# The Legendary Debate



## StaticInMyHead (Sep 27, 2004)

Turbocharger versus Supercharger

Okay, I've been playing with the fact of adding some power to my Jetta. I see turbochargers and superchargers as the best and simplest way of generating more power. The only issue is that they both have their pros and cons, which happen to be the complete opposite of eachother. 

Pros-

Turbo: 
-Maximum power levels
-Low engine power consumption

Super:
-Immediate response
-More reliable (no lubrication involved)

Cons-

Turbo:
-No power increase until ~3000 RPM.
-Oil used in assembly (risk of improper cooldown and oil cooking)

Super:
-Not as powerful as a turbocharger
-High engine power consumption

You can see that the turbocharger and supercharger both have their better characteristics. I'd love to have the maximum power, but I wouldn't want to risk the oil baking inside the turbo when the car is cooling down. I would also love the immediate response of a supercharger, but I don't want to be left in the dust by people who have turbos when their cars hit 3000 RPMs.

Who has suggestions or experience with turbochargers and superchargers? If anyone could give me an opinion or two, it would be appreciated.


----------



## johnwill (Sep 26, 2002)

I think the performance of turbos at lower RPM is a function of the specific design. My Audi A6 2.7T has twin turbos, and it develops it's maximum torque at 1800 RPM. You just have to pick your turbo. :smile:


----------



## whodat (Mar 13, 2005)

wish i still had my 65 goat :heartlove


----------



## elf (Jul 19, 2002)

My buddies Rx-7 fires the first turbo at about 3k then the second turbo at about 6k and boy can you feel it hit...as for baking the oil if you just let it run(idle) for a little while when you stop it won't cook, my friend had that same problem and that was his solution. 

I have less experience with super chargers...my buddy has one on his truck and you can't really even tell although I'm sure it helps. I personally like turbo's but that's because I like to feel them kick on and the pressure that forces you back in the seat...simply awesome.


----------



## Volt-Schwibe (Jan 12, 2003)

yeah, the main reason you don't notice a supercharger is that it is running all the time, whereas a turbo becomes effective after a slight lag while exhaust pressures peak.

so because of this, it doesn't ever "kick in", it's already kicked in.

but, if it was me, with that car, i'd just go with the turbo.


----------



## StaticInMyHead (Sep 27, 2004)

The need to stop and let the oil cool is after every drive, right? I'm coming from the perspective that I would have to be early to work and school and any other place so I can let the car run idle for a minute and let everything settle down to shut it off. Though it would be an inconvenience, it is something I could get used to. It's worth it for a turbocharger :sayyes:


----------



## elf (Jul 19, 2002)

Yea...it has to idle for a minute or so before shutting it down or it *could* fry the oil. Now, this is not guaranteed and it might not burn the oil, but the reason it cooks it is because you get the turbo spinning then shut off the engine and the oil in the turbo just sits there and starts to cook in the turbo. If when you get to where ever you are going and just idle around the parking lot looking for a place, that will be sufficient. 

Ultimately the decision is yours, but I would personally want a turbo just because it would be fun.


----------



## JamesO (Mar 30, 2005)

Use synthetic oil with the turbos and you will have less problems with cooking the oil! Would not consider anything else. I run synthetic in all my cars, turbo and non turbo. This is what your friendly 747's all use.

Had a 86 Buick 3.8T turbo, 13 second street car with very little mods, got 30 mpg on the highway at 70 mph. 50 mph to 70 mph in less than 2 seconds! Not bad for something that would seat 5, had a big trunk and tipped the scale at about 3750 lbs.

My wife has a VW Beetle convertable 1.8T and this actually has an electric oil pump that precharges the turbo with oil when the drivers door is opened and runs after the car is turned off to cool the turbo down!!

JamesO


----------



## Volt-Schwibe (Jan 12, 2003)

JamesO said:


> My wife has a VW Beetle convertable 1.8T and this actually has an electric oil pump that precharges the turbo with oil when the drivers door is opened and runs after the car is turned off to cool the turbo down!!
> JamesO


i've seen systems like that before.


there is also a mod for chevy v-8's to add an electric oil pump that you can turn on prior to starting, bring up the oil pressure till the light goes out, and then start it without it being dry.

as far as baking the oil....

if you come off the freeway at 70, and then park within 30 seconds, and turn the car right off, then your hot exahaust manifold and the connected turbo are going to saturate with heat, and sit there soaking it in for the next 15 minutes. but, if you just calm down the last 5 minutes of your drive, you aren't going to have much to worry about, because the engine temps can all come back down to normal.

you will notice oils in the store with the words turbo on them, i suggest you choose one and use it. they are built to handle higher temperatures, and will reduce cooking. and, they are almost all synthetic.

you can also just check your oil often, when you check it's level, give it a smell, does it smell burnt? does it feel gritty? is it super super dark?


----------



## 95five-0 (Dec 7, 2004)

To prevent oil burn you can install a tubro timer. All this does is once you are done driving you park and take the keys out of the ignition it will leave the car runnning until the oil gets to the right temp. 

I would suggest getting a tubro because alot has been done to prevent what is called tubro lag.

Most supercharges you see are on V8's due to the fact that most old school guys don't trust tubros. 

Also one last thing is have you looked into getting news heads and rear gears. Most of the time if you swap these out you will gain as much as you would with a power adder and you still have the opion for more later. And there is alway nitrous oxide. If you don't need the power all the time this is your best bet. It will save you life of your engine.


----------



## crazijoe (Oct 19, 2004)

StaticInMyHead said:


> The need to stop and let the oil cool is after every drive, right? I'm coming from the perspective that I would have to be early to work and school and any other place so I can let the car run idle for a minute and let everything settle down to shut it off. Though it would be an inconvenience, it is something I could get used to. It's worth it for a turbocharger :sayyes:


It also depends on how hard you drove it before you park.


----------



## Trav+Samantha (Jun 3, 2005)

U should just go with a old car and get a big a** V8...my dad has a 56Ford Fairlane and it has a 390V8 in it with a 4Barrel the engine is big as he** most v8s will out run a v6 with a turbo anyway..


----------



## crazijoe (Oct 19, 2004)

Trav+Samantha said:


> U should just go with a old car and get a big a** V8...my dad has a 56Ford Fairlane and it has a 390V8 in it with a 4Barrel the engine is big as he** most v8s will out run a v6 with a turbo anyway..


Back then gas was .40/gal. You could afford to feed them mills. Nowadays you need a second job to so you can pull up to the pumps every 3 days. 
I saw an interesting article in a Hot Rod mag. The pitted a older late 60s Camaro SS against a newer Camaro SS. The newer Camaro out performed the older one. The one thing you have to understand is that todays engines are designed more effecient and put out a lot of power on pump gas than their predicessors. Plus back then they rated HP at the flywheel with no accessories attached (called Brake Horse Power, BHP). The newer vehicles are rated at the wheels. You loose a lot through the drive line.
Now don't get me wrong, I'd rather hear the bumpity-bump of a big block than the whinning of a 4 or 6 cyl turbo. I, myself, am an Olds fan. I have a 70 Cutlass SX with a Rocket 455, and 71 Cutlass SX convertible with a Rocket 455 and a 79 Chevy PU with an Olds Rocket 425 (used to be a diesel). As the old (Olds) saying goes "Horsepower sells but torque wins races"
I also saw another article that had a new Mustang GT Cobra vs. a Subaru WRX 4cyl turbo. Amazing that the Subaru kept up with the Mustang.


----------



## yustr (Sep 27, 2004)

crazijoe said:


> I also saw another article that had a new Mustang GT Cobra vs. a Subaru WRX 4cyl turbo. Amazing that the Subaru kept up with the Mustang.


Now, let's put some snow on the ground and see if the Mustang can keep up with the WRX? -razz:


----------



## crazijoe (Oct 19, 2004)

http://automobilemag.com/reviews/coupes/0501_mustang_v_wrx/index.html
I was wrong. it wasn't a cobra. just a GT.


----------



## ChipD (Apr 26, 2005)

On the turbo shutdown cooling question... The racer guys use a device like this:

http://www.pegasusautoracing.com/group.asp?GroupID=OILACCUS

It's basically a spring loaded cylinder that pumps up when there's oil pressure. When the pressure drops or you shut down, it continues to flow oil under the spring pressure. You might could make it work for turbo oiling. Maybe a little pricey...

Chip in Seattle


----------



## JamesO (Mar 30, 2005)

Hey Trav,

That big V8 will have to work pretty hard to keep ahead of this little V6!

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/features/HTP_0403_BUICK/

JamesO


----------



## FreoHeaveho (Aug 22, 2006)

Most turbo charged V6 vehicles will destroy the V8s, simply due to power to weight ratio. My WRX will destroy most of them, particularly when wet, its a bloody rocket!


----------



## ThePistonDoctor (Mar 2, 2009)

I have been in both places. I owned a Kenne Bell supercharged mustang GT that made ~500whp and have also driven a turbo WRX, a turbo 350Z, and a twin turbo Mustang Cobra. 

Personally, with a smaller engine, I would go with a turbo. You have plenty of options for turbo kits on smaller engines which means you can avoid the turbo lag for the most part. With a turbo you will also get better gas mileage because you will not have the constant drag on your engine like with a supercharger. Even when not in boost, a blower is still dragging on your engine's efficiency. 

With larger engines, I would go with a twin turbo setup or a supercharger because you can avoid the turbo lag by using sequential turbos of different sizes while the larger rotating mass gets up to speed.

Edit: BTW what you said about a blower not being as powerful as a turbo is not true at all. Some of the Kenne Bell superchargers easily create over 1000hp.


----------



## Tekmazter (May 22, 2008)

crazijoe said:


> Back then gas was .40/gal. You could afford to feed them mills. Nowadays you need a second job to so you can pull up to the pumps every 3 days.
> I saw an interesting article in a Hot Rod mag. The pitted a older late 60s Camaro SS against a newer Camaro SS. The newer Camaro out performed the older one. The one thing you have to understand is that todays engines are designed more effecient and put out a lot of power on pump gas than their predicessors. Plus back then they rated HP at the flywheel with no accessories attached (called Brake Horse Power, BHP). The newer vehicles are rated at the wheels. You loose a lot through the drive line.
> Now don't get me wrong, I'd rather hear the bumpity-bump of a big block than the whinning of a 4 or 6 cyl turbo. I, myself, am an Olds fan. I have a 70 Cutlass SX with a Rocket 455, and 71 Cutlass SX convertible with a Rocket 455 and a 79 Chevy PU with an Olds Rocket 425 (used to be a diesel). As the old (Olds) saying goes "Horsepower sells but torque wins races"
> I also saw another article that had a new Mustang GT Cobra vs. a Subaru WRX 4cyl turbo. Amazing that the Subaru kept up with the Mustang.



You don't need to break the bank with V8s and gas prices. You just need to shop around for a *quality* car.

*MY CAR* 
2003 Infinti M45 is rated at 17/23 and I consistently beat that by 2mpg city or highway. I get nearly 26 on the highway in a 340HP/333ft lb V8 bolted onto a car with a combined weight of almost 4000lbs. Not to mention I can pull 0-60 in 5.6. 

2009 WRX STi ... gets exactly the same when it comes to rated MPG can definitely beat me 0-60 but its a shoebox comparatively speaking and no where near the comfort or luxury.

I have driven turbos and scs. I think the excitement factor comes thru more with a turbo or an sc. However, I think I must be outgrowing it as today I just like the purity of a clean v8 and the grunt of big block that doesn't sound too ferocious but can be a real &*$ch when it wants to.


----------



## storm5510 (Mar 26, 2009)

*For the 1980 model year, Pontiac decided to drop the big-block Trans Am engine in favor of a W-72 301 with a turbocharger. Many owners made the "cardinal" mistake of not watching their oil closely enough. An OEM replacement made for a big hit in the wallet.

I know a guy who has a running 1980 model and the turbo still operates. It looks like crap on the outside and the interior is shot. He's a mechanic and came across it somewhere. He understood the oil situation clearly. I had asked him about it specifically.

I felt it was a mistake on the part of Pontiac and GM to mass-produce a set-up like that. They were asking for a major headache...
*


----------



## tvbf1 (Mar 30, 2009)

You can try twin-charging, that way you'll have both superchargers and turbochargers. 

HKS did made a kit for MK1 supercharged Toyota MR2, but it was really difficult to tune. 

I think a guy in Colorado own a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VIII and he twin-charged it. It was making some where around 600whp, but he sold it because he said that's there's always some problem with the twin-charged setup.


----------



## Mr.POS (Apr 5, 2009)

Turbos and superchargers are great regardless. On a Jetta though? Unless you're getting a Supra I'd definatly aim more towards fuel than air. If it's NHRA then I'd pick the supercharger hands down though!


----------

