Turbo, or SuperCharger???

Makavelli · 08-16-2005, 04:04 PM

I was thinkin bout convertin my 86.5 NA to Turbo, but ran across the idea of putting in a Supercharger. Which would be better?

08-16-2005, 05:14 PM

Turbo no question, superchargers are limited to the amount of power they can make, and fuel economy goes to shit with a supercharger. Turbos can make more power with a boost controller and only use additional fuel when uder boost. A supercharger is always unber boost and there for uses more fuel and causes additional wear on the motor.

monkihead · 08-16-2005, 05:18 PM

superchargers can give gobbs of low end power. so, if your car or truck is super heavy with accesories, it might be a better consideration. the rarity for a supercharged supra are greater. i had a pic of one in the works.

SupraMan1784 · 08-16-2005, 07:13 PM

mm...i would go for a turbo...just cause they were made for turbos, and i disagree about fuel economy goin to shit with a supercharger...i think its equally the same, as long as the motor is under boost you will use more fuel, unless somehow you can drive a turbo car without boosting, with a turbo car as you climb rpms the ecu dumps more fuel into the combustion chambers, so therefore it doesnt matter about fuel economy its almost the same youre really not saving that much, and superchargers give you a linear powerband meaning if at 2000rpm u get 200hp then at 5000rpm you should get somewhere around that number maybe more, maybe less depending on how its setup, as for a turbo the power increases as you climb rpms so therefore it has more potential, but a supercharger also have a lot potential as long as you add the right parts, ive seen it done with my friends s/c maxima

monkihead · 08-16-2005, 07:39 PM

a supercharger uses power provided by the crankshaft to make power-wasted energy=more fuel consumption

a turbo uses free exhaust gasses to create the power-efficient energy=not as much fuel consumption

SupraMan1784 · 08-16-2005, 10:31 PM

thats tru, i forgot about that

Poodles · 08-17-2005, 04:05 AM

that, and a turbo is not always making boost, so it's not always bumping extra fuel into the engine. You can idle around town sipping fuel, but at the same RPM on a supercharged car you're still burning fuel because it's still under "load"

08-16-2005, 04:04 PM	#1
Makavelli 3" Exhaust Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 70	I was thinkin bout convertin my 86.5 NA to Turbo, but ran across the idea of putting in a Supercharger. Which would be better? __________________ <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Stock...for now</span>

08-16-2005, 05:18 PM	#3
monkihead SP58GT Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Antonio texas Posts: 646	superchargers can give gobbs of low end power. so, if your car or truck is super heavy with accesories, it might be a better consideration. the rarity for a supercharged supra are greater. i had a pic of one in the works. __________________ ....all you need is a small taste of success and you will find it suits you.... monique- better off dead

08-16-2005, 07:13 PM	#4
SupraMan1784 SP58GT Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dirty Jerz Posts: 691	mm...i would go for a turbo...just cause they were made for turbos, and i disagree about fuel economy goin to shit with a supercharger...i think its equally the same, as long as the motor is under boost you will use more fuel, unless somehow you can drive a turbo car without boosting, with a turbo car as you climb rpms the ecu dumps more fuel into the combustion chambers, so therefore it doesnt matter about fuel economy its almost the same youre really not saving that much, and superchargers give you a linear powerband meaning if at 2000rpm u get 200hp then at 5000rpm you should get somewhere around that number maybe more, maybe less depending on how its setup, as for a turbo the power increases as you climb rpms so therefore it has more potential, but a supercharger also have a lot potential as long as you add the right parts, ive seen it done with my friends s/c maxima __________________ Now: Saving for an MKIV Broken Rides: (Sold) 91 supra turbo 5speed with a 1jzgte motor 421whp 400(399) ft*lbs of torque on tap @ 15 psi "Always outnumbered, never outgunned."

08-16-2005, 07:39 PM	#5
monkihead SP58GT Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Antonio texas Posts: 646	a supercharger uses power provided by the crankshaft to make power-wasted energy=more fuel consumption a turbo uses free exhaust gasses to create the power-efficient energy=not as much fuel consumption __________________ ....all you need is a small taste of success and you will find it suits you.... monique- better off dead

08-16-2005, 10:31 PM	#6
SupraMan1784 SP58GT Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Dirty Jerz Posts: 691	thats tru, i forgot about that __________________ Now: Saving for an MKIV Broken Rides: (Sold) 91 supra turbo 5speed with a 1jzgte motor 421whp 400(399) ft*lbs of torque on tap @ 15 psi "Always outnumbered, never outgunned."

08-16-2005, 05:14 PM	#2
Intenseneal Guest Posts: n/a	Turbo no question, superchargers are limited to the amount of power they can make, and fuel economy goes to shit with a supercharger. Turbos can make more power with a boost controller and only use additional fuel when uder boost. A supercharger is always unber boost and there for uses more fuel and causes additional wear on the motor.

08-17-2005, 04:05 AM	#7
Poodles 12psi boost Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 348	that, and a turbo is not always making boost, so it's not always bumping extra fuel into the engine. You can idle around town sipping fuel, but at the same RPM on a supercharged car you're still burning fuel because it's still under "load"

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
HELP PLEASE	Nick0887	Non-Generation Specific Questions	4	02-28-2009 07:26 AM
Dream Offer	Karma_Supra	MKIV Supra	22	10-17-2007 03:04 PM
Sequential Turbo Question	suprapoweredsoarer	MKIV Supra	1	06-06-2006 12:13 AM