supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

now, what exactly ,in your opinion and knowledge, is the advantage of having a turbocharger over that of a supercharger.

http://www.superchargersonline.com/content.asp?ID=19

this page gives alot of pros and cons ,but as experienced mechanics and drivers which one would you choose and why?

Re:supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

i like the way superchargers sound.im saving up my money for a camden supercharger for my rx7.

Re:supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

Quote from that page, "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. "
Something doesn't seem quite right about that, why would there be a power surge from the wastegate opening?

Re:supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

Cost is a major factor for us on this site. A supercharger usually is twice or three times what we'd be willing to pay for any type of power adder.

Turbochargers also put out more power for the cost, and are more easily upgradeable.

The only major problem with turbocharging is lag, which can always be conquered with a small bit of nitrous :P

Also, turbo kits are more fun to put together, and all around more of an experience.

Re:supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

Imagine putting a M90 on a build D-series to make the kinda power a T3/T4 would make...That poor engine would have to work pretty hard to turn that supercharger.

Re:supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

the m90 inst that big.

Re:supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

Neither are you. Nah I'm sorry dude. The intake charge pressure is greater in a supercharged engine, and not always so in a turbo'd motor. This is because the turbo is mounted in the exhaust stream (obvious). Greater exhaust pressures will make scavenging of the cylinders much harder, thus creating less power. Those effects, can just about be taken care of with proper manifolding, but it would be too difficult for most of us to create a proper design. But superchargers on the other hand use alot of power, (parasitic losses) to make power.

Re:supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

supercharger cost more but you dont have any lag to worry about. You can't make as much power with a supercharger as you would with a turbocharger. Some cars is better off supercharger other cars are better off turbocharged. And yes..you lost more power with the supercharger to get power because you run of a belt which in a turbocharger you run of the exhaust fumes. Me..im a TC man you just can't beat that ;)

Re:supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

advantages of a supercharger:
less heat
simple
boost acrossed RPMS

advantages of turbo:
peak horsepower


turbos are better for smaller engines typically because they rev higher, not so much because of the para. loss, high revvin engines can get a turbo spinnin like a some'bitch... and thats were small egines make their power.. up top.

whereas superchargers as better suited on low revving engines, because they make their power at the bottom and you can instant boost and airflow for the low rpms.

think on a 350 if you had it revvin to 7600 and supercharged it with a roots type blower... the supercharger would have to be pretty big and flow some serious air to keep up with those revs, and at the low rpms the charger would be hard to spin and wouldnt a ton of air, really reducing the advantage of a s/c (low rpms power) turbo is probably betterin that situation.

but if you got a stock 350 that revs to 5500, ------ s/c that bitch and make lots of torque (and hp) from 1k rpms to 5500 :)

Re:supercharger vs. turbocharger
 

To each his own...