. i want to get instant power coming out of a turn. give reasons please, i need input!

[Mr.ac]

Buy another set of wheels and r-comps tires, upgrade the suspension, and do lots of autox/track time. After about a year, then think about more power.

That out of the way, depends on your budget and power goals. If you want big power on stock engine, go turbo.
If you want a quick and easy power bump, go supercharged

Now if you want all those above, V8 swap. If your looking to spend well over $5k I would just go V8 swap.

[Xero-Limit]

Unless you have a significant budget for slicks, driveline parts, and serious cooling; a supercharger would be the best route. Lots of track folks like the JRSC unit for this reason. Efficiency is very high with the rotrex units. High HP but relatively low torque mean that your drivertrain has the best chance for survival with the minimum amount of heat generated. It's not the only way to go, but for track use it is the cheapest and one of the more reliable ways to go. The newer PD/Twinscrew options (edelbrock, harrop, sprintex, cosworth ec...) are a good option, but for track the powerband that matters is 5000-7500. Rotrex does better there with the air-air cooler vs the air-water coolers. Also they will weigh less as a system.

For street use a PD blower is hard to beat. We made 300+ torque by 3500 RPM with our 335 system (Sprintex). But on the track 3500 RPM doesn't matter much.

Turbos are great for drivers that know how to use them, but they generate tons of power (and heat) and your budget will have to grow exponentially to deal with that on a consistent basis. A low boost system (Greddy/AVO) will work ok, but the cost/complexity is a better bargain with an SC at those power levels.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Dr. BRZ

As the title says, i need help deciding which is best for autox and tracking. the brz is also my dd. if you think a supercharger is best which kits do you suggest and vice versa with the turbocharger. i want to get instant power coming out of a turn. give reasons please, i need input!

Supercharger. You chose it for yourself; a turbo won't give you instant power (throttle response).

[Northwest86]

The above is true. But A turbo can feel near as good if it is well designed for the track. Unfortunately most are not. With the heavy RnD on the headers, turbo and a Air to Water Intercooler, response is ridiculous. I can understand the response argument having been in some of the *cough* good turbo kits *cough*. It isn't always the case and how often are you 100% off throttle anyway? If I have any throttle on its instant boost with no lag. Even at 0% its very instant. Of course this is more complex and not for those that don't want to test heavily. As a package a JRSC will most likely be cheaper than a properly done turbo setup and if budget is a constraint, and you have no preferance, then buy a supercharger. Just make sure it is a kit that is well tested and proven such as the JR kit.

[xwd]

Almost all of the really fast SM/SSM cars in autocross (FI street type cars) are turbo. A right sized modern turbo like an EFR from B-W with the right supporting mods goes from no boost to at least 7-8psi in an almost imperceptible amount of time, like .2-. seconds. You won't notice much lag coming out of a corner.

However, turbos adds a lot more complexity, more torque to break things, and generate a lot of heat. I also thing the newer generation of TVS1320 S/Cs can make enough power to be competitive, that's why I have one.

[Trefoil]

Just curious, but wouldn't altitude sap quite a bit of power from the SC kits out there vs the turbo kits if you were to live in one of the mountain states?

[Xero-Limit]

Originally Posted by Trefoil

Just curious, but wouldn't altitude sap quite a bit of power from the SC kits out there vs the turbo kits if you were to live in one of the mountain states?

A properly sized turbo would do better at elevation than an SC. But depends on which. A high boost rotrex, sprintex 335, or tvs1320 based blowers would all have additional headroom to compensate for altitude. Difference being that when you go back to seal level the turbo can be electronically controlled to make less boost, while the SCs would require a pulley change.

[FRS Justin]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Supercharger. You chose it for yourself; a turbo won't give you instant power (throttle response).

A properly setup turbo will smoke the tires out of a corner.....The top is a Kraftwerks S/C the bottom a Spencer Fab turbo setup..


Please explain how More wtq at lower rpm will not pull out of a corner and lag...


234 wtq at 3200rpm all the way to 6k rpm v/s S/C max wtq 200 at 5800rpm is going to pull better...

[mrk1]

That's dyno jet vs inertia dyno as well, conservative 15% conversation on the turbo kit puts it at 334whp 276tq, to make it a better comparison

[FRS Justin]

Another thing to consider that a lot of people overlook is where the power comes from and the cost associated with it.


Since a turbo makes its power by using exhaust it's basically free power.


On a S/C it's made from tapping in on to the crank to cause the boosted condition. So your hp increase cost you hp to make hp. That will also cost you accelerated wear on the engine. ( front crank bearing will post links if needed) ( I should also add it was more common on the older S/C with big wide belts. In current days the crank wear has been minimized by belt tensioner designs and belt width in the more modern design of the S/C)


Definitely S/C have their place in the market or they would have been scrapped decades ago, but the age old debate of which is better boils down to your personal choice of what will work better in a given necessity.


A turbo will cost you more initially to setup (approx. a 1000 to 1500 in this case) but is easier to maintain. So if a easier install with you having to service the S/C with belts and oil changes works for you go that way. If you just want to shut the hood and go, run a turbo.


They both are going to make power, both are tunable, so it boils down to what you feel works best for you. good luck either way your going to be happy with the end result

[avishenoy1]

Originally Posted by FRS Justin

Another thing to consider that a lot of people overlook is where the power comes from and the cost associated with it.


Since a turbo makes its power by using exhaust it's basically free power.


On a S/C it's made from tapping in on to the crank to cause the boosted condition. So your hp increase cost you hp to make hp. That will also cost you accelerated wear on the engine. ( front crank bearing will post links if needed) ( I should also add it was more common on the older S/C with big wide belts. In current days the crank wear has been minimized by belt tensioner designs and belt width in the more modern design of the S/C)


Definitely S/C have their place in the market or they would have been scrapped decades ago, but the age old debate of which is better boils down to your personal choice of what will work better in a given necessity.


A turbo will cost you more initially to setup (approx. a 1000 to 1500 in this case) but is easier to maintain. So if a easier install with you having to service the S/C with belts and oil changes works for you go that way. If you just want to shut the hood and go, run a turbo.


They both are going to make power, both are tunable, so it boils down to what you feel works best for you. good luck either way your going to be happy with the end result

Nice post, I think you did a good job of summing up the pros and cons of both options. That being said I think you failed to note the difference between Roots type SC's and Centrifugal blowers. The roots type will require far less maintenance than a centrifugal and probably even less than a turbo.

The Edelbrock kit has a self contained oiling system with a 100,000 mile recommended service interval.

Additionally, I'd like to add that any aftermarket turbo will most definitely cause more wear on the engine due to heat. OEM turbo's are usually placed in a location that minimizes the heat transfer to wear parts on the engine, but pretty much every aftermarket kit for our cars mounts the turbo right in front of the crank pulley.

So basically I would disagree with the argument that a turbo kit places significantly less wear on the engine internals. Turbos get hot, and heat causes problems.

[mrk1]

This really boils down to turbo guys and SC guys (probably should be a third category for gullible people who just listen to advertising hype), like Ford or Chevy. It will never end.

They all have pros and cons, the choices comes down to personal preference. I've dabbled in each type between my car and friends and I know what I'm happy with.

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by FRS Justin

Since a turbo makes its power by using exhaust it's basically free power.

Not really free power, a turbo is always an obstruction in the exhaust path, but superchargers will indeed add more load to a motor. Also not sure if mentioned specifically in this thread so far, but transient response is always better with a supercharger. Yes you can have really optimized turbo systems, like BMW's have, but most aftermarket kits always have at least a little bit of lag. Not necessarily terrible, but some prefer the razor sharp response of a well tuned supercharger.