What's better, a super charger or turbocharger? Why?
Does alot of prep to the internals of the engine have to be done for these?
ahaha ok i dont even have to tell you to search.... you just had to look down about 4 posts... plus i bet you there is 100 posts about this....sorry i hate to be the ass but if i dont some one will...
The First Twin Charged jbody
blue car (R.I.P) - 240whp @7psi..
silver car - 305whp 315lbs.tq @15psi (91 Octane) or 420whp & 425lbs.TQ @20psi (94 octane+Alcohol Injection)
All dynos run on a Mustang dyno
being that there are lots of different people with each, you aren't going to get a straigh-forward answer.. it's totally opinion based. It's like asking people if black licorice tastes good.
Anyway, IMO they are both awesome, but I prefer turbo. The power potential is just a lot higher on a 4 banger with a turbo. Superchargers eat up a certain amount of power the belt drag in order to make that power and our engines don't have a whole lot to give to begin with so we can't run large and efficient superchargers with a daily driver, therefore nobody makes a kit for a big one.
On the other hand, the GM s/c kit is simple to install and very effective... sounds cool... The problem? Not a lot of room for improvement. Sure you can put a smaller pulley on it and spin the same tiny M45 faster but then you run into heat soaking problems.
IMO... go turbo.
Building the engine is optional, yet at certain pwoer levels it is totally necessary.
Cardomain|
Myspace
