Why are superchargers the prefer choice over turbochargers in the mustang comunity?

[Tonymustang302]

Might as well close the thread. Troll with nothing has nothing to add. No tech, no numbers, just a soy boy that simply wants to argue.

oh god stop. The OP already got what he needed im just kidding around. Whys everyone so emotional.

Sponsored

 

[SolarFlare]

See I didn’t buy a procharger to be cool or win car shows or get IG likes and followers. I put it on because I wanted about 650-700ish to race, be efficient at that power level, be consistent, be reliable. I’ve gotten all of those things. Can other kits get those things? Sure. But I saw a deal and I jumped on it and worked pretty well for me.

This site isn’t friendly towards racing, Hell most aren’t now days. But those that know me, or are members of sites that do allow race posts know I beat the crap out of this car and been doing it quite successfully for about 3 years now on a poor little P1 that isn’t even maxed out.

 

[Tonymustang302]

See I didn’t buy a procharger to be cool or win car shows or get IG likes and followers. I put it on because I wanted about 650-700ish to race, be efficient at that power level, be consistent, be reliable. I’ve gotten all of those things. Can other kits get those things? Sure. But I saw a deal and I jumped on it and worked pretty well for me.

and good for you.....As long as you have a fast mustang, we’re good....just not a paxton supercharged one

 

[SolarFlare]

Nothing against Paxtons. Lotta Paxtons going fast out there, it’s a decent head unit. Just preferred the design of the Procharger over the Paxton myself.

 

[Roush05]

I went Procharger because of cost and ease of install. I've never had a FI car before and I'd like to ride in a PD car as well as a turbo car to see how different they feel. I'd probably like to go with a turbo but at the time of purchase I thought I was saving money going with the Procharger kit. I've probably dropped $3k extra in upgrades since (head unit, intake, pulleys, failed wastegate experiment etc), so a turbo kit would have probably been cheaper.

 

[gimmie11s]

I went Procharger because of cost and ease of install. I've never had a FI car before and I'd like to ride in a PD car as well as a turbo car to see how different they feel. I'd probably like to go with a turbo but at the time of purchase I thought I was saving money going with the Procharger kit. I've probably dropped $3k extra in upgrades since (head unit, intake, pulleys, failed wastegate experiment etc), so a turbo kit would have probably been cheaper.

Same thing I went through with a Paxton 2200 on my 2014 s197.

Got the kit for $5400 brand new with a tune which was an amazing deal (Beefcake).

Then ended up with a “torque booster”, more pulleys than I care to remember, headers, belts up the ass (chasing belt slip) and was about to pull the trigger on a 8 rib conversion when I said fugg it and just sold it all and went turbo.

I was into that centri for close to $8k when was all said and done so yeah, the price to get in was low but that was it lol.

 

[SolarFlare]

Thats the thing about thing about the Paxton, because of 6rib and long belt it’s more prone to slip. Doesn’t mean everyone’s does. But if yours does then it’s a pain to troubleshoot and correct.

 

[Tonymustang302]

Thats the thing about thing about the Paxton, because of 6rib and long belt it’s more prone to slip. Doesn’t mean everyone’s does. But if yours does then it’s a pain to troubleshoot and correct.

i just remember from my foxbody days NO ONE had a paxton.....was all procharger or vortech......we laughed at those guys

 

[ammoman]

I know I'm a little late to the party, and this thread has gotten a bit off topic, but I've been weighing the pros/cons between the Whipple Supercharger and the Hellion Sleeper Twin Turbo for a 2018 GT to get me to 700 RWHP. (centrifugal supercharger isn't something I'm considering) After much research here and elsewhere, I'm heavily leaning towards the Hellion for the following reasons:

1. Price - each kit and supporting hardware are within 10% of the same price
2. Installation - the sleeper might take a few more hours, but not much
3. Weight - the sleeper turbo kit is lower and back, whereas superchargers are high and forward (which will effect handling)
4. Turbo Lag* - having stock engine power until 3,500+ RPM is a "pro" for a daily driver. It makes it easier to drive a manual transmission in traffic as well as adverse conditions (ie rain, light snow, etc). Also if/when my wife drives, shifting before the boost kicks in will keep both her and the Mustang safe.
5. Efficiency/Reliability - SCs require around 10%+ of the total engine power to provide boost. If we add back in drivetrain loss at 10%, a 700 RWHP engine is 770 HP at the crank (for both turbo and supercharger). In that scenario the SC is using an extra 77 HP to make that power, which means the SC engine is actually making nearly 850 HP! That is a lot more wear on the stock engine compared to the turbo kit (SC = 390 HP over stock compared to the turbo at 310 HP over stock, or 85% increase in power vs 67% for the exact same RWHP)
6. Flexibility - with the change of a spring, or an E Boost controller, I can instantly change the amount of boost provided. No changing pulleys or worrying about belts slipping. (not that I have any desire to go over 700 RWHP on a stock drivetrain, but its good to know I could if I wanted to)


* The main draw in my mind for the Whipple would be the "instant power". If the Mustang GT had a weak engine, then I would completely agree with that desire. But the stock power of the 2018 GT is (to me) sufficient for low RPM driving around town. When it comes time to race, bring up the RPMs and enjoy all the "free" power with less stress on your engine!

 

[gixxersixxerman]

I’ve been a import guy most my life... all of it until I decided I was tired of making slow cars “faster” and getting a “fast” car from the factory. I’ve had centri cars, my FRS was 451whp with a Kraftwerks Rotrex kit. Was a stupid fun car, but got my ass handed by turbo cars making way less power. Just no torque and power only up high. My Focus st was big turbo and tons of meth and made 456whp. It was fun to bet a muscle car then air out and all but I got hooked on the mustang bug when I seen the 18’s.

my first American “muscle” car had to be stick and was 100% sure it was going to get a whipple. Now I’m still torn. The SC cars I’ve built and worked on no maintenance hardly ever. Whether a centri or a pd like edelbrock on a FRS no extra maintenance ever. The turbo kit cars always seem it needed tinkering. Always some thing and it didn’t matter the kits, from Greddy to JDL, to PTuning, all seem to need something all the time. When I got the ST, even with the BT never needed any extra maintenance at all. So in my head I had the same thought that’s been brought up over and over. Turbos are higher maintenance when not from the factory and SC cars didn’t matter. I’m building a 750+whp FRS now and it seems something is keeping us from finishing tuning. BUT damn when the boost hits it intoxicating. So everyday I looks at videos, kits and flip back and forth.

I have seen the curves for the new Gen V whipple pulling all the way to over 8k and the instant down low and think it would have to perform as good as a turbo? Both maxing around 1000-1100 but the Whipple has the down low while the turbo is spooling up... maybe when the time comes I’ll flip a coin lol

 

[theereverand]

The biggest difference I have found between supercharger and turbo setup is maintenance. The supercharger requires cooling and oil for the bearings, while most turbo setup require oil; unless oiless. I had a twin turbo challenger and ran into issues with sump oil pumps. I had one fail on me. I have ran multiple superchargers over the years and belt slip was only issue. Performance both are comparable, but turbo will out perform boost for boost.

 

[CrashOverride]

I have had 3 turbo cars (SRT-4 stock turbo/stage 2, A different SRT-4 stage 3 TD05 turbo, a BMW 135i N54 twin turbo) and no supercharged cars, so I suppose I might be biased here. That being said, when I go FI, it will be a supercharger. Why? CARB emissions.

There are a lot of sides to the equation, which is why there are still PD's, Centi's and Turbos. In general, turbos are more efficient. They do consume power in that they impede the exhaust flow. If you don't believe me, look at most dyno sheets for street turbos and you will see the torque drop off at higher revs because the exhaust flow is impeded by the exhaust turbine. Yes, you can effectively get around it by running a larger turbo, but then you have a turbo that doesn't spool up where you (might) want it. I've seen people spray N2O just to get the turbo spooled, and then let off the bottle. I've seen people tune around it by going lean to generate lots of heat. Some OEMs like Volvo take care of the low end with a S/C and use the larger-than-optimal turbo for power up top. Turbos are harder to tune - you have to keep an idea on compressor RPM (Which can't be directly measured), exhaust valve temps because of the backpressure, fuelling is generally fairly rich to be on the safe side. Turbos are anything but linear, 2000 RPM with a load of X is not linear with 3000 RPM with the same load.

But, turbos are more efficient. Again, don't believe me? Look at injector sizes and duty cycles. a 700RWHP car on a turbo will use a smaller injector and/or a smaller duty cycle than a 700RWHP supercharged car.

So why bother with SC? Power is more or less linear. In cases with the Centi's, it is a steeper curve in that they don't have the revs at lower RPM's to generate comparable boost, but, because they internally compress the air, at equivalent pressure and CFMs, they are usually more efficient than a PD blower. Some like the Centi's because if you got a traction problem, then adding a lot more torque down low will only make you slower due to wheelspin...Or broken components. Centi's are slightly more difficult to tune than PD's, but for the most part are fairly close.

PD's are great for emulating a bigger engine. They have similar torque curves over pretty much the entire rev band. They have instantaneous response which makes them preferable for road racing/auto crossing (etc.). They are the least efficient in the group, however whipple (Lysholm) units do some compression which make them more efficient than a straight rotor roots blower. The Eaton TVM's have a twist to them, but I do not believe it provides any compression -- but I could be wrong.

Turbos are without a doubt harder to install. They also greatly change the sound of the exhaust, so you will lose some of the growl, and instead replace it with a whoosh. To each his own on the sound quality, I kind of like the agricultural sound of the turbo vehicles with an open exhaust.

As far as why are they the preferred choice? It's easier, cheaper, and you have more brands to choose from (Or that I know of). That being said, if i didn't have to deal with smog, I would probably go with a turbo even though it is a lot more work, and more money as well.

Sponsored