Why Supercharged Instead of Turbo?

[LucidMomentum]

Originally Posted by TurboBRZ

And how much extra power does it generate with the 5psi? Also what is the cost of the electric SC kit?

Around 210 - 220 WHP and 190 FT/LB Torque with the OFT Tune and 91 Octane, for around $2K.


http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39719

[Dadhawk]

If I were to add one, it would definitely be a Supercharger, primarily for simplicity and the bottom end (off the line) boost. I don't particularly care for the "turbo lag" boost at a certain RPM, I want my power off the line from the beginning.
It seems that one of the biggest complaints about the 86 is just the thing a SC provides some correction for and a TC would exaggerate. To me a TC actually creates the "lag" in other cars that people complain about in the FR-S.
That said, there are definitely advantages/disadvantages to both, and you have to figure out which one best fits your style. Since mine is a daily driver, I want the off-the-line kick in the pants.

[raven1231]

Murica! Is why. End thread/

[FA5teryo]

Originally Posted by Thorpedo

Throttle response, less heat, cruise torque, linear power curve, more predictable power delivery, sound, space requirements, most have no chance of boost spikes, many don't require circulating engine oil through them, less plumbing.

None of these reasons necessarily apply to all SCs, but these are some common reasons. There are ups and downs for both.

Please refrain from jumping in and saying "OH YEAhh bro??!!? Mah turbo Haz a linear torque curVE!!!!" I'm speaking "generally" and this does not cover every individual case.

I agree with the top part minus the heat/sound/space requirement stuff cuz if you're comparing a JRSC/KW to turbo, still lots of piping and it doesn't sound as good -- heat wise, IAT's are probably similar between the two.. but comparing turbo IAT's to an uncooled, or even cooled roots/twin screw blower? forgetaboutit, those puppies cook the air coming in.. **different platform but my uncooled m62 IAT's were well over 200 after a hard 1-4 pull on 10psi, now on 6psi turbo the IAT's maybe get to 120 after the same pull, same weather, and the car is making 40hp more**


+1 for a properly installed and tuned turbo kit. since it seems so many have had issues from junk installs or poor part choices like too big of wg springs..

Originally Posted by King Tut

Wasn't tricky for me. As long as you realize there is an area between 0 throttle and WOT, and it is your job as the driver to utilize that area.

hashtag stig pls.

[King Tut]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

If I were to add one, it would definitely be a Supercharger, primarily for simplicity and the bottom end (off the line) boost. I don't particularly care for the "turbo lag" boost at a certain RPM, I want my power off the line from the beginning.
It seems that one of the biggest complaints about the 86 is just the thing a SC provides some correction for and a TC would exaggerate. To me a TC actually creates the "lag" in other cars that people complain about in the FR-S.
That said, there are definitely advantages/disadvantages to both, and you have to figure out which one best fits your style. Since mine is a daily driver, I want the off-the-line kick in the pants.

You need to specify you want a non centrifugal supercharger where as most of the supercharged FR-S/BRZ owners are currently running one of the three centrifugal supercharger kits.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by King Tut

Wasn't tricky for me. As long as you realize there is an area between 0 throttle and WOT, and it is your job as the driver to utilize that area.

What turbo were you running, and how much boost? What I don't like about a turbo mid corner is that at part throttle power delivery isn't always predictable depending on load, etc.

[Thorpedo]

Originally Posted by FA5teryo

I agree with the top part minus the heat/sound/space requirement stuff cuz if you're comparing a JRSC/KW to turbo, still lots of piping and it doesn't sound as good -- heat wise, IAT's are probably similar between the two.. but comparing turbo IAT's to an uncooled, or even cooled roots/twin screw blower? forgetaboutit, those puppies cook the air coming in.. **different platform but my uncooled m62 IAT's were well over 200 after a hard 1-4 pull on 10psi, now on 6psi turbo the IAT's maybe get to 120 after the same pull, same weather, and the car is making 40hp more**




hashtag stig pls.

See, anyone who replies to what I said and then claims "it doesn't sound as good".........ugh. Nevermind.

I will clarify that when I said "heat" I was also including engine bay temps. Something FA5teryo apparently didn't think about.

[xsnapshot]

Originally Posted by TurboBRZ

For as far back as I can remember I have been a turbo driver. If my car didn't come with one, I bought an engine that did and swapped it in, or added one to it. To me there is just nothing like the feeling when the boost kicks in around 3-4k RPM's when you get sucked back into your seat.

But I see a lot of members on this site who have gone with a Supercharger install instead of a turbo, and rather than asking them each individually what their reasoning is I thought I would make a thread.

For those of you who don't know, Superchargers require adding an additional pulley onto your engine which creates more drag on the engine and therefore power is robbed from the engine to create forced induction - to create more power. To me this has always seemed inefficient, as my goal is solely to increase HP, not take HP to make HP. Turbos on the other hand run off exhaust gases and do not rob HP from the engine to make HP - and thus turbo'd engines tend to be more economical in terms of fuel economy (and they typically make more power from the same amount of boost).

So for all you supercharger guys out there - what was your reasoning for going Supercharged instead of Turbo? I'm obviously missing something and am looking to be educated.

This isn't really true. Nothing is free. Your turbo runs off of back pressure. What generates back pressure? Your engine.

Your engine is having to work harder to expel the exhaust gas out vs NA motor.

[Xuningshen]

its all been mentioned already but...
the two main reasons for me were simplicity and nazi california CARB. the turbo kit i'd like is just way too illegal to run here as a daily, maybe one day i'll switch it to a turbo...

I don't think you can beat the simplicity of the JR supercharger kit. theres not much to the system and thats great, I work with engineers and they over complicate things all the time. just add 1 pulley, add the supercharger, add the (not complicated) piping, intercooler, a simple bypass valve. the best part to me is that the supercharger has its own closed oiling system... a reservoir, a filter, a cooler, and the supercharger does the oil pumping. This is my first car that I've done more than wheels and suspension (herra frush yo) I enjoy modding cars and I decided this is a better stepping stone than going to a more powerful turbo setup. maybe my next car after this will be more intense. or maybe i'll keep this car for a long while and end up building the engine + turbo when I have a new daily.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by TurboBRZ

For as far back as I can remember I have been a turbo driver. If my car didn't come with one, I bought an engine that did and swapped it in, or added one to it. To me there is just nothing like the feeling when the boost kicks in around 3-4k RPM's when you get sucked back into your seat.

But I see a lot of members on this site who have gone with a Supercharger install instead of a turbo, and rather than asking them each individually what their reasoning is I thought I would make a thread.

For those of you who don't know, Superchargers require adding an additional pulley onto your engine which creates more drag on the engine and therefore power is robbed from the engine to create forced induction - to create more power. To me this has always seemed inefficient, as my goal is solely to increase HP, not take HP to make HP. Turbos on the other hand run off exhaust gases and do not rob HP from the engine to make HP - and thus turbo'd engines tend to be more economical in terms of fuel economy (and they typically make more power from the same amount of boost).

So for all you supercharger guys out there - what was your reasoning for going Supercharged instead of Turbo? I'm obviously missing something and am looking to be educated.

This question comes up regularly.

Transient response, and heat management.

A turbo can create "more" power, and a fatter powerband, but it comes at the cost of throttle response (the turbo needs to spin up to create boost, whereas a supercharger is already spinning at the necessary speed and is always making boost), and heat (all that extra piping is extra heat in the engine bay).

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by TurboBRZ

I second that motion. When you know your car, when it boosts, how it boosts and how to shift and maintain your RPM goldilocks zone, then it's not very tricky at all in a turbo car. But I've never driven a SC car to compare - from that standpoint the SC may be easier or faster to learn how to control than a turbo.

Not quite.

Lets say your turbo kit spools at 3500 RPM.

Lets go to 6000 RPM in 3rd gear. Now, lift, and let the RPMs start dropping. When you're at 5000 RPMs, stomp on the gas pedal. How long is that delay between when you stop on the gas, and when you actually have full boost? You're in that "goldilocks zone", but you *still* have to wait for the turbo to spin up. Your power is always there with a SC or NA car.

[DJCarbine]

My wrx has more midrange power, but the gradual and steady rise of power you get with a centrifugal supercharger was a big selling point to me.

Had 2 turbo cars previously, so I knew what to expect with a turbo setup.... had to try the supercharger route and do not regret it one bit.

I just don't get the people who try to convince others that superchargers are a waste, a turbo does everything better, etc.
Maybe it does depending on your viewpoints, but we should all be able to agree that the power increases are welcome... no matter what the torque curve looks like.

Why beat up on the electric supercharger guys when they are seeing increases and are happy?

If you are happy with your kit and others are talking crap about your choices or don't understand you, then I believe YOU are the one doing it right. If you build your car to impress others or gain the approval of random people on the Internet, you will quickly find that you can't make everyone happy.... but you sure as hell can make yourself happy

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by DJCarbine

My wrx has more midrange power, but the gradual and steady rise of power you get with a centrifugal supercharger was a big selling point to me.

Had 2 turbo cars previously, so I knew what to expect with a turbo setup.... had to try the supercharger route and do not regret it one bit.

I just don't get the people who try to convince others that superchargers are a waste, a turbo does everything better, etc.
Maybe it does depending on your viewpoints, but we should all be able to agree that the power increases are welcome... no matter what the torque curve looks like.

Why beat up on the electric supercharger guys when they are seeing increases and are happy?

If you are happy with your kit and others are talking crap about your choices or don't understand you, then I believe YOU are the one doing it right. If you build your car to impress others or gain the approval of random people on the Internet, you will quickly find that you can't make everyone happy.... but you sure as hell can make yourself happy

Just for shits and giggles, I recommend you go test drive a 2015/2016 WRX. You'd be impressed with the new engine.

[jeffchap]

I have neither (yet!), but am considering SC, specifically the Phantom ESC, for two reasons: 1) throttle response and 2) heat under the hood shortening the life of engine components such as hoses, belts, etc.