Talk to two people, and you will get three answers. Here are some consideration's in deciding which one is the right choice for you:

Turbochargers fit easy on straight 4 or 6 cylinder engines. They must be fitted as close as possible to the head.

TC's must run very hot, just short of melting down. This requires that the surrounding of the TC must be well insulated from radiation heat, and that the engine must be kept idling for a minute or two after heavy use before switching off. Obviously, the turbo is water-cooled.

TC's must run hot because they rely on the exhaust gas velocity, which is directly proportional to the temperature.

TC's have turbo lag, the time it takes to wind the "fan" up. This is less noticeable with automatics or during manual gear shift, but very noticeable during a "standing start".

TC's are more commonly used in diesel engines.

TC's are used more frequently in Europe because smaller engines (4 cylinders) are more common.

TC's require a special exhaust branch, which must be made of high temperature material, if possible with no heat expansion ! Otherwise your exhaust branch gasket will not last.

You can fit two TC's on a V6 or V8, it works. But you must choose the TC carefully, and you have twice the radiation heat problem, twice the cost.

SC's are used exclusively in acceleration racing, because the turbo lag can't be tolerated.

Depending on the type of SC you are considering, the fitting varies from being outright impossible to easy as fitting an air-conditioner pump.

TC's are used on constant load engines such as trucks, marine engines and power-plants.

There are many types of SC's, but only one type TC. The selection of the correct size and manufacturer of either TC or SC is an art, which should be left to the experts. Many technical books have been written about it and free advice is available from the manufacturers of TC's or SC's.

When you look at the boost pressure curve of TC's and SC's, the SC's don't look too impressive. This is because they have to be geared to produce the maximum boost pressure at high RPM. In comparison, a TC has a regulation device built in, which opens a "waste gate" once the maximum boost has been reached. The TC curve doesn't explain the turbo lag !

A TC produces more power at low RPM, because a well selected TC produces the maximum boost between 1500 to 2500 RPM, when the waste gate starts to open. This operating mode may be useful for 4x4's. In the latest TC design, the turbo's fan's became smaller, the waste gate bigger, and the turbo speed higher.

TC's can't really produce very high boost pressure, above 1.5 bar (21 psi). Someone will prove me wrong, I am sure. But TC's are used normally between 0.4 to 1.2 bar (6 psi to 17 psi).

Another way to explain the turbo lag: A TC works on the chain reaction principle, it is the starting of the chain which produces the lag. Lets assume the engine idles and so does the turbo. The boost pressure is ZERO. Then you open the throttle to a particular point and keep it there. The engine operates in a decompressed state and produces very little power. The little power it makes raises the exhaust gas temperature and velocity. This makes the turbo spin a little faster and raises the boost pressure, which in turn makes a little more power, which in turn.....(the chain reaction sets in). The chain reaction is limited by the waste gate regulation, and the airflow through your butterflies. Also, the TC can limit the boost pressure, or RPM limits can come in, or your engine blows up.

SC's are more predictable in engineering terms. From the manufacturers data you can choose the correct gearing for the desired boost pressure and RPM.

SC's are more expensive and difficult to manufacture.

SC's are heating the boost air to the same extent as TC's, but the fitting of intercoolers is hardly every done to the roots type.

Summary: If you have a straight engine, not used in a dragster, consider a TC: it's less expensive, but requires a little engineering. Otherwise look at a SC. Make a market research as to the types, size, lubrication, cooling and gearing required. If you are building dragsters, it must be a SC, and your choices are limited to two or three manufacturers, which are helpful in providing kits and free advice.

sorry its so long, lol!

ICLUB this post is useless most of the info is just wrong ot too general to be useful to the extent that I do not even want to waste time correcting all of it it.
Just three little wonders: 1) TC do not have to run hot. They get hot but that's a byproduct. 2) How is exaust gas temepretaure proportional to its speed evacuating cylinder block? 3) The TC boost is ZERO only when the engine is off hence the lack of turbo lag in newer TC designs. It may get to negative, though, but that's another story (deceleration)
ICLUB why do not you club your self do death, huh?


Talk to two people, and you will get three answers. Here are some consideration's in deciding which one is the right choice for you:

Turbochargers fit easy on straight 4 or 6 cylinder engines. They must be fitted as close as possible to the head.

TC's must run very hot, just short of melting down. This requires that the surrounding of the TC must be well insulated from radiation heat, and that the engine must be kept idling for a minute or two after heavy use before switching off. Obviously, the turbo is water-cooled.

TC's must run hot because they rely on the exhaust gas velocity, which is directly proportional to the temperature.

TC's have turbo lag, the time it takes to wind the "fan" up. This is less noticeable with automatics or during manual gear shift, but very noticeable during a "standing start".

TC's are more commonly used in diesel engines.

TC's are used more frequently in Europe because smaller engines (4 cylinders) are more common.

TC's require a special exhaust branch, which must be made of high temperature material, if possible with no heat expansion ! Otherwise your exhaust branch gasket will not last.

You can fit two TC's on a V6 or V8, it works. But you must choose the TC carefully, and you have twice the radiation heat problem, twice the cost.

SC's are used exclusively in acceleration racing, because the turbo lag can't be tolerated.

Depending on the type of SC you are considering, the fitting varies from being outright impossible to easy as fitting an air-conditioner pump.

TC's are used on constant load engines such as trucks, marine engines and power-plants.

There are many types of SC's, but only one type TC. The selection of the correct size and manufacturer of either TC or SC is an art, which should be left to the experts. Many technical books have been written about it and free advice is available from the manufacturers of TC's or SC's.

When you look at the boost pressure curve of TC's and SC's, the SC's don't look too impressive. This is because they have to be geared to produce the maximum boost pressure at high RPM. In comparison, a TC has a regulation device built in, which opens a "waste gate" once the maximum boost has been reached. The TC curve doesn't explain the turbo lag !

A TC produces more power at low RPM, because a well selected TC produces the maximum boost between 1500 to 2500 RPM, when the waste gate starts to open. This operating mode may be useful for 4x4's. In the latest TC design, the turbo's fan's became smaller, the waste gate bigger, and the turbo speed higher.

TC's can't really produce very high boost pressure, above 1.5 bar (21 psi). Someone will prove me wrong, I am sure. But TC's are used normally between 0.4 to 1.2 bar (6 psi to 17 psi).

Another way to explain the turbo lag: A TC works on the chain reaction principle, it is the starting of the chain which produces the lag. Lets assume the engine idles and so does the turbo. The boost pressure is ZERO. Then you open the throttle to a particular point and keep it there. The engine operates in a decompressed state and produces very little power. The little power it makes raises the exhaust gas temperature and velocity. This makes the turbo spin a little faster and raises the boost pressure, which in turn makes a little more power, which in turn.....(the chain reaction sets in). The chain reaction is limited by the waste gate regulation, and the airflow through your butterflies. Also, the TC can limit the boost pressure, or RPM limits can come in, or your engine blows up.

SC's are more predictable in engineering terms. From the manufacturers data you can choose the correct gearing for the desired boost pressure and RPM.

SC's are more expensive and difficult to manufacture.

SC's are heating the boost air to the same extent as TC's, but the fitting of intercoolers is hardly every done to the roots type.

Summary: If you have a straight engine, not used in a dragster, consider a TC: it's less expensive, but requires a little engineering. Otherwise look at a SC. Make a market research as to the types, size, lubrication, cooling and gearing required. If you are building dragsters, it must be a SC, and your choices are limited to two or three manufacturers, which are helpful in providing kits and free advice.

sorry its so long, lol!

ICLUB this post is useless most of the info is just wrong ot too general to be useful to the extent that I do not even want to waste time correcting all of it it.
Just three little wonders: 1) TC do not have to run hot. They get hot but that's a byproduct. 2) How is exaust gas temepretaure proportional to its speed evacuating cylinder block? 3) The TC boost is ZERO only when the engine is off hence the lack of turbo lag in newer TC designs. It may get to negative, though, but that's another story (deceleration)
ICLUB why do not you club your self do death, huh?



He has good intentions, he's trying to educate people. If he's wrong, please enlighten the rest of us. Lets not get into an unnecessary flame war, shall we?

i have no clue what this post is about. and i have no clue where to start correcting things.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question122.htm

problem solved

the rest of if is what your personal preference and most of that is usually whether you really like the sound of spooling up and the BOV the way most people talk.

TC's must run very hot, just short of melting down. This requires that the surrounding of the TC must be well insulated from radiation heat, and that the engine must be kept idling for a minute or two after heavy use before switching off. Obviously, the turbo is water-cooled.

Not always true. The turbo I put on my friend's civic wasn't watercooled. A lot of them aren't.

He has good intentions, he's trying to educate people. If he's wrong, please enlighten the rest of us. Lets not get into an unnecessary flame war, shall we?

He may have good intension but that's not an excuse to post garbage.
Disinformation is MUCH worse that lack if information.

Just read his summary:

Summary: If you have a straight engine, not used in a dragster, consider a TC: it's less expensive, but requires a little engineering. Otherwise look at a SC. Make a market research as to the types, size, lubrication, cooling and gearing required. If you are building dragsters, it must be a SC, and your choices are limited to two or three manufacturers, which are helpful in providing kits and free advice.


Have you ever read anything more useless? How much did you actually learn from that summary?

It is not a flame war I just could not believe my eyes when reading "truth about sc vs tc"....

Well it is true for draging a supercharger is better than a turbo.

Well it is true for draging a supercharger is better than a turbo.




yeah if your doing 1/8 or wanna go slow. (talking bout 4bangers)

Car: Scion tC or any 4 Cyl car
Application: Street and occasional strip use
Complexity: Stage I turbo kit VS say supercharger from factory

Supercharger:
Most important/noticeable:
Pros: Flatten and quick torque curve
Cons: Lack of upgradeability

Turbo charger:
Most important/noticeable:
Pros: Higher torque peak and possibly higher HP gain
Cons: Installation and care-maintenance

While the Supercharger will have no lag, it will have just a few tricks you can do with the pulleys to gain more power and then it all about good old engine magic to continue the quest for HP/TQ numbers, the Turbo charger on the other hand, will show lag but will pull higher torque numbers resulting in a similar acceleration compared to the car equipped with the supercharger.

Now, installation but mostly the care-maintenance that you must have to ensure long life and good performance from the turbo might be the downside. Let’s not forget over-boosting that breaks turbos or engines…But that also is the added value of the turbo charging where you will be able to raise the boost to easy obtain more power.

Driving conditions: supercharged car, just like driving a car with a larger engine with noticeable higher performance, while driving a turbo car normally adds the acceleration sensation when engine speed and WOT get the turbo to boost normally around 4000RPM and away you go!

We know there are more Pros/Cons for both systems, but if you are not a race car engineer and just want to evaluate what to buy, we hope this helps.

my head hurts, ahh where to begin...

For starters, as said I believe, turbo's don't have to be "hot". Host exhaust gas does spin the exhaust turbine causing it to spool, this is connected to a compressor wheel which sucks in air through an intake. The compressed air increases in temperature only because of the compression of air. As air compresses it get's hotter because gas molecules are moving faster.

Yes turbo's are common on Desisel, but not uncommon on gasoline cars. Every saab is turbo charged.

Turbo lag is not tolerated? Just get a smaller turbo with appropiate trim. Most high hp drag cars are turbo charged. I usually see superchargers on domestics because typically they don't rev as high, and the torque band is lower. But every sub 12sec civic i've seen has been boosted. There's those few NA civics that are an exception.

I guess being close to the head is good, but airflow and temp is more important. Equal runner manifolds make a large difference in performance. The runners may be longer, but with the increased efficiency, they make more power, with slightly better response.

I don't know these are jsut some thigns I cought. Sciontcperformance.com, nice post.

Turbochargers fit easy on straight 4 or 6 cylinder engines. They must be fitted as close as possible to the head.


Browse around this site for a while, hopefully they make a kit for the tC, this is some cool stuff

http://www.ststurbo.com/home

Saw it on Two Guys Garage :)

Car: Scion tC or any 4 Cyl car
Application: Street and occasional strip use
Complexity: Stage I turbo kit VS say supercharger from factory

Supercharger:
Most important/noticeable:
Pros: Flatten and quick torque curve
Cons: Lack of upgradeability

Turbo charger:
Most important/noticeable:
Pros: Higher torque peak and possibly higher HP gain
Cons: Installation and care-maintenance

While the Supercharger will have no lag, it will have just a few tricks you can do with the pulleys to gain more power and then it all about good old engine magic to continue the quest for HP/TQ numbers, the Turbo charger on the other hand, will show lag but will pull higher torque numbers resulting in a similar acceleration compared to the car equipped with the supercharger.

Now, installation but mostly the care-maintenance that you must have to ensure long life and good performance from the turbo might be the downside. Let’s not forget over-boosting that breaks turbos or engines…But that also is the added value of the turbo charging where you will be able to raise the boost to easy obtain more power.

Driving conditions: supercharged car, just like driving a car with a larger engine with noticeable higher performance, while driving a turbo car normally adds the acceleration sensation when engine speed and WOT get the turbo to boost normally around 4000RPM and away you go!

We know there are more Pros/Cons for both systems, but if you are not a race car engineer and just want to evaluate what to buy, we hope this helps.

Folks,
Everybody is generalizing here. There is no simple answer turbo vs supercharger as the design differs... Supercharges are used commonly in spor/muscle cars such as Mercedes/AMGs and turbos in Audis and Saabs...
All depends on actuall application. As a matter of pure physics rubocharger is more efficient as it utilizes energy that would be OTHERWISE lost, i.e. exhaust gasese velocity...
As far as lag it also depends on the application and tuning. There is a trade of betwwen large turbo vs. small as the small will spool up faster but deliver less power gain. Both superchargers and turbochargers need to spool up, today's turbochargesr suffer much less from the turbo lag than 20 years ago. If you do not believe me drive a tubro car such as 2000 Saab 93 Viggen and let me know if you notice ANY turbo lag at all.... You won't.

There is no MAINTENANCE on turbos. Today's turbo;s are most oftne watercooled and do not even require cool down like they used to years ago. I do not believe in bolt-on turbo application, there is too much of art and science involved to egt that app succcesfull...

I would wait for Toyota's own supercharger as it is designed and tested for this particular engine........

Turbo car feels exactly like a car with a much larger engine, just spend some time in a factory equipped turbo car like a SAAB or Audi or Mitsu and you will know.......
My 9000 was a 2.3L turbo and you would not believe it is not a V6 or V8 whiule driving it. Incredibely responsive with NO noticeable trubo lag...

Do not believe everything you read, especiaolly when it comes from so called tuners trying to push their products.......

Let's evaluate the turbocharger versus the supercharger according to several important factors.



Cost
The cost of supercharger and a turbocharger systems for the same engine are approximately the same, so cost is generally not a factor.




Lag
This is perhaps the biggest advantage that the supercharger enjoys over the tubo. Because a turbocharger is driven by exhaust gasses, the turbocharger's turbine must first spool up before it even begins to turn the compressor's impeller. This results in lag time which is the time needed for the turbine to reach its full throttle from an intermediate rotational speed state. During this lag time, the turbocharger is creating little to no boost, which means little to no power gains during this time. Smaller turbos spool up quicker, which eliminates some of this lag. Turbochargers thus utilize a wastegate, which allows the use of a smaller turbocharger to reduce lag while preventing it from spinning too quickly at high engine speeds. The wastegate is a valve that allows the exhaust to bypass the turbine blades. The wastegate senses boost pressure, and if it gets too high, it could be an indicator that the turbine is spinning too quickly, so the wastegate bypasses some of the exhaust around the turbine blades, allowing the blades to slow down..
A Supercharger, on the other hand, is connected directly to the crank, so there is no "lag". Superchargers are able to produce boost at a very low rpm, especially screw-type and roots type blowers.



Efficiency
This is the turbo's biggest advantage. The turbocharger is generally more economical to operate as it as it is driven primarily by potential energy in the exhaust gasses that would otherwise be lost out the exhaust, whereas a supercharger draws power from the crank, which can be used to turn the wheels. The turbocharger's impeller is also powered only under boost conditions, so there is less parasitic drag while the impeller is not spinning. The turbocharger, however, is not free of inefficiency as it does create additional exhaust backpressure and exhaust flow interruption.



Heat
Because the turbocharger is mounted to the exhaust manifold (which is very hot), turbocharger boost is subject to additional heating via the turbo's hot casing. Because hot air expands (the opposite goal of a turbo or supercharger), an intercooler becomes necessary on almost all turbocharged applications to cool the air charge before it is released into the engine. This increases the complexity of the installation. A centrifugal supercharger on the other hand creates a cooler air discharge, so an intercooler is often not necessary at boost levels below 10psi. That said, some superchargers (especially roots-type superchargers) create hotter discharge temperatures, which also make an intecooler necessary even on fairly low-boost applications.



Surge
Because a turbocharger first spools up before the boost is delivered to the engine, there is a surge of power that is delivered immediately when the wastegate opens (around 3000 rpm). This surge can be damaging to the engine and drivetrain, and can make the vehicle difficult to drive or lose traction.



Back Pressure
Because the supercharger eliminates the need to deal with the exhaust gas interruption created by inserting a turbocharger turbine into the exhaust flow, the supercharger creates no additional exhaust backpressure. The amount of power that is lost by a turbo's turbine reduces it's overall efficiency.



Noise
The turbocharger is generally quiter than the supercharger. Because the turbo's turbine is in the exhaust, the turbo can substantially reduce exhaust noise, making the engine run quieter. Some centrifugal superchargers are known to be noisy and whistley which, annoys some drivers (we, however, love it!)



Reliability
In general, superchargers enjoy a substantial reliability advantage over the turbocharger. When a a turbo is shut off (i.e. when the engine is turned off), residual oil inside the turbo's bearings can be baked by stored engine heat. This, combined with the turbo's extremely high rpms (up to 150,000rpm) can cause problems with the turbo's internal bearings and can shorten the life of the turbocharger. In addition, many turbos require aftermarket exhaust manifolds, which are often far less reliable than stock manifolds.



Ease of Installation
Superchargers are substantially easier to install than a turbos because they have far fewer components and simpler devices. Turbos are complex and require manifold and exhaust modifications, intercoolers, extra oil lines, etc. - most of which is not needed with most superchargers. A novice home mechanic can easily install most supercharger systems, while a turbo installation should be left to a turbo expert.



Maximum Power Output
Turbos are known for their unique ability to spin to incredibly high rpms and make outrages peak boost figures (25psi+). While operating a turbocharger at very high levels of boost requires major modifications to the rest of the engine, the turbo is capable of producing more peak power than superchargers.



Tunability
Turbochargers, because they are so complex and rely on exhaust pressure, are notoriously difficult to tune. Superchargers, on the other hand, require few fuel and ignition upgrades and normally require little or no engine tuning.



Conclusion
While the supercharger is generally considered to be a better method of forced induction for most street and race vehicles, the turbo will always have its place in a more specialized market. Superchargers generally provide a much broader powerband that most drivers are looking for with no "turbo lag". In addition, they are much easier to install and tune, making them more practical for a home or novice mechanic.

and here's something from howstuffworks.com
___

What is the difference between a turbocharger and a supercharger on a car's engine?


Let's start with the similarities. Both turbochargers and superchargers are called forced induction systems. They compress the air flowing into the engine (see How Car Engines Work for a description of airflow in a normal engine). The advantage of compressing the air is that it lets the engine stuff more air into a cylinder. More air means that more fuel can be stuffed in, too, so you get more power from each explosion in each cylinder. A turbo/supercharged engine produces more power overall than the same engine without the charging.

The typical boost provided by either a turbocharger or a supercharger is 6 to 8 pounds per square inch (psi). Since normal atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi at sea level, you can see that you are getting about 50-percent more air into the engine. Therefore, you would expect to get 50-percent more power. It's not perfectly efficient, though, so you might get a 30-percent to 40-percent improvement instead.

The key difference between a turbocharger and a supercharger is its power supply. Something has to supply the power to run the air compressor. In a supercharger, there is a belt that connects directly to the engine. It gets its power the same way that the water pump or alternator does. A turbocharger, on the other hand, gets its power from the exhaust stream. The exhaust runs through a turbine, which in turn spins the compressor (see How Gas Turbine Engines Work for details).

There are tradeoffs in both systems. In theory, a turbocharger is more efficient because it is using the "wasted" energy in the exhaust stream for its power source. On the other hand, a turbocharger causes some amount of back pressure in the exhaust system and tends to provide less boost until the engine is running at higher RPMs. Superchargers are easier to install but tend to be more expensive.

2 Errors in the original post:

1) Most turbos are oil cooled, not water cooled. This is why after hard driving you need to idle the car for a few mins so the hot oil have cool down and leave the turbo. Hot oil will cool too quickly and turn solid in the turbo.

2) Turbos can boost well over 21 psi. On a drag car they make between 35-40 psi. On a diesel motor they can make upwards of 70 psi.

ok cool...now we got sum facts...we like facts...i think i still like the turbo though, i dont know i guess it comes down to that pssssssstttt! blow off sound

2 Errors in the original post:

1) Most turbos are oil cooled, not water cooled. This is why after hard driving you need to idle the car for a few mins so the hot oil have cool down and leave the turbo. Hot oil will cool too quickly and turn solid in the turbo.

2) Turbos can boost well over 21 psi. On a drag car they make between 35-40 psi. On a diesel motor they can make upwards of 70 psi.


Florence my only turbo experience comes from Saab (9000 AERO and 95 AERO)
and to the best of my knowledge all SAAB trurbos are now watercooled hence no need, at least in theory, for a cool down (I would still do it remebereing this nice glow yo get under the hood after 100 miles)
Saabs are pretty much the first production cars in the world equipped with turbo so I would think they they have experience in implementing trubo on passenger cars...

Anyways, one of the biggest advantages of Saabs is their propiretary engine mamnagement (Trionic Ecopower) system that was designed to support turbo (i.e. ECU controlls wastegate and by-pass making it a part of the algorhitm).
That's also why I question addon turbo kits since turbo app with a significant boost requiers upgraded (more pressure) fuele delivery and redisigned ECU algorithms...
How do you deal with that on an add-on turbo kit?

I am going to leave this discussion as I already made up my mind, I would rather have a warranty covered and factory tested although less performing s/c than risk
the powertrain by installing aftermarket turbo on an engine that was simply not designed to be abused that way. Remember where this engine is coming from....

Yes trubos ca boost. The question is how is the powertrain going to take it?

BTW, Wanna turbo? Buy an S4...

They must be fitted as close as possible to the head.
that is not true. a longer equal length manifold witch mounts the turbo significantly further away from the head than a shorter "log" manifold and creates greater and more efficient power.


TC's must run very hot, just short of melting down. This requires that the surrounding of the TC must be well insulated from radiation heat, and that the engine must be kept idling for a minute or two after heavy use before switching off. Obviously, the turbo is water-cooled.
the cooler the turbocharger, the better for the reason of thermal efficiency. it is usally a good idea to allow the turbo to cool before the engine cooling system is shut down, and that is what turbo timers are made for. as stated many times in this thread, all turbochargers are not water cooled and as far as i know, most aftermarket turbochargers in the import market are oilcooled.

TC's must run hot because they rely on the exhaust gas velocity, which is directly proportional to the temperature.
not true due to the reason(s) stated above.

TC's have turbo lag, the time it takes to wind the "fan" up. This is less noticeable with automatics or during manual gear shift, but very noticeable during a "standing start".
turbo "lag" is not a bad thing. turbo lag is the time before your turbo is in it's boost range, which is the time when your turbocharger is not burning away your fuel-economy (which the tc already has a problem with) making power when you don't need it. if you want the power, downshift. if you don't, drive normally and low rpms and enjoy your somewhat decent gas milage.

TC's are more commonly used in diesel engines.
somewhat true, but based on what? compared to what? and even if it was completely true, just that statement is useless.

TC's are used more frequently in Europe because smaller engines (4 cylinders) are more common.
oh, so that's why?</sarcasm> same answer as above.

TC's require a special exhaust branch, which must be made of high temperature material, if possible with no heat expansion ! Otherwise your exhaust branch gasket will not last.
it's called a turbo manifold, which is basically a header that connects to a turbo at the end rather than your cat or exhaust piping. and they have been built successfully for quite some time now.

You can fit two TC's on a V6 or V8, it works. But you must choose the TC carefully, and you have twice the radiation heat problem, twice the cost.
we're not dealing with engine with more than one cylinder bank here, the information within the statement is not necessary here nor is it completely correct. sure you can put two on there, you could also put one on an engine with dual cylinder banks, or you could put two on a inline engine... what's the point? arguably, there is not a significant heat radiation (not radiation heat) problem. twice the cost of what? the whole system of a whole turbocharger setup? no. just the cost of an additional turbo and merging downpipe setup, which may not be a huge jump in price depening on the setup.

SC's are used exclusively in acceleration racing, because the turbo lag can't be tolerated.
have a look at import drag racing, all the forced induction racers are using turbo chargers. lag is not an issue at the rpm you race at. as stated above, turbo "lag" is a good thing when you anticipate it and size the turbo correctly according to your goals.

Depending on the type of SC you are considering, the fitting varies from being outright impossible to easy as fitting an air-conditioner pump.

true to a certain extent, but modifications can be made and are often nessicary for aftermarket turbocharger systems as well.

TC's are used on constant load engines such as trucks, marine engines and power-plants.
so are superchargers. turbochargers are also used in other situations of need as well, as are superchargers. it is not as if that is the only situation in which turbochargers are suitable.

There are many types of SC's, but only one type TC. The selection of the correct size and manufacturer of either TC or SC is an art, which should be left to the experts. Many technical books have been written about it and free advice is available from the manufacturers of TC's or SC's.
i'm no expert on superchargers, but as far as i know, there are two common types of superchargers... roots and centrifugal. it doesn't take an expert to choose the proper turbocharger for a certian application, it just takes a compressor efficiency map and the ability to read and understand one. that statement makes it sound like superchargers are more versatile than turbochargers, which is completely not true. you can choose from many different turbochargers to suit your needs when putting together a system. where as in the import market, there are usally only one or two companys making a single supercharger for any one application with not many options to suit your needs. and in the tc's choice, there is only one choice... trd.

When you look at the boost pressure curve of TC's and SC's, the SC's don't look too impressive. This is because they have to be geared to produce the maximum boost pressure at high RPM. In comparison, a TC has a regulation device built in, which opens a "waste gate" once the maximum boost has been reached. The TC curve doesn't explain the turbo lag!
the satement about the "gearing" is true for roots type superchargers... which is it's downfall. centrifugal superchargers are similar to a turbocharger, but they are driven by a belt off the engine witch takes power. where as the turbo charger runs off exhaust gasses which also creates backpressure which takes a little more power from the engine to push thru (loosely put). wastegates are generally not built into turbochargers on aftermarket turbo systems. but the statment is correct that a wastegate regulates boost pressure. the turbocharger's boost pressure curve does explain turbo "lag". first there is no boost when the turbocharger is in "lag" mode, then boost starts to build as the turbocharger is spooling, then in most cases, the boost pressure levels off as the wastegate opens to maintain the set level of boost.

A TC produces more power at low RPM, because a well selected TC produces the maximum boost between 1500 to 2500 RPM, when the waste gate starts to open. This operating mode may be useful for 4x4's. In the latest TC design, the turbo's fan's became smaller, the waste gate bigger, and the turbo speed higher.blatently and complely wrong. superchargers are known to create more low end power than superchargers for the fact that it is the time when the turbocharger is in "lag". if a turbo is at maximum boost at 2000 rpm, what's it gonna be doing at 7000 rpm? spinning to hell, wasting away free power that is being vented out of the wastegate... rediculous.

TC's can't really produce very high boost pressure, above 1.5 bar (21 psi). Someone will prove me wrong, I am sure. But TC's are used normally between 0.4 to 1.2 bar (6 psi to 17 psi).
a small turbocharger on a large engine could generate 65716876467646168psi, but that wouldn't be very efficienct. the reason that you see most turbochargers peaking out in that range is because that is generally where they are in their ideal efficiency range. although a lot of high powered hondas make thier peak power at 30+ psi.

Another way to explain the turbo lag: A TC works on the chain reaction principle, it is the starting of the chain which produces the lag. Lets assume the engine idles and so does the turbo. The boost pressure is ZERO. Then you open the throttle to a particular point and keep it there. The engine operates in a decompressed state and produces very little power. The little power it makes raises the exhaust gas temperature and velocity. This makes the turbo spin a little faster and raises the boost pressure, which in turn makes a little more power, which in turn.....(the chain reaction sets in). The chain reaction is limited by the waste gate regulation, and the airflow through your butterflies. Also, the TC can limit the boost pressure, or RPM limits can come in, or your engine blows up.
this statement seems to be based on the incorrect theroy stated earlier that boost pressure is related to the tempture of the exhaust coming out of the head. i can't make much sence out of the whole "chain reaction"... but maybe it's just me.

SC's are more predictable in engineering terms. From the manufacturers data you can choose the correct gearing for the desired boost pressure and RPM.
same goes for turbochargers, just look at a compressor efficiency map.

SC's are more expensive and difficult to manufacture.
than what? all depends on which supercharger system you're comparing to what turbocharger system. that statement holds no water.

SC's are heating the boost air to the same extent as TC's, but the fitting of intercoolers is hardly every done to the roots type.
they are not heating the compressed air to the same temperature as eachother. the temperature of the compressed air would depend on the efficiency of the compressor (be it turbocharger or supercharger) among other variables. and you're right, roots type superchargers generally don't have intercoolers because they are mounted directly to the head. which is also another downfall of the roots type supercharger, the addition of an intercooler cools the compressed air which makes the air denser which allows more air molecules for any given amount of space which allows more fuel to be added to the space which in turn makes more power.

Summary: If you have a straight engine, not used in a dragster, consider a TC: it's less expensive, but requires a little engineering. Otherwise look at a SC. Make a market research as to the types, size, lubrication, cooling and gearing required. If you are building dragsters, it must be a SC, and your choices are limited to two or three manufacturers, which are helpful in providing kits and free advice.

sorry its so long, lol!
my summary is use this information in conjunction with your own research to make the best decision on what, if any forced induction system will best suit your needs and wants for your application.

now let me say that i am not an expert on this subject but did my best to relay what i believe to be correct information that i have collected from being into forced induction hondas for the last four years or so. you might have been able to tell by reading my post that i don't care for the term "turbo lag" and the way that it is commonly used as i do not feel like it is correct. i am also bias to turbochargers because through my research it is what i believe to be the most appropriate for any application i have ever been interested in.

i also want to take this chance to say hi to everybody. i'm new to scionlife and am contemplating purchacing a tc and have been browsing these forums for quite some time but have just started posting today.

sorry to the original posted for the times that i was rude in my post, it was just a bit frustrating at times. please don't be hardheaded and do absorb the information in this thread.
no hard feelings :) .

if anybody feels that any of this information is incorrect please post your argument. i, like everybody else on here, am here to learn. thanks.

That's also why I question addon turbo kits since turbo app with a significant boost requiers upgraded (more pressure) fuele delivery and redisigned ECU algorithms...
How do you deal with that on an add-on turbo kit?
most aftermarket turbo kits come with some form of fuel managment. one type is a fmu which raises the fuel pressure with the boost pressure forcing more fuel thru the injectors as boost pressure raises. an fmu is the simplest common way used, but also far from the best. some kits come with a piggyback engine managment system, which i know is the case with the scionspeed it. it comes with a pre programed greddy e-manage. it not only allows you to edit the fuel maps, but ignition timing as well. although some kits may come with a base map, it is always a good idea to get your car retuned with some type of engine management system on a dynometer with a egt gauge as well as an a/f meter.
in addition to the solutions listed above, there are many aftermarket stand alone fuel management systems that completely replace the ecu like the aem ems, motec, haltech as well as endless others.

topic cleaned up.....

Lag
This is perhaps the biggest advantage that the supercharger enjoys over the tubo. Because a turbocharger is driven by exhaust gasses, the turbocharger's turbine must first spool up before it even begins to turn the compressor's impeller. This results in lag time which is the time needed for the turbine to reach its full throttle from an intermediate rotational speed state. During this lag time, the turbocharger is creating little to no boost, which means little to no power gains during this time. RPMs. Superchargers are easier to install but tend to be more expensive.

Well, little correction here needed.
Both t/c and s/c are dependent on RPMs, t/c cause at higher rpms there are more exhaust gases hence more power to the turbine, s/c cause it is being moved by the crankshaft which is rotating faster at higher rpms i.e. more power to the fan...
Good turbo applications (small turbos, bi-turbos, sequential turbos) suffer very little from lag since they efficiently operate even at 1.5-2k rpms... Also, the entire SCCA rally world runs on turbos and when you are in the 90% turn sliding there is no way you could afford any lag when you need all the power to the wheels you can get...

Turbo is both science and art, like any advanced tuning of the engine, therefore only few automakers in the world attempt turbos on a passenger car, only few SAAB, AUDI, VOLVO, MITSU are really succesfull...
Keep that in mind...

topic cleaned up.....

Thank you

topic cleaned up.....

Thank you

no prob...

Lets not forget the most important fact. The SC won't void the warranty (well an SC from TRD). A TC will unless TRD decides to release one (cough, not a chance, cough)

Lets not forget the most important fact. The SC won't void the warranty (well an SC from TRD). A TC will unless TRD decides to release one (cough, not a chance, cough)


And that's what exactly sells me on s/c vs t/c.
I do not want to get an aftermarket unit that will blow my engine and leave me with $$$$ for engine overhaul or replacement. If TRD came out with a t/c. Why not?
Otherwise, forget it. We all know how costly engine repairs are...

I thought sc's were better for low rpm horsepower gain (really good for off the line acceleration) and tc's were good for high rpm horsepower gain (really good at higher speeds. When did the rules change?

I thought sc's were better for low rpm horsepower gain (really good for off the line acceleration) and tc's were good for high rpm horsepower gain (really good at higher speeds. When did the rules change?

Those were never the rules. Performance of both systems is dependent on design.
From the racing perspective (SCCA rally) TURBO is the king. (heard of SUPRA?)
low pressure S/C seems to be a charging systems of choice for car makers, possibly because of it's simpler design. SC is actually half of the turbo, fan with no turbine.
Because USUALLY low-pressure by design s/c setups USUALLY lack costly intercoolers etc etc.... They are cheaper and less complex so naturally more attractive for car makers trying to make a quick buck....

my head hurts... But i think i learned something.... ?

[quote="Stefan TC
SC is actually half of the turbo, fan with no turbine.
Because USUALLY low-pressure by design s/c setups USUALLY lack costly intercoolers etc etc.... They are cheaper and less complex so naturally more attractive for car makers trying to make a quick buck....[/quote]

a little expansion... there are different types of superchargers. the one that you described above is a centrifugal style and indeed uses a compressor half much like a turbos.
but there are other style superchargers. the Roots style and Vane style...
the roots style is what TRD uses. you can not see any resemblance to a turbo with that set up...

[quote="Stefan TC
SC is actually half of the turbo, fan with no turbine.
Because USUALLY low-pressure by design s/c setups USUALLY lack costly intercoolers etc etc.... They are cheaper and less complex so naturally more attractive for car makers trying to make a quick buck....

a little expansion... there are different types of superchargers. the one that you described above is a centrifugal style and indeed uses a compressor half much like a turbos.
but there are other style superchargers. the Roots style and Vane style...
the roots style is what TRD uses. you can not see any resemblance to a turbo with that set up...[/quote]

Functionaly, you are still talking about a compressor compressing intake air. The difference between s/c and t/c is the source of energy to compress intake air. With a S/c this energy comes from the engine's output which makes it "half the turbo" - no turbine. Also, for a variety of reason you do not see that many s/c cars on the rally circuit (where HP and torque REALLY counts), only t/c...

but i've never seen a turbo'ed top fuel (funny) car either....
turbos can't make that kind of power...

but i've never seen a turbo'ed top fuel (funny) car either....
turbos can't make that kind of power...

Honestly I do not care much for this "sport" and do not consider these contraptions cars... The engine made specifically for 15 seconds runs after which it needs an overhaul... Where is the fun? What does it have to do with driving skills?
The fun is making a 90 degress turn on a gravel doing 100mph, this is the adrenaline rush I am talking about...... SCCA, rally racing, this is where you can see turbocharged four-cylinder cars pulling 700HP... And no s/c there....

Question

-Do we know yet what type of S/C it will be, Positive Displacement or Centrifugal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't TRD gone w/ Positive Displacement S/C in the past?

Quick Facts

-S/C
Advantages: Instant power, no lag because it is directly attached to your crankshaft.
Disadvantages: Parasitic power loss to system (less peak power) - again because it is using power to make power (attached to your crankshaft :)
Applications: Recommended for low RPM, high torque applications (V8s).

-T/C
Advantages: Greater peak power (at a noticable RPM, no one drives at 8,000 RPMs)
Disadvantages: Lag in power delivery (uses wasted energy, or heat off of your exhaust rather than being attached to you crank therefore heat has to build before you will feel noticable power), long-term durability & cold-start emissions.
Applications: Recommended for high RPM applications (i.e. I4s)


Generally speaking, the problem we are seeing here is the thata the tC does not fall into the usual 4 banger, 2dr sports coupe catagory. Civics, GTI's etc usually offer a lower displacement engine (1.6L,1.8L) etc. where as our tC is at a nice 2.4L. Because of this we have more low end torgue, a civic no torque to speak of but some nice high end HP. Hence the lower (1.6L,1.8L) being 'peaky'. The tC has some nicer low end torgue thanks to the 2.4L - this along w/ engine durability is why TRD has probably chosen to go the T/C route. Lets hope the TRD engineers can push more air and give some better HP results for our money.

Just my 2 cents!

Question

-Do we know yet what type of S/C it will be, Positive Displacement or Centrifugal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't TRD gone w/ Positive Displacement S/C in the past?

Quick Facts

-S/C
Advantages: Instant power, no lag because it is directly attached to your crankshaft.
Disadvantages: Parasitic power loss to system (less peak power) - again because it is using power to make power (attached to your crankshaft :)
Applications: Recommended for low RPM, high torque applications (V8s).

-T/C
Advantages: Greater peak power (at a noticable RPM, no one drives at 8,000 RPMs)
Disadvantages: Lag in power delivery (uses wasted energy, or heat off of your exhaust rather than being attached to you crank therefore heat has to build before you will feel noticable power), long-term durability & cold-start emissions.
Applications: Recommended for high RPM applications (i.e. I4s)

Little correction:
1) t/c lives of exhaust gas pressure, not heat. Exhaust gasses could be extremely cold and turbo would still functon.....
2) Contemporary turbo designes have very little or no lag as turbos produce boost at as little 1500 rpms...almost at engine idle, so continuosly....


Generally speaking, the problem we are seeing here is the thata the tC does not fall into the usual 4 banger, 2dr sports coupe catagory. Civics, GTI's etc usually offer a lower displacement engine (1.6L,1.8L) etc. where as our tC is at a nice 2.4L. Because of this we have more low end torgue, a civic no torque to speak of but some nice high end HP. Hence the lower (1.6L,1.8L) being 'peaky'. The tC has some nicer low end torgue thanks to the 2.4L - this along w/ engine durability is why TRD has probably chosen to go the T/C route. Lets hope the TRD engineers can push more air and give some better HP results for our money.

Just my 2 cents![

T/C's that boost at low RPM have shorter lifespans
T/C's are good for rally and similar about it.
S/C's are great for street and road course racing.
S/C's are great for daily drivers
S/C's are more efficient and easier on the wallet.

Hmm I think an S/C is a better option for a tC.

Turbos will be seen because no one is educated on the S/C enough. Turbos are "cool"... well, the BOV is "cool"

We've raced turbo'd cars, had turbo'd cars and found the Superchargers prevailed. S/C beat a T/C in some of our events and "tests".

And again ... a supercharger will last LOOOONGER than a Turbo system.

jotech moved the rev limiter back to 9000 rpm's for there turbo... on the stock set up a s/c will have extended life

T/C's that boost at low RPM have shorter lifespans
T/C's are good for rally and similar about it.
S/C's are great for street and road course racing.
S/C's are great for daily drivers
S/C's are more efficient and easier on the wallet.


Urban legens again;
My turbo on SAAB 9000 AERO (made by Mitsu) lasted over 200K miles. I ma not aware of any longevity problems of tubos. Chekc with Garrett and Mitsu (largest turbo makers in the world) maybe they heard about it?
TURBO beat Supechargers becaause they are MORE efficient. SUpechargers canibalize the engine's output. TURBO is THE most efficient way of increasing engine's output. Both in automobiles, trucks, marine and aviation.
Originaly this technology was designed for aviation where angine's weight was a critical factor.........


Hmm I think an S/C is a better option for a tC.

Turbos will be seen because no one is educated on the S/C enough. Turbos are "cool"... well, the BOV is "cool"

We've raced turbo'd cars, had turbo'd cars and found the Superchargers prevailed. S/C beat a T/C in some of our events and "tests".

And again ... a supercharger will last LOOOONGER than a Turbo system.


And what exactly did you race? Audi S4 (turbo), BMW Alpina (turbo) Mitsu EVO (turbo)???
There are NO sport cars equipped with superchargers... AMG S55 would not stand a chance in a rally. So wouldn't any Bentley....
The whole SCCA scene in the US and Europe has been dominated by turbocharged cars for years... What street racing? Can you supercharged car beat race-ready Mitsu EVO? How about those Mitsus that are being used in SCCA and have over 700HP of output? What are you talking about??????

again you have input your own brand of info. :blah:
I said, turbo's are great for rally.
We've taken vehicles that had no turbo ... added Turbo and put them against their own brand with a S/C S/C prevailed. :bow:
We're talking about ADDING a turbo or sc.
It's best to Ignore all your factory installed turbo'd mentions. They are MOOT in this discussion.

Add a turbo or sc to a tc
The S/C is a better option for an informed consumer.

Your comment regarding a Bentley in a Rally is beyond humorous. Thanks for that laugh. :rofl:

And remember, the tC is not a sports car :loser:

again you have input your own brand of info. :blah:
I said, turbo's are great for rally.

And what are they not great for? What is 500HP not good for?


We've taken vehicles that had no turbo ... added Turbo and put them against their own brand with a S/C S/C prevailed. :bow:

Care to elaborate what vehicles? What did you add turbo and sc to?
I am yet to see a supercharger that gives a 2.3L engine 700HP...
I have seen turbos that do that..........


We're talking about ADDING a turbo or sc.
It's best to Ignore all your factory installed turbo'd mentions. They are MOOT in this discussion.


So say it. Say s/c is better for Tc than a turbo because it is OEM.
Do not make general statements like "turbos are better for rally and s/c for street racing" cause they are simply NOT true. Race Mitsu Evo against any of your supercharged cars.... and let me know the result....


Add a turbo or sc to a tc
The S/C is a better option for an informed consumer.

Yes it is. Mainly becasue it is OEM and Toyota knows the engine's limits better than anybody....


Your comment regarding a Bentley in a Rally is beyond humorous. Thanks for that laugh. :rofl:

Well, do you know any other examples of turbocharged cars?
I laughed when I read yours about "turbos being good for rallies and superchargers for street" Talk to any S4 and Evo owner: they will laugh at you too....

Or better yet watch any SCCA rally and tell me that 500HP will not work on the street:)))

S4 hahah we killed one with a S/C through angeles crest.
Also killed it with a NA
Both MINI COOPERS
Poor audi had no chance.

500hp is useless on the street in a vehicle like a tC

Why is it such a battle for you to understand the realistic application?
Why do you continue?

A SC, twin screw or roots, is more pratical for cars such as the Scion .

Truth be had... best performance mod you could ever do to a vehicle such as the tC is suspension work.

It's got adequate power for it's class
It just needs suspension tuning.
More than 300hp on a tC is silly.
Anything over would be fine for 1/4 mile sprints.

And get off the Mitsu, that's invalid in this discussion.

S4 hahah we killed one with a S/C through angeles crest.
Also killed it with a NA
Both MINI COOPERS

Right. And I killed your MINI on a sport bike... You killed a twin-turbo 250HP AWD S4 with a supercharged 1.4L 164HP MINI:)))
I hope that everybody who reads that thread has a good laugh now...
Now, so you can learn something, what makes AUDI S4 turbo and every other turbo applciation much better than supercharged is the point at which have peak in torque:
in a MINI that's at 4000RPM in turbo'd S4 the peak is at 1850RPM...
Low RPM peak HP and torque is the key... High RPM peak is USELESS.


500hp is useless on the street in a vehicle like a tC

And why is that? Why exactly is 500HP useless?


Why is it such a battle for you to understand the realistic application?
Why do you continue?
A SC, twin screw or roots, is more pratical for cars such as the Scion .

More practical? No. cheaper and safer since s/c is OEM.
2005 SAAB 9-5 AERO has a 2.3L 4I single turbo, FWD and 250...
SAAB 9-3 AERO has 2.0 4I FWD with a single turbo and 210HP...
Why, from the engineering standpoint, is turbo less "practical" for cars like tc?
How come it is practical for cars like SAAB 9-5 and 9-3?

Back to your original thesis:
T/C's that boost at low RPM have shorter lifespans
NOT TRUE. SAABs for example are known for longevity.
T/C's are good for rally and similar about it.
What are they not good for? Where almost unlimited power (how about 500HP?)
does not fit?
S/C's are great for street and road course racing.
If something is good for rally is good for street. On the track: DISPLACEMENT rules.
S/C's are great for daily drivers
What? Why?
S/C's are more efficient and easier on the wallet.
NOT TRUE. Turbos are always more efficient (by design) when compared by output gain they are much chepar than s/c... It;s like saying that Fords are better cars than Porsches because they are cheaper...
BTW: I have never seen a S/C that doubled the engine's output. And that's typical with turbos in racing applications...

And that passage about 164HP FWD S/C'd MINI beating 250HP turbo AWD AUDI S4... like you said let's be realistic....

Oh, BTW, what cars did you exactly put both turbo and s/c? I am really curious now...

As I said, we killed the S4 in Angeles Crest, it's not hard to swallow if you know the area. We've also killed Lotus Esprit's, M3's, lamborghini's and Ferrari's in these similar areas.
You relate your HP dreams to straight line racing.
Handling and suspension will rule on the road.
I am not asking you to believe the truth, you have a seperate agenda.
PS. Not only did the S/C MINI kill the S4... the NA MINI also did.
He ended up pulling over to let us pass, after 5 miles of WOT.

Again, were are talking about practibility and economics. Putting a S/C in a tC is a better option for 90% of the tC owners who are considering. NOT because it's OEM, I think the TRD option needs a lot of work. I prefer a twin screw blower over a roots type.
Turbo would be a novelty.

Does any one else have a headache after reading these posts? :doh:

As I said, we killed the S4 in Angeles Crest, it's not hard to swallow if you know the area.

I definetely cannot imagine an area where a 4-wheel drive 250HP would be killed by a 164HP FWD .... You must have been dreaming...


We've also killed Lotus Esprit's, M3's, lamborghini's and Ferrari's in these similar areas.
You relate your HP dreams to straight line racing.
Handling and suspension will rule on the road.

And I am to believe that FWD MINI handles better than AWD S4? This would be a first case where a FWD handles better then AWD :))))
You guys should rule SCCA then :))) (this is where HP really counts when you are pulling your vehicle from a 90degrees turn, not because of straigh line accelaration, get your facts together....) And as far as dream are concerned, just check the outputs on average SCCA vehicle, you'll be surprised how much turbos can bring into the table....


I am not asking you to believe the truth, you have a seperate agenda.

You are not asking me to believe "the truth", you are asking me to believe that a 164 FWD car would kill a 250HP AWD racing machine......... You are asking for too much, oh might MINI :)))


PS. Not only did the S/C MINI kill the S4... the NA MINI also did.
He ended up pulling over to let us pass, after 5 miles of WOT.


Sure he did. He probably was afraid that the MINI will become airborne any moment...
Hey guy, S4 at WOT has 250HP and MINI has 164HP, how could you pass him????


Again, were are talking about practibility and economics. Putting a S/C in a tC is a better option for 90% of the tC owners who are considering. .
NOT because it's OEM


Then why? Care to elaborate?


I prefer a twin screw blower over a roots type. Turbo would be a novelty.
[/quote]

Again, why woudl turbo be a novelty?

I take any OEM application over a bolt-on kit by some nameless "inventor"....
I would take TURBO oer s/c anytime if it was made by TRD... TURBOs kill superchargers because are more efficient and have better characteristics....
MINIs SC peaks at 4000RPM while S4 turbo peaks at 1800RPM. You know how much difference it makes in real life????
Also, if S4's turbo peaks at 1800RPM where is the lag? The lag occurs with MINI since it peaks at 4000 and obviously it takes engine more to get to 4000RPMs than to 1800RPMs...

Again, urban legends live..........
BTW. So what where the cars you put both turbos and supercharges as you said before??? :))))

Does any one else have a headache after reading these posts? :doh:

Joehnn, maybe you do but in the same time maybe you learn something.
Especially sceptical approach to any unsubstantiated claims...

Sure I can tell you that I race a LAMBO on my mountain bike, but do you have to believe it?

It's funny how thick your head is concerning the S4 vs 3 MINI's.

The guy driving the S4 stopped to talk to us afterwards and ask the SAME questions you are basing your arguements on.
Fact, we outhandled him and the road. His tank was to heavy. His Hp was fine between corners and turns. This is where he lost and we won. It's not hard to fathom... well for one person it seems to be

We threw a turbo in a MINI.
The Mini comes in 2 models, S/C and No S/C

The MCS - 164
the MC - 115

We've witnessed a supercharger in a 350z and a Vette Z06

OK guys, i have been monitoring this argument for a while, and the fact of the matter is that you can have all of the hp in the world, but if you cant handle it, (use it to your advantage) it is of no use.

I have a VIDEO to back up my point. Go to...

http://www.carfreaks.net/cf-films?offset=4

and download the first video on the left. It is a race on a track of a stock M3, vs a turbo M3 with 600 hp. It basically shows that sure the stock M3 gets left behind on the straightaways, but come up to any turn, and the both of them are side by side.

the point is that HANDLEING IS MORE PRACTICLE THAN HP for both track and street use unless your talking about straight down the line racing.

Hope this video helps,

John

JRV gets it!

Thanks 2000!

Suspension is more important than HP
With great HP comes Great Responsibility. IE: CONTROL

We're touge driven...
S4 sucks in the Touge - FACT
MINI COOPERS do VERY WELL on the Touge

We had a MCS (on the SOWS) racing (timed) against some heavy hitters.... Double the HP and AWD's. Results... 1/100th of a second between them. MCS had a S/C - Challenger had a Turbo.
The MCS had Suspension Mods, Challenger had HP Mods and a few extra Suspension Mods. The Challenger, as stated, had over 300hp...MCS had a bit over 170hp. The Challenger was a very popular Japanese Rally marque.

AWD = HEAVY

MCS suspension upgrades also allowed a particular MCS to out corner a Porsche Gup Car. Granted the Porsche lead the straights... But lost any lead it had in the turns when the MCS cut INSIDE the Porsche's corners.
I don't know the HP on the Cup Car, but that again proves that suspension > HP.
Cup driver approached MCS driver admired the MINI and said "I have to get one of those!"

This topic has gone off...
This is all I have to add. I've said all that is needed.

So if you're looking for ultimate performance for your Scion, Start with suspension, then... if you are not satisfied... consider the S/C or Turbo.

OK guys, i have been monitoring this argument for a while, and the fact of the matter is that you can have all of the hp in the world, but if you cant handle it, (use it to your advantage) it is of no use.

I have a VIDEO to back up my point. Go to...

http://www.carfreaks.net/cf-films?offset=4

and download the first video on the left. It is a race on a track of a stock M3, vs a turbo M3 with 600 hp. It basically shows that sure the stock M3 gets left behind on the straightaways, but come up to any turn, and the both of them are side by side.

the point is that HANDLEING IS MORE PRACTICLE THAN HP for both track and street use unless your talking about straight down the line racing.


Hope this video helps,

John

It does. Most of the SCCA cars use 500-600HP to improve... handling.
You need to have that much power to pull a four wheel drive car out of a turn.
It is a different way of driving.....

I am a big fan of SCCA rallies since this is where you can really tell an excellent driver from a so-so and bad....

I wonder if you ever had a chance of watching the rally as since from inside the cockpit.... 200MPH on a track do not make as much impression as 100mph between trees on a narrow gravel road just on the ridge...........

Everybody can drive straighline, a lot of people can drive fast in circles but it takes a real driver to pull 90degrees turns doing 100mph....
Real drivers and real cars... This is where everything counts, driver's skills, suspension, tires, engine's output and some luck...

It is an unbelievable view watching these cars at impossible speeds pulling turns while in controlled slide, one after another.............

There is no other motor sport where handling is a important. That's why it was rallies that introduced both turbos and all wheel drive to motor sports (Audi Quatro, Lancia Delta Integrale)...

Im my hunble opinion that the most demanding and beatifull motor sport of all...

JRV gets it!

Thanks 2000!

Suspension is more important than HP
With great HP comes Great Responsibility. IE: CONTROL

We're touge driven...
S4 sucks in the Touge - FACT
MINI COOPERS do VERY WELL on the Touge


Are you trying to tell me that fron wheel drive MINI handles better than all wheel drive
AUDI? Interesting. This would be the world's first.

We had a MCS (on the SOWS) racing (timed) against some heavy hitters.... Double the HP and AWD's. Results... 1/100th of a second between them. MCS had a S/C - Challenger had a Turbo.
The MCS had Suspension Mods, Challenger had HP Mods and a few extra Suspension Mods. The Challenger, as stated, had over 300hp...MCS had a bit over 170hp. The Challenger was a very popular Japanese Rally marque.

AWD = HEAVY


AWD also means handling and cornering stability...... Ever wondered why SCCA is dominated by AWD cars????? Do you think that because they heaveir or because they handle better then FWD or RWD cars???

Do you know a rally the was won by a MINI :)))))))
MINIs are cool but you are daydreaming buddy..........

I know how this is going to turn out, because i have seen it before on the "I hate ABS" post. Stefan TC is going to always go for the hp gains, and TeamMighty will always go for the suspension upgrades. This is how it will always be, and no matter how much you guys debate the subject, neither of your points of views will change. I wish you both the best of luck with your cars, and maybe the two of you one day could get together on the track with your cars to put both of your theories to the test! If that day ever comes, please shoot me a pm, as i would like to be there to bear witness to the occasion.

Peace to all,

John

My point is this.
For the Average tC owner who's looking for an upgrade such as a S/C or Turbo... In My Opinion... the S/C is the better option.
Of course I will praise suspension tuning over hp gains.

My point is this.
For the Average tC owner who's looking for an upgrade such as a S/C or Turbo... In My Opinion... the S/C is the better option.
Of course I will praise suspension tuning over hp gains.


I agree 100%. For variety of reasons TRD supercharger is a much better option.
I also believe that without an upgrade to suspension and brakes any HP upgrade is pointless and potentially unsafe...
The first thing that needs to be looked at on any car, well before engine upgrades or lit cupholders are suspension and brakes modifications..

of course... ... you could TWIN CHARGE a tC.

and how would you go about doing that?

well you add a supercharger AND a turbo.

S/C + T/C = Twin Charge

there's a reason the next MINI is going to be turbocharged and not supercharged.

http://www.motoringfile.com/2004/12/14/new_mini_38_psa_engine_range_in_detail

turbos are superior :bow:

well, if you follow the MINI as I have, you'd be more informed about the reasons.

It really has nothing to do with it allegedly being better.

It is about economics and brand spreading. It's also going to push more MINI's into the service dept. :rofl:

well, if you follow the MINI as I have, you'd be more informed about the reasons.

It really has nothing to do with it allegedly being better.

It is about economics and brand spreading. It's also going to push more MINI's into the service dept. :rofl:

Of course turbo is BETTER because it is more effective. It uses energy that would otherwise be lost as apposed to supercharger that canibalizes engine's output.
The racing scene (SCCA) is all turbo and no supercharger....

Why do not you acknolwedge that the sport scene is dominated by turbo and not superchargers... Do I really have to copy paste any SCCA or Euro racing ranking????


Now, having said that supercharger IS a better option for TC mainly because it is OEM and covered by warranty...

i am informed about the reasons. it's superior. turbos make power more effectively as the other poster mentioned and are able to spool up quickly (the new MINI engine is going to use a twin scroll turbo). superchargers use to have their merits, but they've slowly been chipped away at by better turbo technology. if you want a supercharger because TRD is going to offer one WITH a warranty and better emissions that's another matter, and i can respect that.

as an aside, i did have cooper s and sold it, im awaiting the turbo version. :love:

i am informed about the reasons. it's superior. turbos make power more effectively as the other poster mentioned and are able to spool up quickly (the new MINI engine is going to use a twin scroll turbo). superchargers use to have their merits, but they've slowly been chipped away at by better turbo technology. if you want a supercharger because TRD is going to offer one WITH a warranty and better emissions that's another matter, and i can respect that.

as an aside, i did have cooper s and sold it, im awaiting the turbo version. :love:


Turbos are very efficient for two reasons: why, like I said, they use energy that woudl otherwise be wasted so they IMPROVE engine's efficiency.... The second they alllow to increase engine's output with a minimal inrease to the weight of the powertrain...
Yes, focur cylinder engine with turbo, intercooler, wastegate, bypas walve that makes 500-700HP (typical EVOs running in SCCA circuit) weigh much less then a normally aspirated engine of similar output would....

Please do not mention any HONDA contraption claiming to make 200 out of 2.0L or 300 out of 3.0L... Honda/Acura conveniently forgets to mention that this output is available at insanely high RPM range... Totally useless. Turbos give a lot of HP and torque at relatively low RPM range. My SAAB AERO 2.3 turbo had max torque output at around 2000... Low enough to feel that lovely push at any speed...
I LOVE TURBOS. Turbocharged cars feel lively and eager at every push of the pedal...
Low end torque makes more difference that high end HP...

Then again TRD s/c will NOT void warranty...

coming from a 2.7T audi with ko4s.... There is very little lag if you chip. The lag doesn't mean much when it throws you in your seat in less then a blink of an eye!

A low boost turbo (10psi or less) is almost as good as a supercharger.
A blower under your hood can get you off the line adequetly. And S/C's are praised in the automotive industry for being one of THE best bolt on mods you can add for HP. Of course you can up the power with headers/exhaust/fuel manegment +larger injectors/larger throttlebody, etc.

A turbo with HIGH boost is for those fools who want to continue spending $$$ on their tC and use it for racing... nothing else.
High PSI Turbos require more dedication, mods, time and $ to maintain.

When you see a Turbo'd tC with less than 10PSI... ask how much they spent. :wink:

Also, about Twin Charging... it could be a fun mod.

A low boost turbo (10psi or less) is almost as good as a supercharger.

Supercharged can never be as good as turbo. Ask people who race cars. Check SCCA rankings. No MINIs there. Sorry.

Superchargers are technbicaly obsolete. Saab 95 AERO makes 250HP from 2.3L I4 at healthy 5300 rpms... at 20 psi. I am not aware of high defectiveness of SAABs. On the contrary SAABs are know for longevity....
Do you a know an S/C that doubles engine's output (the same 2.3L w/o turbo makes less then 130 HP - no vvtec or any of similar inventions) ??? Is SAAB knows as a trouble brand or is it known for longevity???? Please do not make general statements that just cannot be supported....

Yes, as a bolt on application supercharger is both cheaper and safer for the engine... But not because it is BETTER than a turbo... It's like saying that Mustang is better than 911 because it is cheaper and makes more sense for an average driver... If there was an option I would go for turbo/intecooler for my TC. Just because I drove two generations of 2.3L turbocharged engines and know what such a relatively small displacement is capable of when charged........

Tc with 250HP at 5300 and 258lbs of torque at 1900rpms...
I would love like to see it..... and drive it...

People who race cars eh?
Check the history of Tony Nuzzo and his 2 top ranking MCS's

People who race cars eh?
Check the history of Tony Nuzzo and his 2 top ranking MCS's

So if I show you that people are racing electric cars does that mean the electric engine is proven and viable choice for a racer?

People race anything including trucks and lawnmowers and there is a class for anything. I am talking about trubo sport cars like S4, EVO, Subaru? Did you race these with your 164HP supercharged FWD soapbox?

See there you go again... placing cars out of class into this discussion. What's the point.
I gave a GREAT example of a Supercharger in an application you seemed to think you knew all about. Then you flipped your statement to fit your own arguement.
Validate yourself prior to speaking.
Now, look into the Tony Nuzzo history with a Supercharger in Professional Competition... which he places.
They have said that their S/C'd MINI's place better times than their 3 series racers, consistantly.
Of course, they've made sure that the suspension is priority, thusly proving it more important than HP again.
The Nuzzo Motorsports MINI Cooper still holds the Homestead-Miami Speedway track record for fastest lap turned by an ST Class car. Shane set the record in March of this year, breaking the former record by nearly three seconds.



Nuzzo Motorsports driver Shane Lewis piloted the #20 MINI Cooper S to a lap time of 1:32.521 in qualifying to win the first professional pole position for the MINI Cooper S._ In route to the pole, the track record was shattered by nearly three seconds and bettered our nearest competitor by a full second. This is the second track record we have earned in the last three races. We set fastest race lap at VIR last year.

Thanks for helping me in clearing that up for everyone, Stefan.

See there you go again... placing cars out of class into this discussion. What's the point.

Well, you started this. Didn't you say you "killed" S4, EVO and whole bunch of other cars?

I gave a GREAT example of a Supercharger in an application you seemed to think you knew all about. Then you flipped your statement to fit your own arguement.
Validate yourself prior to speaking.

MINI does not count as a racing machine. It does not stand ground against S4 or EVO. Surely it can compete with BMW 330 and Acura RSX but these are NOT sport cars... A great supercharger application? Race your supercharged MINI against a turbocharged car like EVO or S4 or Subaru...

Run it in a rally and then claim superior handling over AWD S4, EVO and Subaru...:)))
You killed them all, didn't you? :)

MINI is a novelty item, nothing more. FWD and 164 HP. Maybe Tt is good in its class, so are certain lawnmowers. But it does not make it a sports car. Sport cars are turbo... Superchargers are obsolete and as such MINI traded them for advanced turbo in 2006 model. Wake up.

Well, again... The S4 was toasted in a mountain course
The STI (not Stock) was 1/100th of a second ahead of a stock HP MCS with suspension mods on a road course. Both were beat by a HEAVILY Modified Evo... HEAVILY. The same MCS toyed with the Porsche Cup Car... Remember reading that?

Did I mention we killed an EVO? Hmm I think we may have on a mountain course. We've killed a lot of your dream cars on a mountain course. Even a Ferrari, Boxster, couple of Lambo's... they cannot handle to course.

Sports cars are turbos????
HAHAHAHA
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

Well, again... The S4 was toasted in a mountain course
The STI (not Stock) was 1/100th of a second ahead of a stock HP MCS with suspension mods on a road course. Both were beat by a HEAVILY Modified Evo... HEAVILY. The same MCS toyed with the Porsche Cup Car... Remember reading that?

yeah I am still laughing


Did I mention we killed an EVO? Hmm I think we may have on a mountain course. We've killed a lot of your dream cars on a mountain course. Even a Ferrari, Boxster, couple of Lambo's... they cannot handle to course.

Of course. Front wheel drive MINI surely handle much better then all-wheel-drive S4 or EVO... Not to mention availabe HP and torque... I am kidding and so are you....right?


Sports cars are turbos????
HAHAHAHA
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?

You know better than I if it is... From fastest Porsche, LAMBO and Supra to rally-winning Mitsu, Subaru AUDI and many other European sport cars they are all turbos. Even you own MINI dropped super in favor of more advanced turbo... You call me an ignorant? Name one supercharged sports car....
By the way, do you know what WRC stands for? Do you know what cars are winning there? Do some checking yourself. You may start here: http://www.wrc.com/page/Cars/0,,10111,00.html

stefan, i agree with you about the turbocharged vs supercharged discussion but, and this is a HUGE but...to say the MINI is a novelty item is well, stupid. if you don't think the MINI is real racing pedigree just visit any track event on any given weekend and you'll probably see them racing. there is a spec racing series for them (a friend races one, and he just came in first). And if we turn to autocross, the cooper dominates H-stock, to such a degree that there is talk of creating a spec class for just itself! A lot of dealerships in the country sponsor MINI race cars, and it's not because it's a non competitive car. Get off your very high horse if you please. Thank you!

thanks Munkee.

Stephan is on his own mission here it seems.
The FWD MINI is a formidable opponant... especially to those HEAVY AWD cars he's dreaming of. His inability to comprehend what we've achived in nearly Stock MINI's, through the mountains here in SoCal nearly makes his head explode. The list stands as written above. Those vehicles fell to the MINI. Period.

Stephan, you should come out to SoCal and give one of these roads a whirl in one of your fancy dream cars...and realize how damn hard they are pushed to keep up with the MINI.

again, ignorance is bliss isn't it Stephan?

Stephan, you should come out to SoCal and give one of these roads a whirl in one of your fancy dream cars...and realize how damn hard they are pushed to keep up with the MINI.

And you should stop the B/S about mountain roads and check what WRC vehicles go through in an average race.... Just do some checking on WRC as I suggested...
Here we go again: www.wrc.com I bet you do not even know what WRC is, do you?

You are so focused on American racing which are really amateur events compared to European events... Check World Rally and notice the cars that are being racing and winning there.....
Tip: no European MINIs in European racing - simply nobody takes seriously a FWD 164HP car overe there...... (but, what could possibly Europeans know about cars, right? :) ) Check this website that list champion for 50 years of Euro Racing and do soem research on cars that won... http://www.motorsportsetc.com/champs/erc.htm

Going back to turbo vs supercharger: MINI decided to replace supercharger with turbo - is it because of the latter inferiority to supercharger?

again, ignorance is bliss isn't it Stephan?
Again, with every post you prove that you should know better...

By the way, how about an example of supercharged sports car???? This is a third request now and I am still waiting.. Do not be shy.. show off your ignorance...

i should really stop posting but....

the reason the MINI is not a rally car is because
1)it's not long enough to meet regulation
2)it's not AWD and wouldn't be in the major manufacturers class

but.

http://www.motoringfile.com/2004/10/23/getrag_tests_all-wheel_drive_mini

and i don't know what bs you're talking about american racing? if it's not FIA it's not real racing? give me a break. it's two different continents.

here's the euro spec racing series if you're interested (i'm sure you're not)
http://www.johncooper.co.uk/JohnCooperSite/motorsport/JohnCooperMotorsport/





http://www.johncooper-mini.com/gallery/jcc_2004/rockingham/jcc14_798.jpg

:rofl:
Thanks Munkee... again

you only validated my statements and I thank you.

Stefan is truely clueless outside his own bubble of reality.

i
and i don't know what bs you're talking about american racing? if it's not FIA it's not real racing? give me a break. it's two different continents.

Difference between Euro racing and American racing is like between American cars and European cars... Hadnlidng of an avergae European car and handling of an average American car... Or European highways and American "highways".... Autobahn versus I95... BMW versus Pontiac.... Should I go on?

Most of the best European racing cars never made it to US...
Just chek this list of European champions and cars that won Euor champisonship..
http://www.motorsportsetc.com/champs/wrc.htm

Even our own Ford sells much better cars in Europe than in the US like the Cossworth series....
Anyways, this is not a subject of this debate. I am just laughing at a guy who compares 164HP FWD MINI to cars like 250HP AWD Audi S4 or Porsche 911..... and never heard of turbocharged sport cars like Porsche 911 and all of the WRC cars...

MINI is a nice car for a fanatic, another example of European craftmaship and engineering but still it is what it is - a novelty item, nothing more.
Mitsus, AUDIs, Lancias, Toyotas Porches BMWs won numerous races around the world, I am not aware of MINI winning anything yet..........

Maybe in its own class, then again there is possibly class for lawnmowers and someone is winning there, too...

does anyone think this horse is yet?

does anyone think this horse is dead yet? (oops about the previous post)

Anyways, this is not a subject of this debate. I am just laughing at a guy who compares 164HP FWD MINI to cars like 250HP AWD Audi S4 or Porsche 911..... and never heard of turbocharged sport cars like Porsche 911 and all of the WRC cars...

MINI is a nice car for a fanatic, another example of European craftmaship and engineering but still it is what it is - a novelty item, nothing more.
Mitsus, AUDIs, Lancias, Toyotas Porches BMWs won numerous races around the world, I am not aware of MINI winning anything yet..........

Maybe in its own class, then again there is possibly class for lawnmowers and someone is winning there, too...

dead horse....

Neither is better.
Do I need to repeat myself?

you say I've never heard of turbo'd sports cars?? Or all of the WRC cars?
what an assanine thing to say.

You up yourself with each post there Steph.

We enjoy it.

:blah:

It is a dead horse.

I have no idea what the heck Stefan is talking about anymore. He is either a 16 year old Gran Turismo player, or crazy. haha


:rofl:

:blah:

It is a dead horse.

I have no idea what the heck Stefan is talking about anymore. He is either a 16 year old Gran Turismo player, or crazy. haha


:rofl:

:bow:

you say I've never heard of turbo'd sports cars?? Or all of the WRC cars?
what an assanine thing to say.

You up yourself with each post there Steph.

We enjoy it.

Maybe you do not even read what you type?
Let me refresh your memory:

You posted:
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:54 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(...)
Sports cars are turbos????
HAHAHAHA
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?



Do you recall now?
And this is typical for your all posts. You do not know what you are talking about and you do not even read your own posts. Sports cars are turbocharged and supercharged.
You failed to give me an example of a single supercharged sports car...
Go back to racing tin cans.....I am sorry, mighty MINIs...

:blah:

It is a dead horse.

I have no idea what the heck Stefan is talking about anymore. He is either a 16 year old Gran Turismo player, or crazy. haha


:rofl:


Codemunkee, I know you don't know what I am talking about.
You are as clueless as the inventor of 65mph "highways"....

You failed to give me an example of a single supercharged sports car...


http://www.autopress.be/Temporaires/FORD%20GT%202.jpg

You failed to give me an example of a single supercharged sports car...


http://www.autopress.be/Temporaires/FORD%20GT%202.jpg


And what exactly makes this car a sports car?
What races has it won?

Typical American misconception: let's throw in some big engine (possibly from a truck) and call it a sports car....... All muscles and no brains.....

open your dictionary and look it up, you asked for a supercharged sports car, i gave you one...

sports car
n.
An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds.

open your dictionary and look it up, you asked for a supercharged sports car, i gave you one...

sports car
n.
An automobile equipped for racing, especially an aerodynamically shaped one-passenger or two-passenger vehicle having a low center of gravity and steering and suspension designed for precise control at high speeds.

I got it. Mazda Miata? :))))))))

You guys are crazy...

Thanks Beantown,

I was about to ask Steph what his definition of a SPORTSCAR is.

No need to now...

And Steph... as far as quoting my previous post... I know what I wrote. :wink:
Are you under the assumption that in order for a car to be considered a sportscar, it needs to have a turbo??????
Oh wait, are you trying to tell us that a sports car isn't a sports car unless it's won a race?
Look at several of the NSX's in series championships, not all of them run turbos. Same with the 350 Z's.
Hey how about the Radical? It's a sports car... runs in the tcca, built for racing (sport) and has no turbo. I do believe there are a few Supercharged ones in Socal though.
http://www.leslieracing.com/images/photo12large.jpg

Steph... you joke about the miata. Do you not consider it a sportscar? Would you also not consider the RX7 and the S2000 sportscars?
If this is so, you probably wouldn't consider the Porsche Boxster a Sportscar either... or the Lotus Elan or Elise

What is YOUR definition of a sportscar Steph?

stefan go drive your tc and get some cool air..... forums arent for everybody lol

i think stefan is a closet nascar fan. he's just saying this stuff to get a reaction out of us. :)

Thanks Beantown,

And Steph... as far as quoting my previous post... I know what I wrote. :wink:

So why were you so surprised when I mentioned that most sports car are turbo charged and not supercharged? You even implied I am an ignorant...

Are you under the assumption that in order for a car to be considered a sportscar, it needs to have a turbo??????

Not really. Just show me a 5.7L engine that weighs the same as 400HP turbocharged 2.0L And you should know better than anybody here that WEIGHT COUNTS...

Oh wait, are you trying to tell us that a sports car isn't a sports car unless it's won a race?

If it is a sportscar it was made for motorsports, right? If it was made with this purpose in mind and it does not succeed then it is just a BAD sports car or it was not a sports car in the first place........

Hey how about the Radical? It's a sports car... runs in the tcca, built for racing (sport) and has no turbo. I do believe there are a few Supercharged ones in Socal though.

It is not a car. So are not F1 machines. Also does radical permits turbos? I bet if it was turbos would be there already.... There is NO more efficient way of increasing the engine's output than turbo.....

i think stefan is a closet nascar fan. he's just saying this stuff to get a reaction out of us. :)


Sure. I love to watch cars driving in circles.......

Thanks Beantown,

And Steph... as far as quoting my previous post... I know what I wrote. :wink:

So why were you so surprised when I mentioned that most sports car are turbo charged and not supercharged? You even implied I am an ignorant...

Are you under the assumption that in order for a car to be considered a sportscar, it needs to have a turbo??????

Not really. Just show me a 5.7L engine that weighs the same as 400HP turbocharged 2.0L And you should know better than anybody here that WEIGHT COUNTS...

Oh wait, are you trying to tell us that a sports car isn't a sports car unless it's won a race?

If it is a sportscar it was made for motorsports, right? If it was made with this purpose in mind and it does not succeed then it is just a BAD sports car or it was not a sports car in the first place........

Hey how about the Radical? It's a sports car... runs in the tcca, built for racing (sport) and has no turbo. I do believe there are a few Supercharged ones in Socal though.

It is not a car. So are not F1 machines. Also does radical permits turbos? I bet if it was turbos would be there already.... There is NO more efficient way of increasing the engine's output than turbo.....

A sports car is a car designed for sporting performance above utility. While opinions differ as to the exact definition, most sports cars have two seats and two doors, and are designed to excel at a combination of acceleration, top speed, braking, and maneuverability. Great emphasis is often placed on handling—the ability of the car to remain in the control of the driver under challenging condition like when the car's tires begin to lose their grip on hard corners.

Turbo or supercharger... neither make the car a sportscar.

I can understand your inability to comprehend these concepts Steph, being from Jersey and all. :rofl: Possibly driving nothing more than a NA tC and a possibly a Pontiac Sunfire or Civic before that.

your arguements are losing validity, hence... you are becoming invalid with every response. SEE last post where you quoted yourself without addition or response. :blah:

I was neither surprised by your statements in regards to most sport cars and turbos... What did surprise me was your attempts to twist a valid conversation... regarding the Scion tC, into a High HP discussion focused on TC/SC. Where I will remain where I've stood, uneffected by your :blah: :blah: :blah: babble and say... ONCE AGAIN -
A supercharger is a more viable option for the average tC owner who may be looking for solid/proven power gains with minimal risk. Be it the weaker TRD SC or a much stronger one offered by companies such as HKS or Jackson Racing.

Before you comment again, go google around for awhile. :silly:

A sports car is a car designed for sporting performance above utility. While opinions differ as to the exact definition, most sports cars have two seats and two doors, and are designed to excel at a combination of acceleration, top speed, braking, and maneuverability. Great emphasis is often placed on handling—the ability of the car to remain in the control of the driver under challenging condition like when the car's tires begin to lose their grip on hard corners.


Bull S...t. Sports car is what it is, car designed for competeing in sporting events.
Two seater or not sports car is what it is, a racing machine...
MIATA is not a sports car no matter what you say. four door M5 is.... Take a hint BMW doesn not sell one with an automatic............

Turbo or supercharger... neither make the car a sportscar.

Of course it does not. Most of diesel truck are tubocharged. But for the same reason as sports car: to get from the engine as much as it is possible.


I can understand your inability to comprehend these concepts Steph, being from Jersey and all. :rofl: Possibly driving nothing more than a NA tC and a possibly a Pontiac Sunfire or Civic before that.

Tin-can-racer is trying to be funny here..Look at this... I am not from Jersey and my two previous rides were Saabs, both 2.3L turbocharged. And you obvioulsy have no clue but it is Saab who introduced turbocharging to passenger cars....
You are obviously a gauy who believes that a spoiler and some paint make his car a sport machine........:)

your arguements are losing validity, hence... you are becoming invalid with every response. SEE last post where you quoted yourself without addition or response. :blah:

That's your opinion tin-can racer. In mine you are clueless. You never respond to anything that I wrote. You just type your post based on your convictions and wishfull thinking....
Praising your tin-car over EVO or S4..:) I am yet to see an event in which your tin-car won with the likes of S4 or EVO... Racing or rally........
Oh, I I forgot you killed both on some strech of rural road.......:)))) Yahoooo!

I was neither surprised by your statements in regards to most sport cars and turbos... What did surprise me was your attempts to twist a valid conversation... regarding the Scion tC, into a High HP discussion focused on TC/SC. Where I will remain where I've stood, uneffected by your :blah: :blah: :blah: babble and say... ONCE AGAIN -
A supercharger is a more viable option for the average tC owner who may be looking for solid/proven power gains with minimal risk. Be it the weaker TRD SC or a much stronger one offered by companies such as HKS or Jackson Racing.

And I always agreed with you - for warranty reasons TRD s/c is much better option for SC. But in the sports world, be it S4, 911 Turbo, Evo ot the whole WRC scene will remian turbocharged, no matter if you like it or not.

Before you comment again, go google around for awhile. :silly:

You should do that even more. Being a yahooo from rural California and all... Let me guess you never been to Europe, never saw a WRC race....... Do that, go to Europe, see what real racing looks like, in the land that invented cars, highways and car racing..... Or just google since you are so far a way from civilization.........

We have Rim of the World in our backyard, bozo.
We had the First JGTC here in "rural" California.
We have Someof the finest Tracks here in "Rural" california.
"rural" California is host to some of racings finests events.

Your ignorace is profound and teaches many.
You assume that if something has not won a RACE it is not valid. Trite really.

We have Rim of the World in our backyard, bozo.
We had the First JGTC here in "rural" California.
We have Someof the finest Tracks here in "Rural" california.
"rural" California is host to some of racings finests events.

Spare me partner. Rim Of The World is just a pompous name.
There is no auto industry in California....... Face it, you are in the backwoods........
And you have never seen a real highway in your life (one that does not have that pitiful 65mph limit) Race a cow.


Your ignorace is profound and teaches many.
You assume that if something has not won a RACE it is not valid. Trite really.
[/quote]

Do you know great athletes that never win?
Same with cars, if a sports car does not win that it is either a BAD sports car or no sportscar at all.......

Can I beat on this dead horse too..


Not really. Just show me a 5.7L engine that weighs the same as 400HP turbocharged 2.0L And you should know better than anybody here that WEIGHT COUNTS...


I can't show you that but I can show you a 4.6L supercharged engine that weighs about 200lbs more than that, that is putting out 690hp. I'll take 200lbs for 290hp any day. It's not the weight that counts, its the weight to power ration that counts.

Oh and when did rally car racing become the end all of determining if a car is a sports car. I mean come on a VW Beetle won some production class rally races a few years back. To say a Ford GT is not a sports car is just ignorant or narrow minded (or both).

:rofl:

There has been alot of useful information just flowing from this thread, but of all the useful info there is still one minor misinformation running around here, i would just like to clarify on turbo lag.

Lag is a measurment in time from when the throttle position is changed till the increases can be found as a result of forced induction.

Boost Threshold is at what RPM a turbo begins to produce power, aka "Start kicking ___".

Example of turbo lag:
In a stock turbo DSM (Talon/Eclipse whatever) cruise a brisk 2500RPM, increase the throttle and you'll see the responce is almost immediate, hence very little lag. Ittiy bitty turbo design, great responce....

Example of boost threshold
In the same DSM stage at a 1/4 race at 2000RPMs, drop the clutch and the power (turbo) is with you the second the clutch drops. Now do it again, but stage at 1100RPMs and notice the lag* between the launch and when the turbo actually produces power.

* Note, i used the word lag to define the distance between 1100RPM and 2000RPM to show how this term can easily be confused.


Easiest explantion: There is no such thing as lag off the line, there is only lag while in motion.

If anyone here is confused on forced induction and really wants to brush up, check out Maxium Boost by Corky A. Bell, then we'll start talking about throttle responce, boost threshold, turbo lag, inertial forces, tensile forces, efficiencies and all that crazy ____...

Why did you revive a post over a month old? :yawn: We are all done with this discussion, lets let it be.