All Motor vs. Supercharger vs. Turbo vs. Stroker

Home  \  Domestic Cars  \  All Motor vs. Supercharger vs. Turbo vs. Stroker

I have a question that has been bugging me for sometime. After I discovered a little more about cars and what you can do to make them faster, I have been wondering what is the most efficient way? I want to know about performance BEFORE price-wise. Out of these 4 different ways to produce power with an engine (2 of them being similar) Which of these makes the car the quickest. Not that I am going to do it soon, but if I take my 88' Mustang 5.0 and produced 350 HP and 400lbs-Torque through - All motor, Supercharger, Turbocharger, or a Stroker kit, something like a 351 Stroker, which out of all these applications would be the quickest? From what I know producing this power through just the motor alone would be the cheapest way but like I said out of all these ways to produce power, which is the Quickest?

posted by  Pythias

5.0's and superchargers go hand in hand. imho.

posted by  VG30DE

Your mustang has the 5.0 302 ford engine.
There are tons and I mean tons of upgrades for the engine.
With minimal work you can produce 350+ hp from just your engine alone.
I have never done any of the work myself but I did alot of investigation on ford engines since my work with my comet. So I say go all engine.

posted by  Aondor

I'd definatley go with a turbocharger.

Why?

-Too many people go with a supercharger.

-N/A or a supercharger doesn't have the awesome torque a turbocharger gives.

-Getting a ton of horsepower N/A is pretty expensive...btw using a stroker kit is still considered N/A in the end. No forced induction.



You forgot to mention nitrous, which is also a very cheap effective way of getting power out of the Ford 302. I've seen some guys at the track run just slicks and a 125/150 shot of nitrous on an otherwise stock Foxbody and do low-mid 13s no problem.

Some turbo kits I like...
http://www.turbochargedpower.com/79-93%20Mustang.htm
http://www.forcedinductions.com/MustangPTK.htm

Many BASIC turbo kits for the 302 will net you around 400rwhp and 500rwtq with a pretty low psi of 7-8. That's an incredible amount of torque (way more than even a stock Viper). With that HP kit a guy made 545rwhp and 614rwtq at only 13psi on PUMP GAS. He claims he even impressed a guy who drove a S-Trim Vortech 302.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Those turbo kits are all good and well but 4000 is a steep price to pay. for much less than 4000 I could make an equaly powerful engine.

posted by  Aondor

Those were the ones I like, I found several other turbo kits for the 302 that started at $1500 w/ no turbo (included all the OTHER parts you need less turbo).

I'd like to see anyone make 400rwhp and 500rwtq for less than $4k w/o using a turbo or supercharger. Might get close to it using nitrous...but running a 225-250 shot of nitrous on an otherwise stock 302 might not be all that healthy...:laughing:

I'm sure you can get 400rwhp easily with a supercharger as well, but you dont get that awesome torque a turbo has. Plus, turbos are very easily upgradable. For a few hundred dollars more you can step up to a bigger turbo in a kit or do a hybrid turbo with the one you already have and increase power substansially, afterall that one guy made 545rwhp and 614rwtq with just 13psi of boost...probably only needed a bigger turbo in his setup too.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Thing you fial to mention... is also the engine rebuild so it can handle the power... and the dyno tuning. Sure for 1500 no turbo u got all the parts, lets say another 500$ you got a used turbo. But then you have to look into an engine rebuild on almost any Mustang like mine with decent mileage. Then AFTER all that a dyno tuning which I believe ranges from 800$-1400$ or so. SO that is then around 3k without the engine rebuild, and with an engine rebuild I'll guesstimate around 4k-5k. Of course I THINK the stock 302 blocks can only handle 500HP I'm not sure.

posted by  Pythias

Those kits are safe on stock motors. That's why all the dyno testing was done on non-modded 302's (for the base kits @ 7-8psi). You shouldnt have problems running that low of boost on a 302, I know tons of guys who run that or a little higher on stock 302's with superchargers and turbochargers (many more superchargers).

BTW - dyno tuning doesnt cost nearly that much. The local dynojet place charges $60-$80 for some pulls and if you want a tuning session (with more pulls) with a turbo setup they charge no more than $150-$175 pending number of pulls/printouts etc.

posted by  thunderbird1100

So my motor with around 160k miles would be safe? If that is the case that's good, but to have a power adder like that on a stock motor you would have to have a decent engine rebuild for it to be reliable. Also what about a stock 302 with around 226k miles, how safe is that?

posted by  Pythias

Ya know, I've read your poll, your initial post and most of the rest of this thread with great amusement. Just the things you ask and state strongly suggest that you haven't "discovered a little more about cars and what you can do to make them faster", at least no more than might be expected of someone who has watched F&F 20 or 30 times. In no particular order;

1. Do you have any idea what the difference is between "all motor" and a "stroker kit" is? I think not. A stroked engine IS all motor unless you have some sort of power adder installed.

2. Do you realize that if you have an engine that produces 350 hp and 400 lb/ft of torque in any given car, the performance will be essentially identical no matter how you arrive at those figures?

3. Do you realize that if you had left price as a determining factor, your question would have been valid? Without it, this is just another chance for people to jerk off in public.

4. If you want to go fast, it doesn't take a lot of money. What it does take is some time, some dedication and some knowledge of how to get there. There is still a '91 5.0 'Stang around here that I built that runs 9 second 1/4's all night long, and has for several years now. Total price to build? Under $2500. That's the entire car and drivetrain, not just the engine.

If you want quality answers to questions like you have, you need to start with quality questions. Before that happens, you're going to need to learn a lot more about what it is you're asking.

posted by  vwhobo

I got a question. Power/money wise, whats the best mod for my car. Like for the least money what gives you the most power.

posted by  newyorker

That all depends on how you want to use said power. From a purely power versus cost standpoint, nitrous is the cheapest power money can buy. Notice I never said the most convinient or usable, just the cheapest.

posted by  vwhobo

Well lets put convenience into play. I wouldnt want to run my stock block thats not in great shape on Nitrous, and that would be my last alternative in any case. What about port&polish on the head and intake mantifold?

posted by  newyorker

Give up on your port and polish already, we're tired of hearing about them. Anything you do to increase the power output of the engine is going to negatively effect the durability of your "stock block thats not in great shape". Besides that, a port and polish without other supporting modifications won't gain much power and it's extremely expensive to boot. Maybe you should start with a quality rebuild with some minor tweaks while it's apart. Then you'll have a good base for further mods.

posted by  vwhobo

I suprised you posted in this one. I know I skirted it deliberately.
:heh:

posted by  Wally

And what is involved in a rebuild. At 70k miles I doubt its needed. What tweaks and what will that put me up to?

posted by  newyorker

I couldn't help myself. I was like an alcoholic sitting in a tavern with free drinks.


Do you see any contradiction here? You're the one who said "stock block thats not in great shape", not me. I was basing what I said on the information you provided. Have you ever heard the acronym GIGO. Perfect example.

posted by  vwhobo

No I never did. So what is involved in a rebuild.

posted by  newyorker

Why don't you get that info where you get all your other info, from a Neon forum, Google, Wikipedia or your imagination. I don't have the time or volition to give you the details. You could even try the search feature, I know I've explained it before.

posted by  vwhobo

I chose supercharger, because I've read that superchargers give more power in the midrange area. Also they are working all the time so the power is right there when you need it. They sound better in my opinion. Turbo chargers give more power at high rpms so I would assume it takes a bit longer to get the power from the engine. As hobo said with your hp and torque having a set level than it would basically be the same where you choose either of the three. The determining factor would either be price or your personal preference.:2cents:

posted by  salimander13

Well in fast and the furious I do not believe they once ever used a supercharger, and or a stroker kit, fyi. And I didn't mention Nitrous because I wasn't asking about it so i guess by your assumption that I learned about Turbo's from it, but I didn't.

1. Yes I did realize that, but I thought I would differentiate between creating this power through the use mainly of a stroker, and the use of good heads and cams and other such components of a motor.

2. That was basically my question in the first place almost, I just didn't know how to word it, which is why I left price OUT as a determining factor at first.

3. No because as I said before I DIDN'T know that the performance would be identical no matter how you arrive at those figures,

4. Is that because you had the automotive knowledge to do all the labor yourself?

posted by  Pythias

does the list you provided act differently to mods, because if you want the quickest one, then another way you can look at it is which of these acts the best with mods. For example you take the supercharger, but doesn't get the quickness you want as a turbo would then you should take the turbo or all motor.

posted by  salimander13

Totally depends on the size and efficiency of the turbo. Most turbo's give wicked midrange even compared to supers (look at an evo torque curve sometime, it's crazy). If you want 30 lbs. of boost, don't expect to have a midrange. If you want just under 10, expect a fairly broad powerband (everything but the lowest rpms). Superchargers give you right off idle torque because they are driven by belts, not the exaust. No spooling means instant power that probably sacrifices some high end compared to the turbo, depending on the pulleys chosen.

posted by  VG30DE

.....

posted by  VG30DE

didn't know that. Also I don't fully understand boost, I've read it but never seem to grasp it and a friend told me vaguely what it was, but it was still over my head. does like 30lbs of boost means you gain an extra 30hp at a certain rpm? And wouldn't that destroy your engine after a short while.

posted by  salimander13

Hence why in drag setups superchargers are a must.
and rebuilds aren't that hard at all newyorker you could probly do it yourself if you realy payed attention had a friend with some working knowledge to help you through it just find an engine specialty shop and go talk to those guys they will probly be nice to you than hobo.:thumbs:

So hobo what were your base modifications on the fox body?
congrats on it because those are very impressive numbers

posted by  Aondor

Since when is using superchargers in drag setups a MUST? Sure, they are on pro-stock/top fuel/funny cars etc...

But in the NOPI racing league and other sport compact drag leagues the power adder of choice to the I4's and I6/V6's is almost unanimously turbochargers (in the top classes they allow two power adders in some of them, so thye also use nitrous). Superchargers ARENT A MUST, but are more practical for the applications on say a top fuel car (finding turbos to produce the same power and power delivery might prove near-impossible), while no one to my recent knowledge even RUNS a supercharger in the sport compact racing leagues (and they are in the low-mid 6's now...with turbo V6/I6's, even some fours in the mid-high 6's).

posted by  thunderbird1100

I said drag set ups hence top fuel funny cars.
but for smaller engine cars the turbo charger is much more effective.
Im not disagreeing with naythign you say just adding my half a cent

posted by  Aondor

No you didn't. Do my eyes deceive me or am I right? MAYBE that is what you meant, regardless you didn't say it.

posted by  Pythias

Pounds of boost refers to the amount of pressure inside the engine above atmospheric pressure at a given RPM/Time/etc. 30 pounds refers to an atmospheric pressure of 44.7 psi, because normal pressure (as in, the air around you) is 14.7 psi.

Now for my question:

When installing a forced induction kit, do you relocate the vacuum source to the intake instead of the manifold, seeing as how the manifold will now be pressurized?

posted by  Godlaus

In racing one has to take into acount the inertia of institutional knowledge: i.e. "this is what we did before"

In import drag racing, they started with, well, imports. By the time import drag racing became popular, many, many factory imports used turbochargers, which were easy to upgrade. So, import drag racers used turbos. They also didnt' rebuild their cars with pushrod engines, even though domestic cars with pushrod engines were quicker even without "power adders" (what a rediculous term THAT is. ANYTHING that adds power to an engine is a power adder, regardless of whether that's a supercharger, nitrous or higher compression pistons...) Import tuners were used to OHC engines, so they continued.

Turbos don't have quite the parasitic power losses that belt driven supechargers do, which is important on small engines that are heavily affected by those losses. They also spin damn fast already, so using them on a small engine that revs high works well.

A pushrod engine that doesn't rev high, but already makes a lot of torque isn't negatively affected by those situations. And to start with, the modded GMC superchargers off of busses and trucks were easy to package in the valley between the cylinders. So domestic drag racers used what THEY knew.

Both groups have dabbled with the other kind of forced induction for decades, however.

Funny thing is, both of them work well. And both can make the kind of power you are looking for.

posted by  ChrisV

You don't think that there may be rules in place to stop people killing themselves and others from using turbochargers with very large capacities? You ever driven a vehicle with a turbocharger that comes on suddenly and rapidly builds boost? e.g. read NHRA T04 on Hotrod, Modified, Sport FWD,.....

Page 108 (12/05)Turbocharger: Replace last sentence with "DD/AT: Single turbocharger limited to 72mm; twin turbocharger prohibited on four-cylinder applications."



Godlaus the vacuum hoses generally stay where they are. You may have to include a few check valves and reroute your oil breather though.

posted by  Wally

While you might of meant it, when you say "in a drag setup superchargers are a must", that isn't specific at all.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I believe it was someone on this site that said to me, if a supercharger says it adds 100hp then it actually adds 100+X hp, X standing for the horsepower needed to make up the parasitic losses.

EDIT: My question remains though about how reliable(engine-wise) adding a supercharger or turbocharger like thunderbird showed me to my basically bone-stock Mustang with 155k miles would be. Or even one with 225k miles. From everything I have heard, before adding forced induction on an engine, a rebuild is necessary to keep the engine reliable, and not blow up.

posted by  Pythias

It depends how much boost your running.

posted by  CarEXPERT

A safe amount of boost would keep the engine safe then? I would think around 7 psi

posted by  Pythias

How do you figure this? Peak HP/TQ numbers don't mean jack when talking about the better/faster car. Heres a comparison (2 exact same cars and engine) between a turbo (blue line) and an M90 SC(red line) that had similar peak HP. In this case, the turbo makes more average HP

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/tokyojoe/JeffZoomDynocompare.jpg

posted by  TokyoJoe

I think you just reinforced his statement. The tone of the post was pointing out that at any point if the hp/torque was the identical then performance at that point would be identical, not whether the curves were the same. In his way VWHobo was illustrating how peak figures in isolation mean zip when comparing engines and gear combos. At least that's how I read it.

posted by  Wally

Ok, maybe I misread. I thought he meant if car A had 350whp/400ft/lb and car B had the same that the performance would be indentical.

posted by  TokyoJoe

Take two engines from the same production line and I'll show you two different curves. Even taking your graph, while the peak power may be the same the torque would not be, except where they intersect..

posted by  Wally

My question remains though about how reliable(engine-wise) adding a supercharger or turbocharger like thunderbird showed me to my basically bone-stock Mustang with 155k miles would be. Or even one with 225k miles. From everything I have heard, before adding forced induction on an engine, a rebuild is necessary to keep the engine reliable, and not blow up.


Should running a safe amount of boost would keep the engine safe then? I would think around 7 psi?

Also if I added on a supercharger/turbocharger would I have to have it taken off before I had the engine rebuilt?

posted by  Pythias

Those are both GM 3800's. And the SC torque would not even come close to the turbo level. The only diff. would be the SC would look more like an X while the turbo is pretty much proportional.

posted by  TokyoJoe

There is no definite answer. Some engines are about to go to the shitter even at 90k miles and when they add on an aftermarket s/c or turbocharger they go within 1000 miles, while I've seen some vehicles with 150-200k miles on them and the people add on a s/c or turbo and haven't had a problem for years and years. The best thing you can do is not greedy with boost on a stock engine to help it survive for as long as possible. IT can be tempting when dyno tuning to crank up boost way over a "safe" 7-8psi on relatively stock motors to 11-12psi and really start screwing with the engine. Of course running a turbo or s/c will wear the engine more, as it's more power which equals more heat.

posted by  thunderbird1100

And also what about my other question, say I add on induction and run it for awhile THEN decide to do the rebuild on the motor, will they have to remove the supercharger before they do it, or can they do it without taking it off? Also I plan on being safe with my car when I do this, just not sure about the engine rebuild yet.

posted by  Pythias

WOW....:screwy:

you're joking right?

posted by  TokyoJoe

No I'm not, I'm young and more or less inexperienced with cars, so would you car to add to this topic or express greater ignorance? :screwy:

My question is very simple if you think about it, seeing as how I would be paying to have someone rebuild the engine would it cost more to have that person do it, seeing as how I have a supercharger on it, and that would be alot more labor to have to take that off, I'm thinking the answer is YES but I'm not POSITIVE, hence I asked my question. :thumbs:

posted by  Pythias

Really helpfull response...:screwy:

posted by  Cliffy

Sheesh...tough crowd

Once the actual kit is installed, the removal and reinstallation of the SC regardless of brand or style is very, very basic and won't add to the cost of a rebuild. If the mechanic says it will cost more because of it, pack your shit and take your buisiness elswhere to someone not trying to rip you off.

FYI: ignorance means uninformed not descriptive of just being an asshole

posted by  TokyoJoe

Ok that is what I wanted to know, thanks. BTW I know what ignorance means, and it meaning uninformed, is exactly what you were.

posted by  Pythias

u know..... next time, u should ask how each would affect the engine's power band and reliability......

i just finished reading all 4 pages of this damn thread, and it would have all been so much simpler if that had been asked..... cuz thats wat hobo and chrisv kept trying to say all along :wink2:

posted by  Inygknok

You have no buisness calling anyone ignorant.

posted by  TokyoJoe

Why because I am young and have no knowledge of cars? Which is why I come on here to learn? And you come on and make a judged ignorant statement? Who is the ignorant one again?

posted by  Pythias

Obviously you have no concept of the meaning of the word so stop using it. And yes you are for the exact reasons you stated.

posted by  TokyoJoe

Geez, settle down ladies :banghead:

posted by  Cliffy

Your Message