Seems like there's been a little buzz in the air about Super Charger's lately. With Heffner's new 9.9 second pass and all. Actually even before then. So which is faster in everyone's opinion? Super Charger or TT? What are the pro's and cons of both? Which is more reliable? They can't be identical systems so there has to be a clear cut advantage to owning one or the other. Have there been any significant advancements to either over the years or since this was last discussed? Reccomendations please.
Seems like there's been a little buzz in the air about Super Charger's lately. With Heffner's new 9.9 second pass and all. Actually even before then. So which is faster in everyone's opinion? Super Charger or TT? What are the pro's and cons of both? Which is more reliable? They can't be identical systems so there has to be a clear cut advantage to owning one or the other. Have there been any significant advancements to either over the years or since this was last discussed? Reccomendations please.
Don't tell him anything! He will just take notes and go buy it! By the way....I passed you in Fantasy Football dude, sorry. [img]/images/graemlins/laughing.gif[/img]
I think the Twin Turbo has more potential! But the Supercharger has been around longer and is installed on more Vipers giving it a better chance to put down some good times. Superchargers have come along way and are a tremendous power source, but I feel ultimately the TWIN TURBO will out-perform it.
It's not which is faster, but which is more efficient.
S/C roots style-Lightning, dyers blower, etc.-use mre hp to run than a
S/C centifugal- which is similar to a turbo, but belt driven, which uses less hp than roots style, but
turbo-runs off exhaust....more efficient, more to do than above, more costly.
That's very simplified.
Even I have to admit, on Hennessey's page, he has it explained in more detail.
As for me, if it's not aunatural, turbo it.
I guess it "depends". There are advantages to both. Turbochargers "typically" require more maintenance. You should let the car idle for quite some time before shutting down to preserve the bearings. Lose a boost line, and your wastegate can fail to open leading to an overboost condition and engine failure. Break a blower belt and nothing lost, except for some power until you replace the belt. Also Turbo systems can be quite a bit more expensive. Youll need wastegates, exhaust manifolds, blow off valves, etc. Usually they create more heat in the engine compartment, but hte HMS car I rode in was VERY cool. If you size a turbo correctly, they have the potential in creating more boost down low, whereas a centrifugal blower creates boost linearly...you get max boost at the higher RPM. Heffners blowers have a pretty good boost curve due to the pulley sizing. A properly sized turbo will make boost at 2-3K RPM and make a flat torque curve. You can see over 700ft-lbs down at 3500 RPM. this may lead to "more area" under the torque curve. The supercharger is definitely a "prettier" setup. Pop the hood and there is definitely something to look at. The centrifugal cars have more traction because boost is built linearly making an extremely strong top end car. However, the tremendous torque available from a turbocharger at a broad RPM is just deadly. Your choice, cant go wrong with either. John Hennessey offers a great proven TT system, Heffner has a great proven SC System and is due to release his new TT system soon as well. Lots of choices.
Turbo's are more efficiant the SC. Money being no object, a turbo car will spank a SC car. Just check out Pro 5.0 , small block modular motors running mid 6 second 1/4 mile. Not to mention a turbo car is much more streetable.
On a serious note, Jason's post was really good. Turbo's have more ultimate potential and, IMO, higher efficiency.. Superchargers kick ass, but for a truely exotic setup, turbo's all the way..
It totally depends on what you want. I'd go with a turbo all day long over a supercharger. Reason is because a turbo is more efficient, so they can make more power. Turbo power is easy to adjust on the fly. Turbos don't make all the whining noise SC's do, and turbos put power down in a nice progressive way that's easy to control.
Nothing new to add - except to agree with what has been stated - twin turbos have more potential and the advantage can be substantial if done right. If it is done right they are also the lowest maintenance - there is no belt to wear or fail - all they need is a good oil and regular oil changes. Idling the motor down is no longer necessary on good oils - but for those who prefer to do that - you use a "turbo Timer' which allows you to lock the car and forget it while the engine runs for a predetermined time then cuts out while you are away - so there is no downside.
I've done hundreds of thousands of miles on turbo engines - they are reliable.
Turbo lag is nonsense on a good setup - it simply is the very brief period between the time you stomp on it and it acts like a 488 cubic inch V10 and the time boost comes in suddenly and smacks your eyeballs into the back of your sockets.
A high boost turbo is the ultimate power maker - the only reason yu do not see them in Top Fuel is that no one can make a fuel supply to feed them so there is no advantage right now - but where you can feed them - they are unbeatable. Boost can be so savage that it'll rip your arms off - so on a big engine boost is normally moderated so it does not hit to much too quickly - at highway speeds you can cruise at vacuum - and if in the "zone" hit it and be on full boost as your foot goes down - is that quick enough for you?
You can trim and size them to come in from 1500rpm or 4000rpm - and anywhere in between - 2500rpm is a good place for a big engine to start boosting nicely.
Turbos and NOS work great together - the NOS is good for getting going then the turbos kick in a make the NOS unnecessary - although some use NOS as a top up for top end.
Value for money however - the tried and true SC packages get you 90% of the result for less money and are reliable also - so it comes down to budget.
For YEARS, I was a die-hard SC fan. A centrifugal blower could do no wrong in my eyes. But after playing with several turbo cars, I began to really enjoy them.
A TT system requires more fail-safes and such, but the rewards are great. My home-brew setup was based on these guys:
Needless to say, I ran a very conservative boost, using lambda sensor and external CO readings to get the mix right under load. More time was needed to get it right, but the results were impressive to say the least! I plan on continuing my setup on a GTS in the future.
After owning two supercharged (ATI-Prochargers) corvettes all I can say is screw boost. Not for me. I think I am too cheap to make a boosted car run correctly. I blew up three motors in two years trying to get the TPI system to acurately meter the air/fuel ratios.
But then again I drive my car every day. And I do autocrossing and very limited drag racing. I could see it working well for you guys that have your cars in the garage and only use them for specific applications. And most of you are willing to spend the big money it takes to get their stuff working just right.
If I had to choose between the two then I would go twin turbo. Seems like the pros go faster with the TT than the blowers.
There's a couple of nice side benefits to turbo systems that I like. They are typically much quieter than supercharged systems and most of the equipment is hidden from view. Different stokes for different folks, but I like the stealth look of the turbo system. Every time I open the hood on my GTS I wish I didn't see that supercharger, but still had at least the same performance.
On the downside, the turbos are going to create a huge amount of heat. Hopefully it won't destroy any nearby components.
As far as reliability is concerned, I think both the turbos and centrifugal supercharger systems have had bad reputations in the past as far as longevity and reliability. I suspect that turbocharger and roots and screw type supercharger systems have been improved significantly due to the amount of units being used on factory autos. But how about the centrifugals? What kind of life should you expect out of a modern centrifugal supercharger? I'm not aware of any major automobile manufacturers that are using the centrifugals. I take that as a implication that they are inferior in some respect to turbocharging or supercharging with positive displacement or screw type blowers.
Can anybody here explain why we don't see the centrifugals being used by the big auto manufacturers?
So Trey, what will it be? A turbo/supercharged Viper or one of those new Gen III Stratamaro's? I have nothing against the Gen III's. People tell me all the time that it's the best looking Camaro/Corvette they have ever seen.
Trey, you really like to stir up the locals making them wonder what your next move might be LOL!
We dyno'd the SRT TT this morning and without much tuning and 6 psi of boost it made 670 rw hp & 690 rw tq. Check the dyno and timeslip section of our website for what our other customer Venom twin turbos are making at the dyno and track.
For anyone who is seriously asking the question of supercharger or twin turbo, including you Trey, here is what you need to do to get the answer: Go get a ride in 1-2 fast SC Vipers. Then make an appointment with me and come for a ride in a Venom twin turbo. At that point the answer will be crystal clear. We have 11 twin turbo Vipers in production right now and most of the orders came after the owner got a twin turbo test ride.
