Both work very well. And I'll even say a T/C works better for max performance...but there are drawbacks to everything.

My other car has a T/C...MS3. It doesn't have "lag" like many others but it does take time to spool up...and that is a factory tuned system, not an aftermarket thing. A turbo will ALWAYS need time to spool up as it's the nature of the system. It doesn't have the lag that older turbos have, and it's way less than the 1.8T's from VW (they were called low lag, but they did have a very pronounced, though very short, lag. A S/C will hit its boost pretty much right when you downshift or floor it...it's belt-driven and there's much less volume to pressurize...its already spooled so to speak...its just dumping the boost. Then, there's the heat management, too...it can be mitigated, but it is there, and it is greater than a S/C car at the same power level.

If you want absolute best performance, T/C is the way to go. It does change the powerband, though. I may even go with a T/C in my S eventually...don't know because I already have a T/C car.

I only have the lowly "Stage 1" SOS kit on my car. It's a ton of fun, though, and makes 306 Mustang horses at 95F (most tell me that's a solid 320+ Jet horses), and I've yet to test it in cooler weather but 310 would be easy. Now that it's not my daily, I'll probably be going the standalone/injectors route for more power. The 1220 is more efficient than the 1200 in the range I run it in now, but given my goals I'll likely have it upgraded to a 1200 as I chase more power. Either way, the 1220 will get me to my goal (mid-high 300s) so I may just stick with what I've got and drop one more pulley size...way cheaper for me.

Part of the reason I went with the S/C and stage 1 was to develop my knowledge. Going T/C 2 years ago would have been a total disaster for me. I installed my S/C kit myself, and tuned it on a dyno with an AF guage. Very happy with the way it turned out. In the 300whp ballpark, reliablity is basically stock...my original clutch holds, diff has no metal chunks, etc. My only worry is someone futzing up an oil change on the rare occasion I can't do it myself.

No matter what, when you take a 2.0 to 400whp, reliablity is kind of out the window. A S/C will still be "more" reliable than a T/C (there are WAY more constants in the system)...and you can always pull the belt and boom, you're NA again. That's not to say a T/C will be measurably less...with a good tune, good parts, and GOOD KNOWLEDGE, you'll probably be dead-even. But, you need that trifecta with a T/C...if one is missing you're not going to have it. A S/C could probably let one of those slip a little and maintain some of the reliablity, though.

A stage 1 300whp car will be measurably faster than stock. Around town it's minor to pretty even...you have to stretch it out to in 3rd to really tell. Still, you're dropping almost a second flat-out 0-60 and quarter mile...huge change. I love driving my S/C S2K, but there's no way in heck I'd go against a T/C one...even a "lowly" Greddy as they'll be faster than a S/C S2K making 50hp more.

Oh, a stage 1 kit passes emmissions, too, straight-up, no quasi-legal "hook-up". That matters to some as its a requirement for them (I live in the DC area now so it is for me).

 

A guy in metro with an untuned greddy kit lost in a highway pull against a full bolt on NA S2000 lol. If tuned and maxed out they will pull on a 300whp SC s2000. Out of the box I don't think they would stand a chance. They really fall flat on their face after 6k it seems.

 

Sorry but I already have a turbo Subaru Sti with lots of power but I hate it. Nothing beats the response of a N/A engine. Im not looking to race anyone on the street, I just want to build something that is fun to drive. My car is already LOADS of fun to drive but all it lacks is a bit of extra grunt. For me a fun car has to be responsive and turbos are just not that. Sorry.
[/quote]

Now I'm lost. If it wasn't for my 4.56 gears I wouldn't have much pleasure driving my S. It has no response because of the lack of torque. A S/C doesn't start building boost till around 5 grand and isn't at full boost till redline. This is because the S/Cs for our cars are centrifugal. A turbo responds quicker (depending on turbo size you could be at full boost as low as 5 grand when your S/C is just building boost) and YES harder then a S/C. Maybe if I had a big block under my hood I would agree with your comment of "Nothing beats the response of a N/A engine", but I don't. We have a low torque/horsepower engine just like most imports. This is why we use force induction to keep up with domestics. So not to start a feud but your last sentence is complete wrong. SORRY.
[/quote]
The pleasure of driving an S is not for the torque it for the high revs and power up top, even then, if you wanted torque your rpms should be much higher (5k on up range) where torque is present. Not all SC's for our car are centri's. Small turbos on our cars arent as bad as people make them to be, if done correctly. We dont have low horsepower in comparison to most other imports, and I keep up with most domestics just fine, it all about knowing what your driving and how to drive. Recently, other cars especially newer models are just now catching up to our 10+year old technology. Lastly, you can keep the S NA, it's just going to cost you for high power high torque numbers....search F27c
[/quote]

Already have researched all the possible N/A routes! Previous car was a DC2 Type-R with a built stroker and i truly loved it because it was just so amazignly responsive. I slight change in thottle position could instantly be felt. The end result was far better than the stock type r motor simply due to the higher compression, lower component weight, superlight flywheel and efficient intake and headport design. i want my S to be the same so i started this thread to figure out if the performance could get increased performance and still be able to increase the response or at least keep it the same with a s/c. at the beginning i was extremely skeptical but now i just want to try it out for myself.

and no you cannot say that a turbo engine will be anywhere near as responsive as the other 2. every turbo car ive driven had an eer so slight lag between the time it took to change throttle position and the engine actually doing what you just told it to do no matter how small the turbo was.

 

Sorry but I already have a turbo Subaru Sti with lots of power but I hate it. Nothing beats the response of a N/A engine. Im not looking to race anyone on the street, I just want to build something that is fun to drive. My car is already LOADS of fun to drive but all it lacks is a bit of extra grunt. For me a fun car has to be responsive and turbos are just not that. Sorry.
[/quote]

Now I'm lost. If it wasn't for my 4.56 gears I wouldn't have much pleasure driving my S. It has no response because of the lack of torque. A S/C doesn't start building boost till around 5 grand and isn't at full boost till redline. This is because the S/Cs for our cars are centrifugal. A turbo responds quicker (depending on turbo size you could be at full boost as low as 5 grand when your S/C is just building boost) and YES harder then a S/C. Maybe if I had a big block under my hood I would agree with your comment of "Nothing beats the response of a N/A engine", but I don't. We have a low torque/horsepower engine just like most imports. This is why we use force induction to keep up with domestics. So not to start a feud but your last sentence is complete wrong. SORRY.
[/quote]
The pleasure of driving an S is not for the torque it for the high revs and power up top, even then, if you wanted torque your rpms should be much higher (5k on up range) where torque is present. Not all SC's for our car are centri's. Small turbos on our cars arent as bad as people make them to be, if done correctly. We dont have low horsepower in comparison to most other imports, and I keep up with most domestics just fine, it all about knowing what your driving and how to drive. Recently, other cars especially newer models are just now catching up to our 10+year old technology. Lastly, you can keep the S NA, it's just going to cost you for high power high torque numbers....search F27c
[/quote]

Already have researched all the possible N/A routes! Previous car was a DC2 Type-R with a built stroker and i truly loved it because it was just so amazignly responsive. I slight change in thottle position could instantly be felt. The end result was far better than the stock type r motor simply due to the higher compression, lower component weight, superlight flywheel and efficient intake and headport design. i want my S to be the same so i started this thread to figure out if the performance could get increased performance and still be able to increase the response or at least keep it the same with a s/c. at the beginning i was extremely skeptical but now i just want to try it out for myself.

and no you cannot say that a turbo engine will be anywhere near as responsive as the other 2. every turbo car ive driven had an eer so slight lag between the time it took to change throttle position and the engine actually doing what you just told it to do no matter how small the turbo was.
[/quote]
For that matter heat-soak alone will make a NA S less responsive so...

 

Maybe I'm lost here but everyone keeps referring to how a S/C isn't as lagging as a turbo. I mention I'm lost because a S/C has a linear powerband if you look at 6 grand I make 3 psi at 9 grand I make 6 psi. I have the stage 1 SOS kit. Now when I had my boosted GSR hatch I hit full boost at 6k 18psi across the board till 9k. Point I'm making is I have to wait all the way till redline to be at full boost. In my eyes that's why lagger then a turbo which depending on the size can be at full boost in sometimes less then 5k. Now if this was a roots blower not centrifugal then yes I would be singing a different tune.

 

That's not lag. That's just the boost curve. There's a difference. The engine and throttle response with a sc is better than a turbo. The turbo makes more boost lower down however.

 

I don't think you understand what lag is. Lag is defined as the amount of time it takes from when you push your foot to the floor on the accelerator to when you have full boost.

With a turbo, there is a definitely delay from when this occurs. On any supercharger, that response is instantaneous. Throttle response is tied directly to your right foot with a supercharger, not so with a turbo.

 

So how is it that with a centrifugal S/C you're not a full boost till 9k/redline? So what would you call the delay it takes me to start building boost at 5K and don't hit full till 9k? I think you guys are referring to a roots blower not our centrifugal ones.

 

lag is time from when you go full throttle till the system reaches the desired boost at given rpm. boost by rpm is different.

 

That is not lag. Look up lag and you'll understand how the sc doesn't have any and has much better throttle response compared to a turbo.

So how is it that with a centrifugal S/C you're not a full boost till 9k/redline? So what would you call the delay it takes me to start building boost at 5K and don't hit full till 9k? I think you guys are referring to a roots blower not our centrifugal ones.
[/quote]