Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-23-2004, 07:05 PM   #1
freeprojectpat
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 48
diff btw turbo & supercharger

whats the difference between a turbo and a supercharger? Which one would be better to put on a mustang?
__________________
and kids dont do drugs. Cause if you do drugs, you go to prison!! and drugs are more expensive in prison...
freeprojectpat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2004, 07:27 PM   #2
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Turbochargers are more properly referred to as exhaust driven superchargers. yes, boith types are really superchargers. Normally, what we do is call all the exhaust driven versions "turbochargers" and teh engine driven ones (either belt or gear) "superchargers."

Superchargers use more hp to run, and tend to make the intake charge a bit hotter. Turbos use the mostly "free" energy of the hot exhaust and tend to be able to make much higher levels of boost.

To be honest, the amount of hp lost to drive the supercharger is often immaterial, as the amount of overall gain they make can be pretty significant at a lower boost level. Sure, you may use 50 hp to turn it, but if you're gaining 200 hp across the rev range, it really isn't important. OTOH, the fact that you can produce a lot of turbo boost with little hp loss is important to some people, especially on smaller engines.

It used to be that the only way to get low rpm power gains was with the supercharger, as it makes boost as soon as the engine is running. But newer turbo setups can bring the boost online pretty rapidly.

You didn't say what year Mustang, but while there have been single and twin turbo setups for the Mustang V8s that have made a lot of power, the more common method is a belt driven supercharger. Either the roots type (twin screw) as in the new Cobras and Lightnings, or the Paxton/Vortech type (centrifugal, sort of like a belt driven turbo). Personally, as much as I like small turbo engines, I'd go with the Vortech type centrifugal supercharger for all around driveability and power.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2004, 07:34 PM   #3
freeprojectpat
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 48
so a turbo charger would be better because it wouldnt stress the engine like a supercharger? The thing is I have an 03 V6 mustang, and I hate the fact that it comes stock with I think only 190 hp. Its a fast looking car but it sure aint fast. I want to make my V6 beat mustang gts, I have the funds but dont know where to start and what to do
__________________
and kids dont do drugs. Cause if you do drugs, you go to prison!! and drugs are more expensive in prison...
freeprojectpat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2004, 07:49 PM   #4
enron fever
CF Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeprojectpat
so a turbo charger would be better because it wouldnt stress the engine like a supercharger? The thing is I have an 03 V6 mustang, and I hate the fact that it comes stock with I think only 190 hp. Its a fast looking car but it sure aint fast. I want to make my V6 beat mustang gts, I have the funds but dont know where to start and what to do
not really. the main advantage a supercharger has over a turbo charger is the complete lack of any "turbo-lag". since a turbo is exhuast-powered, it takes awhile to spool up enough to get the high-pressure boost. superchargers, since they are powered by the engine and the boost they give off is dictated by the pulley diameter and the RPM of the engine, have instant boost. no matter what rpm you set your foot down at, the supercharger is boosting.

lets take the Jaguar XJ220 Road Car, arguably one of the coolest cars ever made. it had a few problems tho. first was it's brakes...horrible. second was it's emergency handling. it had loads of grip, but if you went beyond it you'd meet your maker sooner than you wanted too. and thirdly, it had twin turbo chargers the size of barns. now, they allowed a straight-6 to produce the phenomenal amount of power that it did, but they took so long to spool up that by the time they did, your fellow racers were already across the finish line and eating lunch at Wendy's. granted, if you kept the blowers up to speed it was a land-rocket, but doing so was difficult.

so, in the end, it all depends on what you want. instant power, or wait-awhile more-power.
enron fever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2004, 08:16 PM   #5
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
In the case of the V6 Mustang, that's basically the same V6 as the supercharged T-bird SC. Concievabley you could mount up the intercooled supercharger setup from that engine on your V6. But there are some nice supercharger kits available for that car as it is.

This is your best web resource: http://www.3.8mustang.com/

http://www.brothersperformance.com/s...1994-2003.html

And if anyone thinks this is advertising, this is what the web is about: linking to the sources of accurate information...
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2004, 08:40 PM   #6
freeprojectpat
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 48
Id rather have instant power, just to beat cars off the line, get there quick. i dont really care about how fast it gets to eventually ive already had too many speeding tickets as it is......


how much hp would those supercharger kits add? which one is better intercooled or non-intercooled.....whats the best buy from here

http://www.3.8mustang.com/performanc...charger%20Kits
__________________
and kids dont do drugs. Cause if you do drugs, you go to prison!! and drugs are more expensive in prison...

Last edited by freeprojectpat : 08-23-2004 at 08:59 PM.
freeprojectpat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2004, 08:02 PM   #7
abless
CF Anti-Mullet
 
abless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The American Empire
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeprojectpat
Id rather have instant power, just to beat cars off the line, get there quick. i dont really care about how fast it gets to eventually ive already had too many speeding tickets as it is......


how much hp would those supercharger kits add? which one is better intercooled or non-intercooled.....whats the best buy from here

http://www.3.8mustang.com/performanc...charger%20Kits


An intercooler would cool down the air, which will make your sc'er run cooler. IN GENERAL, turbochargers will produce more power than superchargers, but superchargers produce instant power.
__________________
abless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2004, 01:52 AM   #8
freeprojectpat
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by abless
An intercooler would cool down the air, which will make your sc'er run cooler. IN GENERAL, turbochargers will produce more power than superchargers, but superchargers produce instant power.

I prefer instant power...
What would you say is better intercooled or nonintercooled superchargers?
__________________
and kids dont do drugs. Cause if you do drugs, you go to prison!! and drugs are more expensive in prison...
freeprojectpat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2004, 02:50 AM   #9
enron fever
CF Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 356
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeprojectpat
I prefer instant power...
What would you say is better intercooled or nonintercooled superchargers?
intercooled. the colder the air, the more dense it becomes which = more oxygen going into the combustion chambers which = more power.
enron fever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2004, 10:49 PM   #10
abless
CF Anti-Mullet
 
abless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The American Empire
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeprojectpat
I prefer instant power...
What would you say is better intercooled or nonintercooled superchargers?


Most definetly intercooled. It will produce more power like enron said, and, correct me if I'm wrong, it will help the sc'er run cooler.
__________________
abless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2004, 03:04 AM   #11
Sick88Tbird
Master of the Fox-chassis
 
Sick88Tbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sicklerville, NJ
Posts: 578
With a few well-chosen bolt-ons you're v-6 can be faster than GT's for less than it would cost to get a supercharger installed. First, you can get gears...you want off the line...go with 4.10's. Then go with a good exhaust system, cold air intake and a larger MAF sensor. You could probably get a shift kit installed(assuming it's an auto) also to give go some tire chirping shifts.

Side note: The '03 Mustang's v-6 isn't even close to the v-6 used in the older cougars/t-birds(by an efficiency stand-piont). The '03 mustang 3.8 is significantly more efficient than the 3.8 used in the cougars/t-birds. he says his car is rated at 190hp...the supercoupes were rated at, from ford, 210hp...the n/a 3.8's back then were rated at 140hp.

A prominent SCCA racer(Kenny Brown) races a 4.2L v-6 mustang and pretty much dominates his class. He has kits available for the 3.8L mustang that will make it faster than GT's. His kits consist of gears and exhaust...anything more than that and you're just getting faster.
__________________
New Toy- Stone stock '88 T-bird Sport in need of some TLC

1988 Cougar XR-7- HO/T-5 conversion, cracked block prevented from reaching full potential.

RIP '88 T-Bird....14.1@98.7mph...best sleeper in So. Jersey, now it's taking a permanent dirt nap.
Sick88Tbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2004, 01:24 AM   #12
freeprojectpat
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 48
I think its at 190hp cause its convertible, but thanks a lot man I appreciate all the info
__________________
and kids dont do drugs. Cause if you do drugs, you go to prison!! and drugs are more expensive in prison...
freeprojectpat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2004, 03:27 AM   #13
Coffin Type R
CF Addict
 
Coffin Type R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Central Cali
Posts: 271
I looked at the numbers for the 2003 V6 Mustang. they are impressive stock, 190 hp @ 5320 and 220 ft*lbs @ 2750. and that is with 3.8L engine. the V8 is the 4.6L.

heres the site

http://www.new-cars.com/2003/ford/fo...cs.html#engine
__________________
Why do ideas seem good when you think but arent when they are implemented?

~*Lost Soul of Chevy*~

Coffin Type R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2004, 03:41 AM   #14
freeprojectpat
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando Florida
Posts: 48
you really think 190 hp is impressive, my s-10 had more hp than that...
__________________
and kids dont do drugs. Cause if you do drugs, you go to prison!! and drugs are more expensive in prison...
freeprojectpat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2004, 05:43 PM   #15
thunderbird1100
CF dB-o-holic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: LSU Campus
Posts: 3,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffin Type R
I looked at the numbers for the 2003 V6 Mustang. they are impressive stock, 190 hp @ 5320 and 220 ft*lbs @ 2750. and that is with 3.8L engine. the V8 is the 4.6L.

heres the site

http://www.new-cars.com/2003/ford/fo...cs.html#engine

Whoa, 190hp and 220ft-lbs is NOT impressive from a 3.8L V-6...hell, back in the early 90s Honda was getting 230hp from its SOHC 3.2L V6 (in the Legend). 190hp from a 3.8L V6 nowadays is best left to be called, 'unimpressive'.

Just for some specs comparison i'll list some engine #'s from SUV's.

Pilot SOHC 3.5L V6 - 240hp, 242ft-lbs
Trailblazer DOHC 4.2L I6 - 275hp, 275 ft-lbs
Durango SOHC 3.7L V6 - 215hp, 235ft-lbs
Montero SOHC 3.8 V6 - 215hp, 248ft-lbs
4 Runner 4.0L DOHC V6 - 245hp, 282ft-lbs

So as you can tell, the poor ole little Ford 3.8 is lagging behind seriously...For 05 they are giving it 4.0L's of life, but still a paultry 200hp. If you ask me they REALLY need to just drop this engine and talk to another company to make them a good hearty V6 (ala GM grabbing Honda's J35 3.5L V6 for the Vue).
__________________
1990 Honda Accord LX Sedan
Mileage Ticker: 232,400 Miles
Stereo Mods: Coming soon...

~Blow your mind~

thunderbird1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.