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.
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?

General Tech Talk

Moderators: toaddog, TWISTY, V8Patrol, Moderators

Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:12 pm
Location: Ningi

Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by Pinky »

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.
Pinky's 40 Series EFI 250x conversion
Posts: 14209
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by -Scott- »

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.
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.
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:16 pm
Location: Ipswich

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by BumbleBee »

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.
Posts: 3740
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Licking a window near you

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by 80's_delirious »

-Scott- wrote:
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.
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.

this is an outdated paradigm


turbo all the way these days
RN wrote:pussy is out, its the log for me... Thank you Jesus.
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:17 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by TheBigBoy »

^^^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.
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Australia

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by MikeH »

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.
Posts: 441
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:47 am
Location: jimboomba

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by 84sloth »

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]
God of Magnificant Ideas!
Posts: 6774
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:22 am
Location: Balls Deep

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by V8Patrol »

:roll:

got to ask ya self just one question..............









& the turbos are ??????






Image
[color=blue][size=150][b]And your cry-baby, whinyassed opinion would be.....? [/b][/size][/color]
Posts: 3740
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Licking a window near you

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by 80's_delirious »

V8Patrol wrote::roll:

got to ask ya self just one question..............









& the turbos are ??????






Image
:rofl:

Ok, I'll bite! :D
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.
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by offroadboss »

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??
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: Penrith, Sydney

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by howsie »

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.
93 RV, 5 in tough dog lift, dobinsons shocks and coils, PA, dual fuel, many many oil leaks and a ton of character.
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: Penrith, Sydney

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by howsie »

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.
User avatar
Guy
Posts: 10366
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:43 am
Location: Wangaratta

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by Guy »

V8Patrol wrote::roll:

got to ask ya self just one question..............









& the turbos are ??????






Image
About as relevent as this
Image

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 "
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:17 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by TheBigBoy »

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.
Posts: 14209
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by -Scott- »

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.
Posts: 367
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: Penrith, Sydney

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by howsie »

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!
Posts: 6774
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:22 am
Location: Balls Deep

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by V8Patrol »

80's_delirious wrote:
V8Patrol wrote:Image
:rofl:

Ok, I'll bite! :D
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 :finger:

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!
Posts: 6774
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:22 am
Location: Balls Deep

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by V8Patrol »

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
:bad-words:


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]
Posts: 14209
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by -Scott- »

Damn you Kingy. You have too much fun with your toys. :x

Yeah, I'm only jealous...
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:01 pm
Location: bundaberg

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by geoffro46 »

80's_delirious wrote:
V8Patrol wrote::roll:

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.






Image
:rofl:

Ok, I'll bite! :D
This engine ^^ is suited to a 4x4 how? That farker struggles to idle, let alone crawl at 1000rpm.
God of Magnificant Ideas!
Posts: 6774
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:22 am
Location: Balls Deep

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by V8Patrol »

-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
:rofl:
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
:armsup:
mmmmm maybe next time
:rofl:


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
:cool:
[color=blue][size=150][b]And your cry-baby, whinyassed opinion would be.....? [/b][/size][/color]
God of Magnificant Ideas!
Posts: 6774
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:22 am
Location: Balls Deep

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by V8Patrol »

-Scott- wrote:Damn you Kingy. You have too much fun with your toys. :x

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
:cry:
[color=blue][size=150][b]And your cry-baby, whinyassed opinion would be.....? [/b][/size][/color]
Posts: 1715
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: at my wits end

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by RED60 »

V8Patrol wrote:but if your only after a mild setup then a set of 9:1 rockers, Kingy
9:1 rockers ........ can you clarify this point.
Show me the money..SHOW ME THE MONEY
Posts: 14209
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by -Scott- »

Kingy - be reasonable. We're talking a mild power upgrade, not a competition vehicle.
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
:rofl:
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.
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.

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?
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....
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:Its only when you start chasing big HP that the $$$$ start their slow walk away
Which is the point I was trying to make above
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.
If this is true, then I withdraw my comment and return to my hole. If only briefly. :finger:
Posts: 3740
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Licking a window near you

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by 80's_delirious »

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.
Posts: 14209
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by -Scott- »

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?
You're right - I lost the plot while the forum was away.

Stop farkin' around with small shit. If you're really serious, you need one of these:

Image
Posts: 3740
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Licking a window near you

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by 80's_delirious »

you'll need to supercharge it so its got some decent torque right from idle. :D


whats the idle speed on that baby?
RN wrote:pussy is out, its the log for me... Thank you Jesus.
Posts: 14209
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Adelaide

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by -Scott- »

80's_delirious wrote:you'll need to supercharge it so its got some decent torque right from idle. :D
Dude! It's a diesel. It's not some Ford POS petrol engine. It's got torque! :finger:

80's_delirious wrote:whats the idle speed on that baby?
I give up. What is it?
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:16 pm
Location: Ipswich

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by BumbleBee »

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.
WTF?? Problem is a steel block??

The problem is not the steel block, its whats inside of it.

Plenty of high horsepower Turbocharged steel block engines getting around.
Posts: 3740
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Licking a window near you

Re: Supercharger vs Turbo?

Post by 80's_delirious »

-Scott- wrote:
80's_delirious wrote:you'll need to supercharge it so its got some decent torque right from idle. :D
Dude! It's a diesel. It's not some Ford POS petrol engine. It's got torque! :finger:

80's_delirious wrote:whats the idle speed on that baby?
I give up. What is it?
No idea! But Google found this:

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.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests