Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.
Supercharger vs Turbo?
Moderators: toaddog, TWISTY, V8Patrol, Moderators
Supercharger vs Turbo?
Generally speaking, if you had to choose between supercharging or turbo charging a motor in a 4wd, what would you choose and why?
I have a (efi)250 crossflow 6 cyl falcon motor in a 40 series and am weighing up my options for a bit more poke. I mainly use the 40 for wheeling (rocks, sand, some mud) but it does see some highway/city miles too. Keen to hear yout thoughts.
I have a (efi)250 crossflow 6 cyl falcon motor in a 40 series and am weighing up my options for a bit more poke. I mainly use the 40 for wheeling (rocks, sand, some mud) but it does see some highway/city miles too. Keen to hear yout thoughts.
Pinky's 40 Series EFI 250x conversion
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
For me, for offroad use, I would lean towards supercharging as I expect it would be easier to configure the supercharger to produce better power / torque just above idle.Pinky wrote:Generally speaking, if you had to choose between supercharging or turbo charging a motor in a 4wd, what would you choose and why?
I have a (efi)250 crossflow 6 cyl falcon motor in a 40 series and am weighing up my options for a bit more poke. I mainly use the 40 for wheeling (rocks, sand, some mud) but it does see some highway/city miles too. Keen to hear yout thoughts.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
100% Turbocharger, a correctly sized and setup turbo will give you a bucketload of low down torque as well as mid/top end performance.
On your engine, it is so easy to pick the turbo size, Ford has already done all the research for you. You need an XR6 turbocharger. I'm pretty sure they have a factory Garrett GT35R turbo. They are very responsive and make excellent power. Pretty sure they start making boost from 2000rpm possibly less. Go for a drive in one and you will see what i mean.
On your engine, it is so easy to pick the turbo size, Ford has already done all the research for you. You need an XR6 turbocharger. I'm pretty sure they have a factory Garrett GT35R turbo. They are very responsive and make excellent power. Pretty sure they start making boost from 2000rpm possibly less. Go for a drive in one and you will see what i mean.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
-Scott- wrote:For me, for offroad use, I would lean towards supercharging as I expect it would be easier to configure the supercharger to produce better power / torque just above idle.Pinky wrote:Generally speaking, if you had to choose between supercharging or turbo charging a motor in a 4wd, what would you choose and why?
I have a (efi)250 crossflow 6 cyl falcon motor in a 40 series and am weighing up my options for a bit more poke. I mainly use the 40 for wheeling (rocks, sand, some mud) but it does see some highway/city miles too. Keen to hear yout thoughts.
this is an outdated paradigm
turbo all the way these days
RN wrote:pussy is out, its the log for me... Thank you Jesus.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
^^^No its not. For over all performance id say turbo aswell. After owning a supercharged truck, there are alot of defining factors people dont think of. Diesel vs petrol - engine braking. 2 feet on the pedal in low range to stop it from taking off on you with bucket loads of torque (if supercharged auto). Amount of boost produced while still keeping a healthy buffer zone. And supercharger is harder to fit than a turbo. When done correctly, a supercharged engine is AWSOME. But in this case Id say turbo aswell.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
When done correctly a turbo engine will smash it.
Mine made 10 psi when just free revving it with the clutch in.
if you believe you need boost from idle you aren't driving properly.
Superchargers are only good for about 10-1 psi unless you're pouring methanol through it at the same time.
turbos are cheaper these days.
Mine made 10 psi when just free revving it with the clutch in.
if you believe you need boost from idle you aren't driving properly.
Superchargers are only good for about 10-1 psi unless you're pouring methanol through it at the same time.
turbos are cheaper these days.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
turbo it pinky.. dont fark around with sissy superchargers
My hj47-80series build
[code]http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=208404[/code]
[code]http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=208404[/code]
God of Magnificant Ideas!
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
got to ask ya self just one question..............
& the turbos are ??????
[color=blue][size=150][b]And your cry-baby, whinyassed opinion would be.....? [/b][/size][/color]
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
V8Patrol wrote:
got to ask ya self just one question..............
& the turbos are ??????
Ok, I'll bite!
This engine ^^ is suited to a 4x4 how? That farker struggles to idle, let alone crawl at 1000rpm.
RN wrote:pussy is out, its the log for me... Thank you Jesus.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
I have to bite too. How many cars over the years have been released with superchargers on them? V6 commodore and a few big yank 4x4's come to mind. How many have been released with turbo's? There's probably more cars made with turbo's than without now days. Surely that says something??
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
Is it the 4.1 x-flow engine if so ignore the comments on Ford doing the research for.you. These motors respond better to a cam upgrade then a turbo or supercharger. For forced induction of any kind these motors need new pistons and rods as a minimum.
If you want more guts I'd put in a newer engine ie 4.0l out of an Ed falcon (if it's a manual it's the same pattern on the bellhousing) or a 351 clevo were common replacements in the falcon. If I'd have to choose between the current options I'd go for a turbo.
If you want more guts I'd put in a newer engine ie 4.0l out of an Ed falcon (if it's a manual it's the same pattern on the bellhousing) or a 351 clevo were common replacements in the falcon. If I'd have to choose between the current options I'd go for a turbo.
93 RV, 5 in tough dog lift, dobinsons shocks and coils, PA, dual fuel, many many oil leaks and a ton of character.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
For those that don't know the 250 x-flow engine is from a 83 to 88 model falcon the crossflow was dumped in the 89 ea falcon
93 RV, 5 in tough dog lift, dobinsons shocks and coils, PA, dual fuel, many many oil leaks and a ton of character.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
About as relevent as thisV8Patrol wrote:
got to ask ya self just one question..............
& the turbos are ??????
except yours will last 3 mins between rebuilds ...
" If governments are involved in the covering up the knowledge of aliens, Then they are doing a much better job of it than they do of everything else "
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
They each have their place. There been many many stories written over the years about "if only we had put the time and tech into superchargers". Thats why they are still behind in technology. I have a supercharged V6 commodore aswell. Turbo is for performance by far. You have a big range. The supercharger takes hp to make hp. Meaning you will LOSE top end speed over standard. But you will get there bloody quickly. The point V8PATROL is trying to make is drag cars use superchargers because its all won or lost over the first third. Have supercharged a diesel and turbo'd another - nothing in it between in a drag upto 100. Supercharger on idle can drag car bodies around. Insane torque right at the pedal. No spool, no lag, just all go. The supercharger doesnt work under load like a turbo does either. It will keep pushing air during engine braking, Another big advantage of supercharging a petrol with a throttle plate.
How ever. I would still chose turbo in this case as its easier.
How ever. I would still chose turbo in this case as its easier.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
Yes, turbo easier and cheaper. Perhaps that has something to do with why so many more production vehicles have come turbocharged? How many of those are petrol off-road 4wds?
OP wants to use his vehicle offroad. All cool. Sand & mud? Turbo - no problem. Rocks? I don't want turbo lag for crawling on rocks, which is why I suggested a supercharger would be better. To quote TheBigBoy, "No spool, no lag, just all go."
He's not drag racing - he doesn't need huge boost that will shred his internals. What's the standard compression on a 250 crossflow? It can't take 8psi with some decent tune?
If he's prepared to supercharge (and understands that it's not as cheap or as simple as a turbo) then I stand by my recommendation to supercharge it.
OP wants to use his vehicle offroad. All cool. Sand & mud? Turbo - no problem. Rocks? I don't want turbo lag for crawling on rocks, which is why I suggested a supercharger would be better. To quote TheBigBoy, "No spool, no lag, just all go."
He's not drag racing - he doesn't need huge boost that will shred his internals. What's the standard compression on a 250 crossflow? It can't take 8psi with some decent tune?
If he's prepared to supercharge (and understands that it's not as cheap or as simple as a turbo) then I stand by my recommendation to supercharge it.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
25 x-flows had decent compression but can't remember what. Problem is a steel block rather than alloy.they don't handle boost well. Most people I know who have them have gone a turbo running max 8 pound boost.
93 RV, 5 in tough dog lift, dobinsons shocks and coils, PA, dual fuel, many many oil leaks and a ton of character.
God of Magnificant Ideas!
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
80's_delirious wrote:V8Patrol wrote:
Ok, I'll bite!
This engine ^^ is suited to a 4x4 how? That farker struggles to idle, let alone crawl at 1000rpm.
thats my point exactly....... a tad over stated by all means
the drag car requires INSTANT torque and HP off the line, that instant power is not created with a turbo setup, it instead relies heavily on engine rpm to initiate spoolup and like a 2stroke engine once out of that boost region you wait for boost to come on again...
a supercharger however supplies instant boost from idle upwards, so from idle you get INSTANT torque and HP......
pardon me but isnt that EXACTLY what is required in a 4x4
I've been playing with turbo setups over the last few years, big singles, twin setup and even dabbled in compound setups in search of that all ellusive off idle instant grunt
During the last 12 months I've had the luxury of playing with 2 supercharged V6's, both setups are completely differant (one top end mods only whilst the other is all bottom end and intercooling W2A) and yet the performance is almost identicle. The interesting part is we are getting far more "bang for ya buck" out of these 'silly V6s' than we could ever get from any V8 or puffed 6's & 4's...... As far as a road car goes its almost a perfect traffic light to traffic light setup...... instant low-down torque and HP......
sound like something that might work in an offroad vehicle ???
[color=blue][size=150][b]And your cry-baby, whinyassed opinion would be.....? [/b][/size][/color]
God of Magnificant Ideas!
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
TheBigBoy wrote:.....I have a supercharged V6 commodore aswell. Turbo is for performance by far........
Have a highly modded V6 twin turbo (TT) setup making over 400rwkw in one car.....
have a slightly modded supercharged V6 and it creams the TT car up to 100kph .... along with many 'hot 4's and monsterous V8's
mind you .... once at 100kph they all start catching up real quick
Question....
Have you done the fuel pump control module bypass on your S/C V6 ????
That power "boost" or kick you get at ~3000rpm can be moved to opperate from idle and upwards in about 10 minutes , 4 spade connectors and 2 short bits of wire and you'll be long gone from the lights long before they get them turbos spoolin up
[color=blue][size=150][b]And your cry-baby, whinyassed opinion would be.....? [/b][/size][/color]
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
Damn you Kingy. You have too much fun with your toys.
Yeah, I'm only jealous...
Yeah, I'm only jealous...
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
80's_delirious wrote:V8Patrol wrote:
got to ask ya self just one question..............
& the turbos are ??????
they have too run blowers its the rules look at sports compacts etc almost as fast as slammers with motors half the size next youll be saying mechanical injection is better than efi because fuellers use it.
Ok, I'll bite!
This engine ^^ is suited to a 4x4 how? That farker struggles to idle, let alone crawl at 1000rpm.
God of Magnificant Ideas!
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
-Scott- wrote:.... Yes, turbo easier and cheaper......
Easier ????
its only easier because so many have done it before and all the little niggling phuckups have been tackled and sorted in many ways, some successfully and others ....
well lets be nice and say their still being sorted
As for easy..... you have to join both the inlet and exhaust to the turbo, intercool it with additional pipe work, blowoff valves, ECU upgrades and the list see's more $$$ every step, why..... because the aftermarket guys KNOW that you spend the bucks.
Cheaper ????
turbo costs can be damn fugly, especially when your dealing with twin setups...... double the price because you need 2 or everything.... my missus went balistic when she found the receipt for my baby's twin drier setup....... a boob job for her would have cheaper
mmmmm maybe next time
A 2nd hand Eaton M90 sells for around $300 ~$500 and usually comes with Ubend and throttle body etc etc..... and all you need to do is bolt it onto the inlet side of things and add an additional drive pulley and idler pulley....
Its only when you start chasing big HP that the $$$$ start their slow walk away, but if your only after a mild setup then a set of 9:1 rockers, a good porting job on the actual blower and a 10psi drive will see a sleeper come to life very quickly and all for under a grand.
Kingy
p/s
I chose the M90 for my example because its an good "all rounder" for the ~4lit engine range
[color=blue][size=150][b]And your cry-baby, whinyassed opinion would be.....? [/b][/size][/color]
God of Magnificant Ideas!
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
-Scott- wrote:Damn you Kingy. You have too much fun with your toys.
Yeah, I'm only jealous...
Then I better not mention the turbo'd Supercharged V6 that I'm doing the pipe work on
best of both worlds......
Awsome bottom end grunt and huge top end HP
damn shame its not mine but instead its being wasted on some young pwick with a fat wallet
[color=blue][size=150][b]And your cry-baby, whinyassed opinion would be.....? [/b][/size][/color]
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
9:1 rockers ........ can you clarify this point.V8Patrol wrote:but if your only after a mild setup then a set of 9:1 rockers, Kingy
Show me the money..SHOW ME THE MONEY
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
Kingy - be reasonable. We're talking a mild power upgrade, not a competition vehicle.
Intercooler? Yes, generally nice to have, but not essential for every application. Remember we're talking a low boost application.
Blow-off valve? Like the intercooler, nice to have but not essential.
ECU upgrades for a low boost 4.2 crossflow install? On the cheap, you could probably get by with a rising rate pressure regulator. If better is desired, I would again expect solutions to be readily available for minimal expense. And don't forget that any changes are required to cope with the boost - are you saying a supercharger install wouldn't require the same modifications? Is supercharger boost that different from turbocharger boost?
New exhaust manifold to one turbo (we're talking straight six, not V8), and I'd be surprised if there's not adaptors to the factory inlet available off the shelf.V8Patrol wrote:-Scott- wrote:.... Yes, turbo easier and cheaper......
Easier ????
its only easier because so many have done it before and all the little niggling phuckups have been tackled and sorted in many ways, some successfully and others ....
well lets be nice and say their still being sorted
As for easy..... you have to join both the inlet and exhaust to the turbo, intercool it with additional pipe work, blowoff valves, ECU upgrades and the list see's more $$$ every step, why..... because the aftermarket guys KNOW that you spend the bucks.
Intercooler? Yes, generally nice to have, but not essential for every application. Remember we're talking a low boost application.
Blow-off valve? Like the intercooler, nice to have but not essential.
ECU upgrades for a low boost 4.2 crossflow install? On the cheap, you could probably get by with a rising rate pressure regulator. If better is desired, I would again expect solutions to be readily available for minimal expense. And don't forget that any changes are required to cope with the boost - are you saying a supercharger install wouldn't require the same modifications? Is supercharger boost that different from turbocharger boost?
Can be - yes. If you're after big horsepower across the rev range - and, as I mentioned, not too many people would choose a twin setup on a straight six. For the sort of result this OP was after (from my understanding) a simple installation would suffice, and I would expect a simple, non-intercooled single turbo install on a Falcon straight six to be simpler and cheaper than a supercharger install.V8Patrol wrote:Cheaper ????
turbo costs can be damn fugly, especially when your dealing with twin setups...... double the price because you need 2 or everything....
Which is the point I was trying to make aboveV8Patrol wrote:Its only when you start chasing big HP that the $$$$ start their slow walk away
If this is true, then I withdraw my comment and return to my hole. If only briefly.V8Patrol wrote: but if your only after a mild setup then a set of 9:1 rockers, a good porting job on the actual blower and a 10psi drive will see a sleeper come to life very quickly and all for under a grand.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
Scott, this is Outers, what makes you think you can go making sense in a thread and stay on topic, when you should post wildly irrelevant pics and outlandish comparisons?
RN wrote:pussy is out, its the log for me... Thank you Jesus.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
You're right - I lost the plot while the forum was away.80's_delirious wrote:Scott, this is Outers, what makes you think you can go making sense in a thread and stay on topic, when you should post wildly irrelevant pics and outlandish comparisons?
Stop farkin' around with small shit. If you're really serious, you need one of these:
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
you'll need to supercharge it so its got some decent torque right from idle.
whats the idle speed on that baby?
whats the idle speed on that baby?
RN wrote:pussy is out, its the log for me... Thank you Jesus.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
Dude! It's a diesel. It's not some Ford POS petrol engine. It's got torque!80's_delirious wrote:you'll need to supercharge it so its got some decent torque right from idle.
I give up. What is it?80's_delirious wrote:whats the idle speed on that baby?
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
WTF?? Problem is a steel block??howsie wrote:25 x-flows had decent compression but can't remember what. Problem is a steel block rather than alloy.they don't handle boost well. Most people I know who have them have gone a turbo running max 8 pound boost.
The problem is not the steel block, its whats inside of it.
Plenty of high horsepower Turbocharged steel block engines getting around.
Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?
No idea! But Google found this:-Scott- wrote:Dude! It's a diesel. It's not some Ford POS petrol engine. It's got torque!80's_delirious wrote:you'll need to supercharge it so its got some decent torque right from idle.
I give up. What is it?80's_delirious wrote:whats the idle speed on that baby?
These engines are built in 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 cylinder configurations. All the engines are straight or "inline". The diameter of each cylinder is 3 foot 2 inches with a stroke of 8 foot 2 inches. The 12 cylinder version weighs in at 2000 metric tons and delivers 90,000 hp at 100 revs per minute, with best fuel economy at 53,244 hp at 90 rpm.
When I mention economy, the 14 cylinder engine for example with a displacement of 25,480 liters ( 1.56 million cubic inches ) burns up 1,660 gallons of crude oil every hour, now that is what I cynically call good economy
RN wrote:pussy is out, its the log for me... Thank you Jesus.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests