Could have bought a GT35, that makes peak torque at 5k rpms and holds it till 9300rpms but probably makes double the horsepower of a SC

 

and this is coming from a supercharged s (me)

 

Not for the $3500 bucks I spent. Plus I get to enjoy my engine for twice as long

 

I beg to differ at least as far as engine life goes, SCs blow engines as much as turbos do usually due to the fact that people think they can bolt on a SC and don't have to check the AF ratio.

 

Sure you can be dumb with either set up, but given all the facts on what has been discussed on this page recently at the very least, I disagree. An SC is much kinder to a 4 banger such as ours.

For 2 simple but big reasons

-Less heat

- Less boost at low rpm.

I'm sure you are aware of all the ramifications and possible complications of what each of these mean to the engine

You cant argue that a turbo is just as reliable as and SC, because its not, unless your definition of reliable is different then someone else's. A turbo making the same peak hp output as a SC such as 350whp isn't going to last as long, which I would include into the reliability equation. Turbo's require much more tuning and doo dads to make reliable then an SC.

There is plenty room for turbos, I'm not knocking them, just making a good argument for why some of us make the choice for the alternative.

 

I'll play devils advocate, let's face it SC FTL because you SC guys lack TQ

...then again, Turbo = harder on the engine internals. More TQ = more stress.

Then again like Spec Ops said about tuning on SC's.... I personally know 2 people who've blown em.





But like S2000 Junky said....
Less hp capability and less tq are great reasons to buy a SC instead of a turbo

 

i dont see why a f20 making 400whp is going to be unreliable. Tons of people do it. it really is all in the tune and the sum of the parts that you have. the SC is a more bolt on thing than the turbo, but i dont agree that it is gonna make the engine last longer. 9k rpms is harder on an engine than 4k....thats a silly argument if you think about it you have to wind out a centrifical SC very high to make the power. A turbo can be at full boost around 4500rpm and you dont even have to wind it out to get peak power, so therefore less stress on the engine. Also the turbo uses wasted energy, the SC steals it from the crank putting stress on it as well. Turbo > SC

 

tons of people do all kinds of things.... tons of people have problems too and tons of people DON'T post about embarrassing things like blowing stuff up.

I'm not saying 400 can't be reliable though and CERTAINLY not in regards to the top side issues, the tune is easy even well above that, but the tune has nothing to do w/ the load on the bottom end in this case... however TQ is more what I look at, making over 220ft/lbs IMO is pushing your luck then again it comes down to how hard you drive it too. I drive the hell outa my car. full boost early on in the rpms = more tq and therefore more stress on internals. SC > Turbo for reliability... and I'm saying this being someone who IS turbo and hates SC.

Factory equipment rarely chooses turbo for a reason.

 

You see so many more turbo applications in factory cars than you do centrifugal SC; I can't even think of any factory car off the top of my head that uses a centrifugal SC.

In fact, most SC factory cars use a roots blower, whose biggest advantage is the torque down low!

 

I didn't say centrifugal SC... I just said rarely turbo from the factory.

Roots makes HP down low not TQ so much...

SC = TQ robbing. Roots style is VERY dependable though. However they create MASSIVE heat at high rpms then again most cars don't go to 9k. Power down low is what counts on a typical vehicle. I mean for a truck it's the obvious.... power off the line is critical when pulling a load. When it comes to a typical car the supercharger provides a nice 30-40% increase in hp and does it VERY reliable. It's really only when a car can't make the hp needed to make it competitive in a market that they use a Turbo which will give 50-100+% hp gains. If you have for example a 4.6L ford... do you really need anything more then a Kenne Bell (500-800hp range). Sure a Turbo will make this motor good for 1000 no problem but WHY? No reason. Better to stick to dependable power since it already has displacement.

My Tacoma TRD 3.4 uses a TRD roots style charger to get the job done... and they're famous for not handling ANY extra boost due to the heat.

Still more superchargers of various kinds that are reliable compared to turbo cars.... Turbo's are getting better and better though, I think we'll see more and more of them around.