Turbo or Supercharger?
its very inefficient.
it takes about 40hp to make an additional 50hp.
and the heat it makes.
the MP62 is very small for the J32. people have retrofitted the MP90 onto the J-series tho.
the highest hp levels we've seen from supercharges is about 350-370hp.
lilbert achieved close to 500hp with a turbo charger.
but it all depends on your goals and how much you are willing to spend.
it takes about 40hp to make an additional 50hp.
and the heat it makes.
the MP62 is very small for the J32. people have retrofitted the MP90 onto the J-series tho.
the highest hp levels we've seen from supercharges is about 350-370hp.
lilbert achieved close to 500hp with a turbo charger.
but it all depends on your goals and how much you are willing to spend.
Last edited by Steven Bell; Aug 1, 2013 at 09:36 PM. Reason: Merged Posts
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 8,002
Likes: 3,605
From: Boston
Trending Topics
Burning Brakes
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 182
From: Minnesota
He said " one is an all around better choice " , clearly it's the supercharger with less headaches and it's pretty safe on the engine. He's not asking for root type superchargers (M90)/rotrex typ, twin charger, etc.
Last edited by bouncer07; Aug 1, 2013 at 01:42 PM.
That would actually be kinda cool if people made kits to add electric motors on the rear wheels of a FWD or front of a RWD. Just upgrade your alternator to power it and put out an extra 50ish HP, I think the RLX AWD is going to have a 27 hp electric motor on each rear wheel? Electric motors are super torquey, use them for a quicker launch or something then have them shut off or work in combination with gas engine.
2nd Gear
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: California
I have a CompTech Supercharger on my 2004 TL, it is just about to crest 100,000 miles with no issues. HP is not what you can get from Turbo but if its your daily drive like mine you may want to consider it. I've had mine on the Dyno and are seeing 302 horses.
^it depends on what your goals are, Brennan....
for the last time, what the heck are your goals?
finance, how much power you want to run, if you already have exhaust pieces, etc. all play apart in what you want to run.
if you have no goals, you're just slapping parts on without knowing what it does.
you could blow up your engine, if you dont know what you are doing.
for the Love of God, please tell us your goals ya big doofus!
for the last time, what the heck are your goals?
finance, how much power you want to run, if you already have exhaust pieces, etc. all play apart in what you want to run.
if you have no goals, you're just slapping parts on without knowing what it does.
you could blow up your engine, if you dont know what you are doing.
for the Love of God, please tell us your goals ya big doofus!
Last edited by justnspace; Aug 6, 2013 at 08:39 AM.
^^ You are asking the same ambigous question as OP and IIRC you have ask this question before in a previous thread you created 
Seriously, either would suffice depending on your goals. However, it is up to the individual to research on how to build a safe built.
Seriously, either would suffice depending on your goals. However, it is up to the individual to research on how to build a safe built.
^i take that back
if J&R turbo kit is $6k and you already have flashpro; 400hp is do-able.
but remember, things go wrong. also, added stress on components will make them go out easier.
plus, add all the extra stuff you may need and an $8k budget doesnt seem nearly enough.
if J&R turbo kit is $6k and you already have flashpro; 400hp is do-able.
but remember, things go wrong. also, added stress on components will make them go out easier.
plus, add all the extra stuff you may need and an $8k budget doesnt seem nearly enough.
Burning Brakes
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 182
From: Minnesota
That's why supercharger was the all around better choice.. lol. With his 8G budget, a M90 set up is doable and reachable.
Hondata Boost Solenoid and Boost by Gear, will see if any turbo guys running this feature on Flashpro for our TL's yet.
I think you need to read this book: Maximum Boost by Corky Bell
https://www.mamotorworks.com/corvett...1-68-9617.html
If you search, you can probably find the free PDF file online.
https://www.mamotorworks.com/corvett...1-68-9617.html
If you search, you can probably find the free PDF file online.
Team Owner
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 20,172
Likes: 1,818
From: Bakersfield
Lots of ignorance as usual. Other than price, show me how a supercharger is better than a turbo. I don't know why this is so complicated, they're both glorified air compressors. One just does it much more efficiently and over a wider range.
The supercharger takes power to make boost. To make an additional 100hp at the crank, the engine needs to actually produce 140 extra hp since about 40hp is lost spinning the supercharger.
Now you need enough fuel for that additional 140hp even though you're only making another 100fwhp. You've got 40hp of additional stress on the internals.
Another way of saying it is if the stock engine's limit is 300whp with the supercharger, it's going to be 340hp with the turbo.
Then there's the heat. The turbo is always going to deliver a cooler charge air for each lb of boost and CFM of air with the exception of a centrifugal supercharger but those are nothing but lag and are a terrible idea on a car like the TL. Most turbo setups are easy to intercool even though they don't need the intercooler as badly as a supercharger does. With most superchargers it's hard to add an intercooler even though they need it more.
Adding an intercooler to a supercharger is a problem in itself because you'll lose boost at the intake manifold due to the cooling of the air. Small power gains will still be there despite less boost but you need to install a smaller pulley to bring boost back up to it's prior level. With the turbo, the wastegate maintains boost pressure regardless of flow or mass air flow.
The "twin charger" idea is obsolete. Turbos no longer have any issues with low rpm boost. Look at the 335, 911 turbo, and most other modern turbo cars, they're making peak torque by 1,500rpm because they're able to hit full boost by that rpm. I'm running a GT6567 on a relatively small 4.2L engine and with just a 2,800 stall converter it spools quicker than the stock turbo did. I could probably go back to the stock 2,400 stall if I wanted to without a loss in drivability. Modern turbo setups truly make a small engine behave like a big block in both peak power and power delivery.
With a cheap electronic boost controller you can shape the powerband. Want huge torque right off idle and pull hard to redline, you can have it. Want power to come in a little higher in the rev range to save the transmission or due to traction limitations, you can have that too.
To sum it up:
The turbo is easier on the engine at a given hp level.
The turbo requires less fuel for a given hp.
It's more friendly to engine mods, because boost will not fall off as you do othre mods like exhaust.
It's less prone to producing detonation due to the cooler charge air so you can run more boost on a given octane.
It has a better powerband with more low end torque and hp to redline.
It has a wide operating range so you can throw in some good gas and crank the boost for an additional 100hp over the baseline tune.
It's easy to use with an intercooler for more power and boost on a given octane.
There's no oil to change, you can not only run more boost but you can run more timing so you're not trashing the exhaust valves.
Detune the turbo TLs to the 300-350whp the supercharged cars are making and you've got yourself a very reliable daily driver, the turbo will just be coasting along at that level. Let's not forget way back in the day when everyone thought 300-350 was the limit of the stock internals then the turbo kit came along and put an end to that myth.
When the new Garrett GT series turbos came out they pretty much made supercharging obsolete. Reasons for going with a supercharger are limited to cost and complexity. Functionally, the turbo is better in every way.
The supercharger takes power to make boost. To make an additional 100hp at the crank, the engine needs to actually produce 140 extra hp since about 40hp is lost spinning the supercharger.
Now you need enough fuel for that additional 140hp even though you're only making another 100fwhp. You've got 40hp of additional stress on the internals.
Another way of saying it is if the stock engine's limit is 300whp with the supercharger, it's going to be 340hp with the turbo.
Then there's the heat. The turbo is always going to deliver a cooler charge air for each lb of boost and CFM of air with the exception of a centrifugal supercharger but those are nothing but lag and are a terrible idea on a car like the TL. Most turbo setups are easy to intercool even though they don't need the intercooler as badly as a supercharger does. With most superchargers it's hard to add an intercooler even though they need it more.
Adding an intercooler to a supercharger is a problem in itself because you'll lose boost at the intake manifold due to the cooling of the air. Small power gains will still be there despite less boost but you need to install a smaller pulley to bring boost back up to it's prior level. With the turbo, the wastegate maintains boost pressure regardless of flow or mass air flow.
The "twin charger" idea is obsolete. Turbos no longer have any issues with low rpm boost. Look at the 335, 911 turbo, and most other modern turbo cars, they're making peak torque by 1,500rpm because they're able to hit full boost by that rpm. I'm running a GT6567 on a relatively small 4.2L engine and with just a 2,800 stall converter it spools quicker than the stock turbo did. I could probably go back to the stock 2,400 stall if I wanted to without a loss in drivability. Modern turbo setups truly make a small engine behave like a big block in both peak power and power delivery.
With a cheap electronic boost controller you can shape the powerband. Want huge torque right off idle and pull hard to redline, you can have it. Want power to come in a little higher in the rev range to save the transmission or due to traction limitations, you can have that too.
To sum it up:
The turbo is easier on the engine at a given hp level.
The turbo requires less fuel for a given hp.
It's more friendly to engine mods, because boost will not fall off as you do othre mods like exhaust.
It's less prone to producing detonation due to the cooler charge air so you can run more boost on a given octane.
It has a better powerband with more low end torque and hp to redline.
It has a wide operating range so you can throw in some good gas and crank the boost for an additional 100hp over the baseline tune.
It's easy to use with an intercooler for more power and boost on a given octane.
There's no oil to change, you can not only run more boost but you can run more timing so you're not trashing the exhaust valves.
Detune the turbo TLs to the 300-350whp the supercharged cars are making and you've got yourself a very reliable daily driver, the turbo will just be coasting along at that level. Let's not forget way back in the day when everyone thought 300-350 was the limit of the stock internals then the turbo kit came along and put an end to that myth.
When the new Garrett GT series turbos came out they pretty much made supercharging obsolete. Reasons for going with a supercharger are limited to cost and complexity. Functionally, the turbo is better in every way.
