Since this involves involves Fieros and cars in-general i'm posting it here.

I know a fair amount about car's, and I keep learning more everyday. But as far as tuning, my knowledge is being learned slowly and put to test on car simlulators like GT4. Now I have a few questions...

First off, what is naturally aspirated basically?
2nd, how come you can't have naturally aspirated and a supercharger/turbocharger at the same time?
What is the difference between a (can't remember name, regular kind?)supercharger and a centrifrugal supcharger?
Twin Turbos? Benefits?

And the question of all time...

What is better..
N/A
Supercharger(and what kind? centrifrugal or regular)
Turbo(twin or w/e)

Thanks and could you list the benefits of each kind.

Naturally aspirated means that the engine is using the atmopheric pressure in the intake. It's not forced induction. If you want a supercharger, you should do a 3800sc swap. If you want a turbo, just get a single because twin turbos have tons of lag(expecially on a car like fieros) The fiero engine is too small to twin turbo.

Naturally aspirated is just another word for non-turbocharged/non-supercharged. It just means your not running any boost. Twin turbo means it has 2 turbos so it can run way more boost. A supercharger is run by a belt driven off the crank. I usually think of superchargers as more low end power and turbos as more top end power.

I just had a friend explain to me why you can't have natural aspirated and a turbo/supercharger

Now my question is basically which is better?? I just found out that a Centrifugal is better then a roots Supercharger.

So what is better, a Supercharger or Turbocharger??

If this helps, the car will be used for accelerating really fast on streets(cough street racing) and 1/4 mile and twisties.

quote Originally posted by Fiero Finale: I just had a friend explain to me why you can't have natural aspirated and a turbo/supercharger

Well that is not toatlly true. At one time Paxton had a intake manifold you could get that had a diverter for the airflow. Under normal driving it allowed the air to by-pass the Paxton Supercharger and worked like a regular carb'd motor. When boost was needed you slammed dowm the throttle and the diverter closedcausing the air to circulate thru the Paxton. that was sorta best of both worlds :-)

depends I supercharged a 3.4.with an auto trans. I liked the supercharger because it does not create a ton of heat like a turbo would. the colder the air the more dense it is. that means the more power the engine will produce. the 3.4 is a torque motor. the supercharger will help produce more torque than hp.

If I had a 5-speed car I would have turboed it. A turbo produces more hp than torque. the turbo produces "free" power but has high heat involved.

There are downfall to both the sc robes power to make it. There is a belt that drives it. The turbo is "free" it runs off the exhaust but there is "lag" and there is alot of heat.

I am rambling on and on and on so I will end it now Basically there is +'s and -'s to both methods and both are to dang much money.

------------------

88GT 3.4SC
88GT T-TOP

quote Originally posted by fieroracer86: If you want a turbo, just get a single because twin turbos have tons of lag(expecially on a car like fieros) The fiero engine is too small to twin turbo.

With all due respect.... where did you get that "twin turbos have tons of lag " ?
Let me mention a couple of cars, 1990 300ZX, 1995 RX7, 2000 Porshe Turbo, Toyota Supra T, 90~ Corvette Callaway... All the cars I listed were twin turbo and they were not know to have "tons of lag".
One of the reasons that must of those cars listed above were twin turbo was to have a smaller turbo that will start building boost at very low rpm and the bigger one to provide more boost at higher rpm, making the car feel like if there is a much bigger and powerfull eng in the car.
The above statement is a very simple way to explain one of the good things about cars w/ twin turbos.

BTW there was a twin turbo kit for the fiero, but it was pricey.

Fiero Finale
If you want to learn more about turbos, there is a really good book called "Maximun Boost" by Corky Bell.
There is a lot of info out there about turbos and it will take some time to really understand it but driving a well tunned turbo car can be a lot of fun.

Boosted engines produce much more horsepower than a naturally aspirated engine of the same size without drivability problems.A supercharger will give you instant boost,but steals a lot of power to drive it.With a supercharger the camshaft can be more radical.With a turbocharger you can have your cake and eat it too.Until you step on the gas and produce boost it is as if you are driving a naturally aspirated engine along with it's better gas mileage.When you step on the gas with a turbocharged engine and the engine starts to build boost,you get the feeling of a much bigger engine.I have an 88GT with a 3800SC,it will take my Grand National off the line(it has about a 600 lb advantage),but the GN will blow by it before the end of the 1/4 mile.The 3800SC has a slightly better throttle response,but doesn't put out the power the GN(which is turbocharged)does.I am building an 87GT with a 383 Chevy and it will be turbocharged,so I guess you know how I feel about boosted engines.

------------------
#1112
Question my ability,question my intelligence,never question my integrity!

As 85Lamb stated, the Corky Bell book is the Bible on Turbocharging. Some of it you have to read twice before it sinks in, but a great book. I did lots of research on Turbos before zeroing in on the Dennis LaGura Turbo Kit. It uses the Garrett T3 and has all the parts,- pipes, bolts, boost gauge, etc. The heat issue as noted above is real and hot air is less dense than cooler air, so what you want is cooler compressed air and 93 octane gas going into the intake. So i installed a water/alcohol injection system which significantly cools the compressed air going into the intake creating more HP and preventing detonation ( an engine killer).
To get rid of the heat I also installed a small ( 8" ) radiator type fan on the left rear grill vent, cutting a hole in it to let the air pass quickly through the vent and pretty much to the left and above the turbo unit. The worst thing to do is wrap the turbo with insulation; you want to get rid of the heat, not capture it. The fan is activated by coolant temperature or via a switch which you can use to kill the fan. For example, if it's 30 degrees outside, and your coolant temp is at operating temperature, the fan will come on. But at 30 degrees there is plenty of cold air and the fan is not necessary. With the turbo unlike the centrifugal supercharger, you don't have to give up your air conditioning. Ed

------------------

The reason turbos produce more heat is that they usually run more boost. The act of compressing the air creates heat and the more you compress it the hotter it gets leading to detonation. Compressed air builds heat based on boost not whether a turbo or supercharger compresses it.

------------------
virgin 88 4 Cyl

So much mis-information about how much power a supercharger "robs". All superchargers are not equal, as there are several designs. The original roots blowers with dual quads you see sticking out of the hoods of 60's muscle cars did indeed require lots of power. However, newer efficient screw designs like the Eatons on 3800SC, Magnachargers and Whipple use far less power. The 3800SC have bypasses built-in so the SC basically "free-wheels" when cruising.

The centrifugal superchargers like Vortech, ATI etc, use even less power than any "roots" type supercharger because they are not postive displacement. Their compressors are similar in design to those on a turbo-charger, but are belt driven and have internal gearing to increase the impeller speed. I've driven my car with the belt disconnected from the SC and the car ran fine. The impeller just "free-wheels" from the air flowing through it. When my friend and I drove to Pontiac for the 20th Anniversary, my 3.4L with SC got better mpg than my friend's stock 2.8 (everything else being equal, 5-speed, highway speed etc.) If it "robbed" that much power, my mileage should have been less.

I also don't believe turbo-power is "free", any more than stock exhaust is better than headers. It is just that with BOTH turbo-chargers and superchargers, the GAINS OFFSET the losses. In the case of superchargers, it's the engine power to drive it, with turbos, it's the slight restriction of the turbo in the exhaust flow.

Yeah... I know - turbos are superior because "every" car manufacturer has one. Actually, it's because it's LOWER COST. When car manufacturers have to recall 1 million cars to replace a plastic 25 cent part with a brass 75 cent part, you can bet they were hoping to save that 50 cents per car initially. Similarly, when they have a choice of $150/car to add a turbo ("assembly line prices" are so cheap!!) , or $250/car to add a SC, it's obvious what they'll go with.

Which is "better". Neither - they both have their advantages and disadvantages, but they BOTH do what they're supposed to do - create more horsepower than they use. Think about it - if one were "superior" compared to the other - the "other" would have been phased out long ago (like gas vs steam powered cars).

That said, if your want to build your own system - aftermarket SCs like Vortech are expensive,
factory SCs like 3800 Eatons are less, used turbos are cheapest.

------------------
Fiero Fiesta - July 24, 2005 - Calgary, Alberta <--- click this LINK

3.4L S/C 87 GT www.fierosound.com
2002/2003/2004 World of Wheels Winner &
Multiple IASCA Stereo Award Winner

[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 03-02-2005).]

Very well put. I am tired of folks telling me a Turbo is 100 times better than a supercharger because of rumors they heard. I have yet to ride in a Turbo that doesnt have lag. Rick B

President Cleveland Fieros
clevelandfieros.com

"Many people think exhaust-gas energy is not free because the turbine wheel causes backpressure on the engine exhaust system. This is true to a certain extent, but when the exhaust valve first opens the flow though it is critical. Critical flow occurs when the cylinder pressure is more than twice the exhaust manifold pressure. As long as this condition exists, backpressure will not effect flow...For a given type of fuel more power can be obtained from an engine by turbocharging than by any other method."

Now obviously turbos do have lag issues to contend with, but if you're looking to get the most absolute power, turbocharging is more efficient.

------------------

turboturboturbo

I'm now confused...on which is better. I guess it's a matter of personal opinion correct??? I mean I know turbos are good for high speed contests....I dont' want that...I find that lame. Basically 1/4 mile(street racing cough cough cough) and twisties, I supercharger comes to be more ideal. But I keep having everyone telling me Turbos are better, cause they said Superchargers take power to make power, well if you look at it. Say you get a 100hp gain from a supercharger, but it takes 15hp to make that 100hp, so technically your getting a 85 hp gain. But with a turbo if I understand correctly.....lag...you can get a twin turbo but it still lags to a certain extent. Also basically Turbos are better on small engines, which if I were to go V8 or w/e I don't think that matters at that point cause i'm not talking bout owning a 4 banger civic. So yeah lol . I'm a bit confused on which side is better...

If you're just drag racing, a turbo is great. Since the turbo is not mechanically connected to the engine, you can get a great "push" when you shift due to the fact the the impeller has inertia. The tubo will spin up, and when you shift, the engine speed drops but the turbo speed remains relatively constant. Because the compressor puts out more boost at lower flow rates, there's an immediate increase in manifold pressure during those shift points and gives the car a really noticable burst of power.

------------------

quote Originally posted by Fiero Finale: I'm now confused...on which is better. I guess it's a matter of personal opinion correct??? I mean I know turbos are good for high speed contests....I dont' want that...I find that lame. Basically 1/4 mile(street racing cough cough cough) and twisties, I supercharger comes to be more ideal. But I keep having everyone telling me Turbos are better, cause they said Superchargers take power to make power, well if you look at it. Say you get a 100hp gain from a supercharger, but it takes 15hp to make that 100hp, so technically your getting a 85 hp gain. But with a turbo if I understand correctly.....lag...you can get a twin turbo but it still lags to a certain extent. Also basically Turbos are better on small engines, which if I were to go V8 or w/e I don't think that matters at that point cause i'm not talking bout owning a 4 banger civic. So yeah lol . I'm a bit confused on which side is better...

For what you want, you'd probably be happier with a supercharger. Superchargers take power to make it, but don't believe the crap that a turbo is "free" horsepower, think about this, my turbo saturn, had a 1 7/8 inch exhaust stock, with a regular cat, and a regular muffler. Now, with the turbo, I have a 2.5 inch exhaust, high flow cat, and no muffler. It is NO louder than stock, with that much less exhaust, something must be using it (ie, the turbo is soaking it all up). Also, Turbo's are not just for high speed, the bigger the turbo, the more true that is, but my friend has a turbo Civic, with 175 HP at the wheels, and he said first gear goes up in smoke. Obviously, that's not just top speed power there, that's everyday useable power too.

Turbo's are not nessacarily better on small engines, Ligenfelter should clue you in on that.

anyways, back onto your personal situation. If you want low-end, "instant" power, get a roots blower (supercharger), if you want good power, and don't mind waiting til you hit 2000RPM to really feel it, a turbo is fine. Yes, turbos lag, but it's not horrible, and in theory, it should be easier on the trans since you'll be moving before you're making all your power. I personally prefer turbos, and i think i would rather have one on a fiero than a supercharger.

quote Originally posted by 88gtNewb: Now obviously turbos do have lag issues to contend with, but if you're looking to get the most absolute power, turbocharging is more efficient.

Back to the cost issue. Look at the new cars. Neons, PT Cruisers, Subaru, GM Cyclone & Typhoon, Porsche, Lotus, Lamborghini, Bugatti and more have turbos.

Mercedes, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Jaguar, Infinity, Volvo, Ford GT/SVT Cobra and SVT Lightning, Chrysler Crossfire, Pontiac/Olds/Buick and many more have superchargers.

BOTH systems seem to work OK, but not too many "budget cars" have superchargers.

[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 03-02-2005).]

quote Originally posted by 88gtNewb: If you're just drag racing, a turbo is great. Since the turbo is not mechanically connected to the engine, you can get a great "push" when you shift due to the fact the the impeller has inertia. The tubo will spin up, and when you shift, the engine speed drops but the turbo speed remains relatively constant. Because the compressor puts out more boost at lower flow rates, there's an immediate increase in manifold pressure during those shift points and gives the car a really noticable burst of power.

Something else he made me think of just now. A turbo only lags when you first get on it. So let's say you are sitting at a stop, you have a fairly small turbo, like a garret T-3 you take off, and floor it from the get-go, by 2000 RPM you should be close to full boost, and it will pull the whole way through that gear, you go to shift to second, lift the throttle (hear the PSSSHT of the BOV ) and through it into second, stop the gas, NO lag, the inertia of the turbo's wheel keeps that thing spinning, so long as you don't take all day to shift, you should only feel lag initially.

quote Originally posted by fierosound: Back to the cost issue. Look at the new cars. Neons, PT Cruisers, Subaru, GM Cyclone & Typhoon, Porsche, Lotus, Lamborghini, Bugatti and more have turbos. Mercedes, Aston Martin, Ferrari, Jaguar, Infinity, Volvo, Ford GT/SVT Cobra and SVT Lightning, Chrysler Crossfire, Pontiac/Olds/Buick and many more have superchargers. BOTH systems seem to work OK, but not too many "budget cars" have superchargers.

Those you mention that are supercharged are *mainly* luxury-oriented cars, with owners than demand instant and smooth power, so yes a supercharger is well suited to that application. I was only saying that with all other things equal, if your main concern is maximum power a turbo can't be beat.

[This message has been edited by 88gtNewb (edited 03-02-2005).]

Yes, they all have their advantages and disadvantages. My $0.02: My 3500 lb Grand Prix GTP gets over 33MPG and the GTP is known for getting better gas mileage than the NA 3800 in the GT. Supercharged engines in "moderate" form almost always get better gas mileage than a NA or turbo version of the same car/engine. Dollar for dollar, supercharged engines are easier and cheaper to modify. They also don't require special exhaust routing, just use stock or NA headers. With their own oil supply and no danger of "cooking" it from turning off the motor too soon, they are also generally considered to be more reliable.
For "streetable" cars and daily drivers, logic generally leans towards a supercharger.

All that being said, if max hp is your only goal, turbo systems will almost universally get you more (even if you have to pay 2x the price hp for hp to get it).

when F-1 went to forced induction in the 80s it was all turbo and mostly twins on the v6s
indy and cart and the sportscars all only use turbos in resent years when allowed
both indy and F-1 have banned turbos as they work TOOO WELL
about the only modern use of the racing supercharger is the drags
the big difference is the intercoolers a supercharger must use a sandwiched intercooler between
the motor and the blower and use a water cooled unit because of limited space

a turbo can place the intercooler anywhere and use air to air or water in a much bigger cooler
and you DO NEED AN INTERCOOLER TO MAKE REAL POWER

water cooled turbos [not the intercooler but on the turbo itself both cut heat and allow the turbo to
make more power, and cut down the cokeing oil problems as does fake oil without dead dinos in it]
is the newer way to go with an intercooler

BTW you can use a small turbo to boost mid range power without risking broken motors

my new volvo does this, the boost kicks in low and tork is rased without making alot more HP on the topend
this gives good driveability and is ideal for a street driven car esp an automatic

in the early days most superchargers were clutched and only used part time
a turbo gives the same effect if your lite on the gas petal you stay off boost

a programable CPU is needed to make a nonturbo car live with an add on turbo
or get real power from uping the boost on a turbo car

megasquirt [CPU] is loved by the hi-boost volvo guys

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by Firefighter: The worst thing to do is wrap the turbo with insulation; you want to get rid of the heat, not capture it...

Where did you learn this? Improved heat retention on the exhaust side is a good thing. That's as far as I'll get into it.

------------------

My Web page | The Turbo Super Duty Build.

through the 1/4 I'd have to give props to the sc, granted a turbo will most likely go past you after that (most of the time, could do it before) but honestly are you going to be driving 100+ all the time

turbos will have a greater top end, as superchargers will have it down low. To see the full effects of a SC a intercooler is a huge plus. It's all in what you want, I'm not sure if I want to ever own a naturally aspirated motor again, turbos/sc's are just killer

EASY GUYS I used the "free" loosley. I was just implying that it takes less to drive a turbo than a s/c. Like I said there is +'s and -'s to each one. They both do create heat from presureizing the air. The turbo creates more due to heat transfer (you are running exhaust gasses through the unit to create boost). Now with water cooled turbo's that heat tranfer is less than a conventional turbo.

This is a great subject and everyone has there oppionions on which is better. I chose a s/c for mine but the next one I am going to turbo. I will run a intercooler on the turbo setup. There is a ton of stuff to learn about boost and I am just starting to learn the basics about them. I started research about 2 years ago when I put my motor together. Just know that there is alot of "myths" out there and do your research well. It will save you alot of money and headaches.

Just remember "there is nothing like the feel of boost and the sound of a blow off valve"

So in simple terms....correct me if i'm wrong...

But a supercharger is better for 1/4 mile on "ok" to huge size engines, and for stop and go(like twisties and etc)
And a turbocharger is better for longer then 1/4 mile races, and circuit racing, basically types of racing with long stretches of road(highway monsters)

And that turbos are better on smaller engines correct??

Seems like a supercharger is suited to my liking.....

Here is a video if a 1200whp turbo supra with a turbo the size of a medium dog. You guys tell me where you see lag, because it just doesn't exsist.
http://100psi.com/marko-845.wmv

Think about it this way. Most cars are traction limited in 1st gear anyways, adding a turbo will not hamper this, but when you shift into 2nd, you have a ton of boost waiting for you. Turbos are more thermal efficient on the compressor side than a supercharger, some turbos are up around 76% efficient. That is huge. A turbo is generally able to produce alot more psi than a supercharger. Running upwards of 25-30psi on a turbo is common on high performance engines.

The only real downsides of a turbo is the additional plumbing of exhaust, intake, oil lines and under hood heat from the hot side of the turbo. The upside is increaced psi, cfm, and efficiency.

I'm not biased, but the tuners out there opt for turbochargers. Expense is not the reason, high performance turbo systems are not cheap.

------------------

Buy a fiero, become a mechanic

Twin turbos have more lag? Two small turbos have much less lag than one big turbo, that is what the twins are good for.

I like turbos much better. I think they are awesome and plus they sounds awesome. So do SC's but turbos sound better in my opinion.

------------------
'89 LX Coupe 5.0
In loving memory of Israel Perez 1985-2004

'89 LX coupe 5.0 PICSMy old '88 Formula

If you build an engine correctly, you don't need forced induction to have fun, and there is less to go wrong !!!

------------------

Car History: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/025670.html

Anybody have any pictures of superchargers, turbochargers, or naturally aspirated Fieros?? Thanks.

quote Originally posted by Fiero Finale: So in simple terms....correct me if i'm wrong... But a supercharger is better for 1/4 mile on "ok" to huge size engines, and for stop and go(like twisties and etc) And a turbocharger is better for longer then 1/4 mile races, and circuit racing, basically types of racing with long stretches of road(highway monsters)

you can make turbos run through the 1/4 to it all depends on how the system is setup, the same with sc's you can make them have upper end. It ends up being more work for the upper with an SC though and most people opt to go with a turbo.

assuming you wanted engine pics?

(right click save as) http://formula.cryptnix.com/vidz/3800sc%205-100.mpeg that was before my exhaust and intercooler

[This message has been edited by LoW_KeY (edited 03-03-2005).]

quote Originally posted by FastIndyFiero: Where did you learn this? Improved heat retention on the exhaust side is a good thing. That's as far as I'll get into it.

said about "" The worst thing to do is wrap the turbo with insulation; you want to get rid of the heat, not capture it...""

you just want hot gases into the turbo so manafold mounts are better and wraps if you must use a pipe to get the ext in
BUT DO NOT WRAP THE TURBO IT'S SELF or the post turbo pipes

in fact water cooled turbo's are way better to keep the temps down on the bearings and compressor side
you ONLY want the gases hot NOT the UNIT

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by LoW_KeY: through the 1/4 I'd have to give props to the sc, granted a turbo will most likely go past you after that (most of the time, could do it before) but honestly are you going to be driving 100+ all the time turbos will have a greater top end, as superchargers will have it down low. To see the full effects of a SC a intercooler is a huge plus. It's all in what you want, I'm not sure if I want to ever own a naturally aspirated motor again, turbos/sc's are just killer

thats a common misconception due to many parts.. most common being the type of cars that are typically turbocharged.. typically low torque 4cylinders that rev high..
second is that the supercharger has a linear flat increase along the rpm range - turbos are more exponential.

however turbos can be setup for low rpm, mid rpm or high rpm as well as span all with the dual stage twin turbos in series. A turbo charged car can easily have full boost at the time of launching down the 1/4 mile just as a SC can - after that it comes down to traction.. turbo lag can actually AID in launching a higher HP car by not putting down full boost till the car is rolling - less time spinning tires

one source of lag on the smaller engines is due to the amount of boost they are running requires very low compression ratio when running NA.. this kills torque

the key is to properly size the turbo application.. and use a ball bearing turbo to spool up faster

85 lamb, i said that it would have a lot of lag because the fiero engine doesnt rev as high as 300z, 3000gt vr4's and so on. I once drove a 3000gt all wheel drive twin turbo and it was a little slow at the start, but once the boost kicked it i was stuck in the seat. I just got the maximum boost book and it has some pretty good info in it.

quote Originally posted by Fiero Finale: So in simple terms....correct me if i'm wrong... But a supercharger is better for 1/4 mile on "ok" to huge size engines, and for stop and go(like twisties and etc) And a turbocharger is better for longer then 1/4 mile races, and circuit racing, basically types of racing with long stretches of road(highway monsters) And that turbos are better on smaller engines correct?? Seems like a supercharger is suited to my liking.....

A turbo does not need to be used only on straights, Once it's spooled, it would be just fine for twisty roads.
As for the argument on the turbos beign better for after the 1/4 mile only, well think about this... An SRT-4 peaks out torque from 2000-4000 RPM, Sure it may lag a little (but it's also a very small turbo), but look at those torque numbers. Now lets compare that with an Ion Redline, which peaks torque at 4400 RPM, (and i've seen it's torque curve, that things got more highend power than anything). The only thing you are gaining with the supercharger is that "instant" boost, even though the turbo motor makes it's torque much lower in the RPM range.

Here's what you do, find someone with a turbo, and find someone with a supercharger, that will let you drive there car, and then start thinking about what you really want to do.

well, I guess I'll jump in too!
the supercharger is easier to work with. slap it on the intake, strap up the pulley, and yee-haw. it has a straight boost curve, very predictable. tho, it does seem to have a cap on the boost it can provide, and tougher to intercool. the design (not rotrex types) is very nice for V-type motors, where it sits between the heads is pretty compact. the rotrex types seem like belt driven turbos. a remote can, piped to intake. these seem even more limited on boost it can provide.

the turbo charger is a little more complicated to setup & use properly. pipe your exhaust in, hook the output to your intake, and give it some oil. there seems to be no limit to the boost you can make, and easy to intercool. the design is nice for inline motors, sits right off the exhaust header, pipe the output to a front mounted intercooler, the around down the intake. for V motors, you end up with either twin turbos, one on each side of the V, or one turbo, mounted where the exhaust comes together in a y-pipe.

and dont forget nitrous. this is the Naturally Aspirated option. the car stays basicly stock, for normal usuage, untill you hit the "pay to play" button.

Well, I guess I will jump in and also share my thought on this. I have both Turbo charged and Super charged cars. Single turbo and Twin turbo setups. It all depends on your preference. In the late 80’s early 90’s I read a book where they have done a test on SC V/S Turbo I wish I had remember who wrote the book but anyway my numbers may not be exact but it was something like this; They took two exactly identical motors and on one they installed a turbocharger and the other a Supercharger. They had the two motors make 500 horsepower and see how much fuel each motor used to get there. The Turbocharged motor took fuel worth 530 HP to make 500 HP where as the SC motor took fuel worth about 580 HP to make 500 HP. My numbers maybe a little off but you get the concept. Now that we are in 2005 the Superchargers and especially Turbochargers have stepped in to new era where they way more efficient like the new technology GT series turbos form Garret are amazing.

I myself is a Turbo guy all the way, Even though the Turbo has more of a risk factor to over boost and blow head gaskets or over boosting by faulty waste gate, vacuum leak, bad boost controller and other things. It has more potential; you can turn up the boost in your cockpit when you are running race gas or alky injection. It gives you more controllability with your tuning.

What you have to understand is that one could be better than the other especially if one is not setup with right size turbo or SC according to size of the motor and your goals. The most important thing is to determine how much power you what to make, how fast you want to go, are you just worried about the quarter mile time? bla,bla, bla. Matching the turbo or the SC to the motor is the key. I am not saying this is you but lots of people think that just bolting on a turbo or SC is going to make the car fast or two turbos means twice the power. If you don’t do the application right it can actually slow you down or blow you motor in no time.

Just to give you an idea my Jag is supercharged and I believe it was 330 hp from the factory, my Typhoon is 280 form the factory with turbo charged neither one are stock now but the Phoon will run rings around my Jag even when both were stock. I believe the Phoon is heavier and it is all wheel drive. On my Twin turbo Trans am I ran a single turbo, a 76mm turbo with .96 A/R. Running 20psi of boost. When I went to twin turbo set up I used two 60-1 hifi turbos with .49 A/R still running 20-psi boost .Of course now that with two turbo’s I launch of a trans brake. With twins I went two smaller turbos where with single I had a huge turbo. They key is the right combo from fuel, timing, airflow, air temp, trans, converter, traction. I can go on and on but you get the idea.

HTH

Prasad

------------------
"Turbo Cars are like hot women. A little edgy, every guy wants one, some guys can't handle them, and if you throw a little alchohol in the mix they'll rock your world"
1986 GT (waiting for Buick GN setup trasplant)
1984SE 5 Speed W/SBC V8
1987 Buick GN(10.70@124MPH)
1987 Trans Am SBC 355cid Twin Turbo(no track times yet)
1992 GMC Typhoon(13.20@ 99mph)
Other cars; JaguarXJR & Mercedes AMG 500SEC

quote Originally posted by fieroracer86: 85 lamb, i said that it would have a lot of lag because the fiero engine doesnt rev as high as 300z, 3000gt vr4's and so on.

The fact that the Fiero does not have a high redline, has nothing to do with having " a lot of lag".
As some of the other members pointed out, the amount of lag on some cars is because the turbo has not been match according to the size of the motor.