SC vs Turbo??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 4, 2008 | 07:01 PM
  #16  
RYAN24's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
From: Auburn, Alabama
Superchargers are better for a heavy truck IMHO. The torque you get from a stop in those lower RPM's get these hogs moving and lets face it, you will get more satisfaction with everyday use from a supercharger than a turbo
 
Reply
Old May 4, 2008 | 08:30 PM
  #17  
ONE04FX4's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 797
Likes: 1
From: houston
Talking

a correctly put together turbo system will come into boost at lower rpm levels. i have seen them perform on 3/4 ton trucks that pull trailers many times. as well as being racers. thebackpressure that you speak of is not enough to even worry about. as the heat expanding in the exhaust as well as little backpressure spin the turbo. the turbo will always outperform the supercharger once the rpm,s raise to the correct rpm,s for your set up. a supercharger kit is the best one for complete boltin with no mods to exhaust.and i have seen the log type manifolds perform very well. the s/c will go into boost just off idle. the turbo kits will come into boost around 2000 rpm,s if spec,ed right. the sts kits are great.
 
Reply
Old May 4, 2008 | 08:53 PM
  #18  
anaheim_drew's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,082
Likes: 0
From: Anaheim, Ca.
Originally Posted by ONE04FX4
a correctly put together turbo system will come into boost at lower rpm levels. i have seen them perform on 3/4 ton trucks that pull trailers many times. as well as being racers. thebackpressure that you speak of is not enough to even worry about. as the heat expanding in the exhaust as well as little backpressure spin the turbo. the turbo will always outperform the supercharger once the rpm,s raise to the correct rpm,s for your set up. a supercharger kit is the best one for complete boltin with no mods to exhaust.and i have seen the log type manifolds perform very well. the s/c will go into boost just off idle. the turbo kits will come into boost around 2000 rpm,s if spec,ed right. the sts kits are great.
I'm at a loss for words
 

Last edited by anaheim_drew; May 4, 2008 at 09:00 PM.
Reply
Old May 4, 2008 | 11:50 PM
  #19  
tj03f150's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
From: Spring/Woodlands, Tx.
all you supercharged guys are BIASED!!

superchargers are badass though.

but look at the L guys... the fastest ones are turbo'd....
 
Reply
Old May 5, 2008 | 02:01 PM
  #20  
Jordan not Mike's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 0
From: The LBC (Long Beach, CA)
We're getting to the point of arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...Whichever route you choose, there's the potential to make way more power than anyone needs for the street.

Is there really any "bad" forced induction setup?
Do we know many people who hate their setup?
 
Reply
Old May 6, 2008 | 04:53 PM
  #21  
troberts6874's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
From: Houston
i know before its said....engine life is very dependant upon a good tune with a turbo or s/c...i keep jumping the fence and trying to figure what i want....and i keep coming back to turbo (sts), the ford racing whipple is a close second.

the fact that i see is over a given psi the turbo will make more power....

5psi with a turbo will give 500hp at crank.....5psi with sc is 450 at crank....to get the same 500hp at crank with sc one would about 7psi with a sc....it just seems to me that less psi for the same power mean the whole bottom end doesnt come out of it....

so if 7 psi is ok for a sc...then 7 psi is ok for the turbo....with the execption of more power on the turbo....
 
Reply
Old May 6, 2008 | 06:01 PM
  #22  
scottbigred's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
dont base whether your gonna blown your bottom end up on how many psi its pushin. obviously to many can be bad but you have to look at how much air its moving. which is why that 5psi on the turbo is making more than 5 psi on the s/c. its moving more air.
 
Reply
Old May 6, 2008 | 07:04 PM
  #23  
built54's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,282
Likes: 1
From: Farmington, MO
5psi vs 5psi is the same amount of air movement. A turbo isnt pulling a load off the engine, which is why it makes more power. your not going to "blow" the bottome end out with a lot of boost. A crappy tune will "blow" your bottom end apart. A headgasket will fail before you throw a rod with a good tune.
 
Reply
Old May 6, 2008 | 07:52 PM
  #24  
JMC's Avatar
JMC
Technical Article Contributor
25 Year Member
Joined: Dec 1997
Posts: 9,417
Likes: 11
From: Windsor,Ontario,Canada
Ok Gentlemen let me put this to rest once and for all. Sorry I couldn't resist.

The reason that a turbo makes more power at 7 psi is that it takes less Hp to drive the Turbo. So lets say that 7 psi through Blown's engine produces 450 hp. It takes 50 hp to make the 450 with a blower so that nets 400 to the crank. It takes only 15 hp to drive the turbo so that nets 435 to the crank. That assumes that you are flowing the same amount of air and adding the same amount of fuel for both examples. You can play around with blower size and you can also play around with turbo sizing bit to keep it fair use the same cfm of air for both examples.

Regards

Jean Marc Chartier

PS. my next mod is a turbo.
 
Reply
Old May 6, 2008 | 09:03 PM
  #25  
troberts6874's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
From: Houston
not to say i knew that, but it was a statement not a question....i was hoping that someone could sell me 100% of one over the other...there are advantages i see of the sc is the neat compact setup under hood, intant boost instead of a 1-2 sec delay (most turbos at 5 psi hit max boost of 5 psi in 2500 rpms or less, how long does it take from idle at 800 rpms to 2500 rpms...not long) and the evil sound of a sc...

i have tried to convince myself that the whipple is the setup to go with but sts seems like a slick setup.

does anyone have the whipple for the current 5.4 3v...not a 4.6 or older 2v???? i have tried to see what all comes in the setup, it says complete but no plugs are mentioned...are they not needed??? is the plug intervals 20k miles or more??? what is the base psi with the ford racing whipple, straight out of the box....???? is the intercooler work well enough or is a bigger one needed??? i read the oiling system is self contained....how is it serviced and at what mile mark is it serviced???


any additions or answers to questions would be a great addition to this thread
 
Reply
Old May 6, 2008 | 10:25 PM
  #26  
scottbigred's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
well lol i was a bit wrong huh. thats what i get for thinkin. JMC hurry up with the turbo, ive been waitin to see one.
 
Reply
Old May 6, 2008 | 10:27 PM
  #27  
justjames80's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana
Ya'll need to get the whole "turbo lag" idea out of your heads.

Let's address a few issues.

A properly designed and spec'd turbo kit using a quality turbo will have virtually no discernible lag. Very few here are going to use a max effort 76mm or PT88 turbo which are about the largest that can reasonably fit on these trucks. Even with those monsters the lag is small on a built and cammed 5.4L.

Positive displacement superchargers DO NOT make instant boost any more so than a centrifugal compressor. The reach PEAK boost sooner, it sure as hell isn't instant.

Dollar for dollar, psi for psi, a turbo kit will make more power. Unless you get a cut rate deal on a new supercharger kit or a used one you can't beat a turbo system in terms of total gains for money spent. Yes, they usually cost more up front but after you've spent money on a pulley and good headers to match the gains of a turbo kit you've already spent the "savings".

Turbocharger compressor technology is also much more developed than those of Roots, Twin-Screw, and most centrifugal superchargers. Even the most efficient superchargers aren't as good as current turbochargers.
 
Reply
Old May 20, 2008 | 04:14 AM
  #28  
anaheim_drew's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,082
Likes: 0
From: Anaheim, Ca.
If it cost $2000 less to make more hp that would be the better deal
 

Last edited by anaheim_drew; May 20, 2008 at 04:19 AM.
Reply
Old May 20, 2008 | 04:33 AM
  #29  
Jwool15's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,652
Likes: 1
From: Dfw, TEXAS
on STS' website the 04 f150 with the kit made 348rwhp and 450rwtq running 7lbs. The kit also includes 39lb injectors which I didn't know. They didn't have a price advertised though you have to call
 
Reply
Old May 20, 2008 | 05:00 AM
  #30  
anaheim_drew's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,082
Likes: 0
From: Anaheim, Ca.
Originally Posted by Jwool15
on STS' website the 04 f150 with the kit made 348rwhp and 450rwtq running 7lbs. The kit also includes 39lb injectors which I didn't know. They didn't have a price advertised though you have to call
Correct and $6500-$7000 are prices that have been quoted. I went with the lowest.

Dollar for dollar, psi for psi, a turbo kit will make more power. Unless you get a cut rate deal on a new supercharger kit or a used one you can't beat a turbo system in terms of total gains for money spent. Yes, they usually cost more up front but after you've spent money on a pulley and good headers to match the gains of a turbo kit you've already spent the "savings".
$6500 for the turbo kit
$4500-$5500 for any blower on the market for our 04+ F150 with pulley and headers(not needed) since all are making more power than the turbo kit and for less..
 

Last edited by anaheim_drew; May 20, 2008 at 05:03 AM.
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:50 PM.