You need to be more specific about which V6 you want to add forced induction to, and what turbo or supercharger you'd be using or trying to compare. There is no simple answer.
If you're asking about the 2.8 though, you'd obviously want to go turbo, and a quite small turbo at that.
This was a weekend discussion as to a stock Fiero V-6. Some guys say Turbo, some say Super Charger. Whats the difference for performance ??...and would a stock engine take either one ???
I think a turbo would be easiest to implement, I drove one of the Rotrex SC kitted 87' Gt 5-spd. Was pretty fun, it took out a a nice foxbody stang to 100mph.. if you just want a legit 200HP in your Fiero I think either can be done properly without costing too much.
This was a weekend discussion as to a stock Fiero V-6. Some guys say Turbo, some say Super Charger. Whats the difference for performance ??...and would a stock engine take either one ???
There are no superchargers that would fit decently on a Fiero, and the Paxton/Vortech ones will require some annoying routing of all the intake piping.
A small turbo would be better, but you're not going to be able to push lots of boost into a Fiero 2.8 and expect it to live long. Plus, for the cost of installing a turbo kit you can just swap in a 3800 SC, and pretty much double the power of a stock 2.8.
Originally posted by zzzhuh: Well... Expect some arguing on this one. Here is my personal opinion:
Turbos are great, they are fuel efficient and can give you great boost. They can be a lot of fun, and you don't need a big turbo to make a car fast.
Superchargers on the other hand are ABSOLUTELY AMAZING. Sure, they aren't as fuel efficient but that instant power is intoxicating.
I see Turbos as the social norm, and when you show people a supercharger instead they don't want to race.
I am not sure how to read this. It doesn't really make any sense to me.
You don't need any turbo to make a car fast. You need aerodynamics and suspension/tires. A turbo can help make it quicker though. The size of the turbo depends on the size of the engine, how much boost you want to push, and where you want it to make power.
If you were talking on the 2.8, i could see arguements for either. I had an ion redline and loved the whine from the supercharger. And as long as you had the revs in the powerband, it was pretty awesome. No lag, etc. Im still not sure why gm went supercharged insteaf of the turbo ecotec in the saab 93 that the motor was largely similar to. Maybe because then they couldnt as 30k+for the saab when the saturn was 20k
If you were talking on the 2.8, i could see arguements for either. I had an ion redline and loved the whine from the supercharger. And as long as you had the revs in the powerband, it was pretty awesome. No lag, etc. Im still not sure why gm went supercharged insteaf of the turbo ecotec in the saab 93 that the motor was largely similar to. Maybe because then they couldnt as 30k+for the saab when the saturn was 20k
What? The Saabs were always turboed. Turbo was a very Saab thing. The 9-3 had either the 2.0 turbo, or a 2.8 turbo. The 2.8 turbo is what bmwguru has swapped into his car.
I don't notice turbo lag on mine. I think that turbo lag has been pretty much overcome with the modern turbo systems. Just my opinion based on my car and what I read.
I can make more boost than I can put to the ground while the car is standing still. You won't ever see me asking for a roll race. Lag and all that is 80's issues. With today's technology, boost comes in nearly as fast as a supercharger, not quite instant but close, unless your turbo is a complete mismatch for your car.
------------------ 10.132 @ 131.69MPH - 1.42 60' Billet 6262 Precision turbo, PT1001 intercooler, ST1 cam, 140lb springs, comp pushrods, HV3, stock L32 bottom end and heads.
Well here is the most basic and simple aspect of this.
I have owned both types of induction and here are the basic issues. The details are more subjective.
#1 You can make the same power with each but you will need to build the engine for what you want.
#2 You are not going to just add it to the stock V56 and make any kind of real power without building the engine right. If you do make the power something will break.
#3 The Supercharger takes power to run the Turbo is free power and no drag.
#4 This is the greatest issue. Heat. the Supercharger adds some heat but the Turbo will take more care and will do more damage to electrical etc than the Supercharger.
#5 Both will take work to install. The Turbo will need help to move the electronics to the trunk and finding a safe place to install it. Also you will need to account for added cooling. Oil temps with a Turbo can go 300+ or higher. Not good. The Supercharger like a Vortex can be placed under the hood. I have seen them mounted to the rear of the engine on the left side back of the engine and companies can fabricate a longer input shaft to the front of the engine. They use the trans axle and the rear of the block to mount it. GM has also done this on some of their show cars and a Magnusson charger on a Grand AM but to the front side of the engine.
#6 You will really need to know what you are doing as lean out either and you will lose pistons. Either learn what you are doing or get help and save money by spending some money.
To be honest it is cheaper and easier to just put a 3800 SC or V8 in that is already sorted out to factory spec and with some small mods.
The Eco Turbo I have is a great engine too but you will have to sort it out as no kits at this time. It has more room but heat will still be an issue. The Torque is amazing as not even a V8 has such a flat torque curve.
Over the last 30 years I have seen many try to do this and only a few ever get it really right. Many go though several engines before they get it right.
Above all do not plan to do this on a budget.
If you know what you are doing this can be a very rewarding car if you don't it can be your worst nightmare and money pit. I have seen big plans like this kill great cars that never see the road again once the owners lose interest and their money.
No. 3 in the above post really isn't true -- there is no such thing as free power. The turbo increases exhaust back pressure. But I'm surprised that no one so far has discussed the real difference. The turbo has a power lag caused by the time it takes to "spool up". This problem can be handled somewhat by having a dual turbo setup, which includes a smaller turbo that spools up quickly for initial power, and a larger one for more power as engine RPM's increase. The supercharger provides power more quickly than a standard turbo setup.
"...turbocharger inefficiency comes from the fact that the power to spin the turbine is not free. It is always same story, if you want something, you have to give something. Having a turbine in the exhaust flow increases the restriction in the exhaust. This means that on the exhaust stroke, the engine has to push against a higher back-pressure. This subtracts a little bit of power from the cylinders that are firing at the same time."
There will be an inlet/exhaust pressure ratio that is determined by the design and efficiency of the turbo and the exhaust. If you're getting 10 lbs of intake boost but measure 30 lbs of exhaust back pressure - that's causing a lot of exhaust reversion and lost power.
Both, whether turbo or supercharger increase the power enough that you still come out ahead after the "losses" of making it. If one were THAT superior to the other, the "other" would not exist. They both have their uses and place. At least with a supercharger, after you put MORE AIR IN you aren't also corking it up at the exhaust end.
Guys, don't forget that while turbos come in one flavor, superchargers come in many. There are tangible and functional differences between positive displacement superchargers (such as Roots-type superchargers) and dynamic superchargers (such as centrifugal superchargers). The "no lag instant power" superchargers are the former type - positive displacement - and typically combine well with larger, low-revving motors which is why you see them on pushrod motors. In order to provide boost almost instantly, they will invariably run out of breath at some point. On VW's twincharged motor, a positive-displacement supercharger for low RPM is combined with a turbocharger for high RPM performance.
Dynamic work more or less like turbos - there is lag, but they are more effective at higher rpm ranges. Dynamic superchargers are typically used on motors with higher redlines or in situations where mid to high RPM performance is more important than off the line performance. A commonly used dynamic supercharged is the centrifugal supercharger, which is essentially just one half of a turbo - the other half is driven mechanically rather than by exhaust pressure.
You can absolutely tell the difference between these two technologies, including the lag and lack of lag, but even more discrete differences between Roots, Lysholm, centrigular, and pressure-wave superchargers. They all work and perform subtly but tangibly differently. GM tends to favor the Roots-type positive displacement supercharger, as you'll find on the LSJ and LSA as they provide bigger motor feel with improve low-end torque. While these provide instant boost, they also are significant parasitic drag which affects fuel economy more significantly than modern-day turbos do, and they typically aren't complimentary to small motors with good rev ranges. Once you're talking centrifugal supercharger vs. turbo there just isn't much difference in performance or packaging considerations, but turbos are still more efficient in the ultimate sense. On the other hand, since a centrifugal supercharger responds *only* to engine speed and a turbo responds primarily to load, the supercharger is quite a bit easier to tune for.
What? The Saabs were always turboed. Turbo was a very Saab thing. The 9-3 had either the 2.0 turbo, or a 2.8 turbo. The 2.8 turbo is what bmwguru has swapped into his car.
I had bad sentence structure. What I was trying to say was I didn't get why GM spent money to re-engineer and source parts to build the LSJ (supercharged) when they already had the LK9 (turbo) from the Saab platform. Both were producing similar numbers... 205ish. And the LSJ has SAAB literally written all over it on various parts.
...Once you're talking centrifugal supercharger vs. turbo there just isn't much difference in performance or packaging considerations, but turbos are still more efficient in the ultimate sense.
For street use and driveability, I prefer the roots type supercharger. Turbos make for an easier more economical install but they are still centrifugal air pumps and not positive displacement pumps like the supercharger. With a roots supercharger as soon as soon as you hit WOT the boost is instantaneous. I also prefer the cooler engine compartment temperatures with the Eaton. With the Eaton Gen V 90 cubic inch supercharger on a modified 3800 engine, you probably won't do better than an 11 second 1 /4 mile but with a larger efficient twin screw supercharger like the Whipple or the Eaton TVS (V series) , you could do better. Supercharged engines like turbos can make incredible power and choice depends upon what throttle response you desire.
------------------ " THE BLACK PARALYZER" -87GT 3800SC Series III engine, custom ZZP /Frozen Boost Intercooler setup, 3.4" Pulley, Northstar TB, LS1 MAF, 3" Spintech/Hedman Exhaust, Autolite 104's, MSD wires, Custom CAI, 4T65eHD w. custom axles, HP Tuners VCM Suite. "THE COLUSSUS" 87GT - ALL OUT 3.4L Turbocharged engine, Garrett Hybrid Turbo, MSD ign., modified TH125H " ON THE LOOSE WITHOUT THE JUICE "
What would produce more power on a V-6, Turbo or Super Charger ???? ....also, does anyone ever " blue print engines", or is that a 50's thing.
Do you know what it means when someone says "blueprint an engine?"
quote
When an engine is built, the manufacture specifies a "tolerance," or range, for the dimensions of its parts. Blueprinting means carefully measuring all these parts, and then if necessary machining them to make sure they're the best size or weight for performance.
For instance, a valve stem and a valve guide will be specified by the manufacturer with tolerances that allow for a clearance between them. If the clearance is too small, the valves may bind or stick, which can cause engine damage in some cases but will at the very least lead to a loss of performance due to the friction. If the clearance is too large, too much oil will flow down the valves into the cylinder and the spark plugs will foul. So "blueprinting" the valves and guides would involve carefully machining the valve guides to the BEST clearance, not just to whatever clearance happened to be there by picking a valve and a guide that were both "within tolerance."
Blueprinting is often used in conjunction with "balancing" an engine. The idea is very similar: balancing makes sure that all parts of the same kind have the same weight, down to very small tolerances. For example, a set of connecting rods may vary in weight; a balanced engine will measure the lightest connecting rod, then machine off tiny amounts of metal to make all the other rods in the engine have the same weight, down to a tenth of a gram. A balanced engine runs more smoothly, especially at high RPMs where an unbalance would be likely to cause extra wear on the internal components.
I think he was alluding to the peak power numbers in those two lists, and ignoring the fact that all the supercharged cars are not centrifugal type superchargers, and generally have engines twice the size of the cars on the factory turbo list. Odd that the ATS wasn't in the list for turbocharged cars though.
And amusing that the Camaro V6 makes more power than the Ecoboost Mustang, without a turbo, and gets the same/better MPG rating.
No. 3 in the above post really isn't true -- there is no such thing as free power. The turbo increases exhaust back pressure. But I'm surprised that no one so far has discussed the real difference. The turbo has a power lag caused by the time it takes to "spool up". This problem can be handled somewhat by having a dual turbo setup, which includes a smaller turbo that spools up quickly for initial power, and a larger one for more power as engine RPM's increase. The supercharger provides power more quickly than a standard turbo setup.
Well I will say it is much less power to operate. This is why we see more Turbo systems today on smaller engines.
As for lag there are variables.
The lag on most modern engines are small because they use Variable Valve timing and Direct Injection. The lag is very minimal. To be honest the kick down on our new V8 Chevy truck is much longer on the transmission.
They also have introduced duel scrolling that also helps cut the lag. Add to this the higher compressions engines like the LNF turbo runs and the engine is very capable even with out boost to start with and when it comes in it really comes in.
The Torque on my LNF comes in at around 2000 to 315 FT LBS and holds it to 5300 RPM.
I have owned a Series II and III 3800 and now own a LNF Eco Turbo with the GM upgrade to 290 HP and 315 FT LBS. It is 340 FT LBS on the Solstice Manual. The LNF is much more fun and joy to drive. The engines was built to take up to 400 HP with no mods and will run at 23 pounds of boost all day. MPG in a HHR SS is 25 city and 32 Highway.
Hell there is so much torque you can light the wheels up rolling up to 50 MPH with no issue.
I liked my 3800 SC cars but they just did not have the power and no where near the torque of the 2.0 turbo. The drivability is fine with the turbo. It feels like a tight spring ready to go.
The roots blowers are much easier to package for GM and much more efficient. The Paxton's and such Centrificals are just easier to add on to a aftermarket application. I sell both and they are very adaptable and take no body mods like many cars that have even the Magnusson roots chargers.
It still comes down to this both are fine and both work well. To add these systems to a non factory version you really need to make sure the engine is up to the task part wise and you must really know what you are doing as lean it out too much and you will burn or detonate a piston.
You can continue the pissing match but both are good set up right but to do it yourself education is key. In a Fiero one thing many miss is heat and that is where the turbo gets difficult. No air coming into a grill like a front engine car can really make for some real heat issues and shorten the life of the cars.
I recall years ago the miller woods turbo for the Fiero if not treated right would kill a 2.8 over time just from hear. Oil temps are a real issue as electronics. We do have better oil today but extra measure are needed to protect the engine.
If you want a blower the 3800 SC is the easiest way to do one that is reliable and fairly inexpensive.
Having lived with a turbo for a while, I'd much rather have a naturally aspirated engine for anything you want to handle well. The uneven power delivery and lag are a PITA.
Originally posted by dobey: I think he was alluding to the peak power numbers in those two lists, and ignoring the fact that all the supercharged cars are not centrifugal type superchargers, and generally have engines twice the size of the cars on the factory turbo list. Odd that the ATS wasn't in the list for turbocharged cars though.
Oh, I guess that sort of makes sense.
quote
And amusing that the Camaro V6 makes more power than the Ecoboost Mustang, without a turbo, and gets the same/better MPG rating.
Yeah, but as we all know peak power isn't the whole story. The power band on the Mustang is quite fat, and then there is the aftermarket. It's a lot easier to add output to the Mustang. $500 worth of software adds 20hp and 80lb ft. You can't really do that NA, and you certainly don't get 300lb ft from 2000-5000rpm without boost. So, there's that. A friend daily drives an Ecoboost Mustang with some Cobb parts. It's pretty stout.
I am not sure how to read this. It doesn't really make any sense to me.
You don't need any turbo to make a car fast. You need aerodynamics and suspension/tires. A turbo can help make it quicker though. The size of the turbo depends on the size of the engine, how much boost you want to push, and where you want it to make power.
Im not sure there was any confusion in my comment. But I see the point you are trying to get at.
Turbo's DO make a car quicker. Displacement on the other hand makes a car faster. Rear end gearing makes a car faster/quicker depending on how you have it set up. We could talk for days on what helps efficiently get a car where it needs to go, but this is about a Turbo Vs. Supercharger and that is where it should stay.
Hey BTW! I just noticed you changed your Avatar. That Honda one was strange on this site, so it's nice to see you got a different one
Originally posted by zzzhuh: Im not sure there was any confusion in my comment. But I see the point you are trying to get at.
Turbo's DO make a car quicker. Displacement on the other hand makes a car faster. Rear end gearing makes a car faster/quicker depending on how you have it set up. We could talk for days on what helps efficiently get a car where it needs to go, but this is about a Turbo Vs. Supercharger and that is where it should stay.
Hey BTW! I just noticed you changed your Avatar. That Honda one was strange on this site, so it's nice to see you got a different one
I wouldn't say either of those statements is necessarily true. Gearing and RPM make a car faster, but only to the limit of the car's aerodynamics and suspension. Increasing boost is the same as increasing displacement. You are pumping more air through the engine. Increasing static displacement may result in a narrower rev range though, so you may limit how much RPM you can get out of the engine, depending on dimensions and materials. A turbo allows you to use a smaller engine, thus being able to retain the rev range, while effectively increasing the displacement of the engine, by drastically increasing the air pressure.
As for pure turbocharger vs supercharger argument, there is no single answer, as the one that is better depends on many more variables. Goal of the build, specific engine design, and location (altitude), among other things, will all have an effect on which one is actually better.
The Honda one wasn't strange on this site at all. This is a car forum, and Honda is a maker of cars. There's at least one thread on here recently, with someone swapping a Honda drivetrain into their Fiero.
Originally posted by thesameguy: Yeah, but as we all know peak power isn't the whole story. The power band on the Mustang is quite fat, and then there is the aftermarket. It's a lot easier to add output to the Mustang. $500 worth of software adds 20hp and 80lb ft. You can't really do that NA, and you certainly don't get 300lb ft from 2000-5000rpm without boost. So, there's that. A friend daily drives an Ecoboost Mustang with some Cobb parts. It's pretty stout.
True. However, the LFX/LGX does provide almost all available torque from 2000-6500 RPM, and it's not quite 300 lb-ft, but a simple tune can get you about 30-40 lb-ft more out of it, which would put it right at 300 lb-ft at the flywheel. You get that NA, thanks to VVT, high compression, and direct injection.
You can continue the pissing match but both are good set up right but to do it yourself education is key.
EXACTLY what I say in every one of these turbo vs supercharger threads!!.
quote
Originally posted by fierosound:
Both, whether turbo or supercharger increase the power enough that you still come out ahead after the "losses" of making it. If one were THAT superior to the other, the "other" would not exist. They both have their uses and place.
... its 2015 and ppl still bring this up?? what about they are both power adders and dependent on approach and application eg packaging, objectives and goals...that is it. Never make comparisons like this, it is bench racing at its finest so 60s'...lol
now on the other hand you can look at the respective power adder laterally, turbos and other turbos and what type of technology been used to demand power...
[This message has been edited by nocuttt (edited 09-03-2015).]
I haven't seen a suitable supercharger installed on a 2.8 in a Fiero yet.. that's why I lean toward a turbo setup and there's been quite a few of them over the years. The 2.8 does pretty well off the line without any type of forced air.. but really struggles in the upper rpms, the turbo seemed to help that quite a bit and really woke the car up across the entire RPM band both off the line and upper RPM's. The Rotrex SC'd 2.8 I drove still seemed to fall on it's face around 4-4.5k RPM's, although it was night and day better than a stock Fiero especially at 10PSI.
The best SC set up I have seen for the 2.8 was the Vortech that had the extended input shaft on the set up I mentioned. It was featured in a old High Performance Pontiac.
The SC was mounted to the left of the engine using the transaxle as a mounting point. The shaft was run from the charger to the front of the engine to the back of the car. It had a pulley at the front of the engine. It was a nice set up. The mounts were fabricated.
I love turbo engines as todays modern versions are amazing on torque. But heat is the deal breaker on the Fiero.
The other issue is the 2.8 is not the strongest engine in the world and to make is so would cost some real cash to make the engine strong enough.
I would recommend going with a more modern engine with the factory set up. In the long run it would be cheaper and more reliable. It is just hard to beat a LS engine or a 3800 for a reasonable prices reliable set up.
Now if you want to do the 2.8 it can be done but have deep pockets to do it right. It is just too easy to find stock engines today with 300 HP or more that you can more easily and cheaply put in with the reliability of a factory engine.
One thing I do recommend is anyone who has not spent time with the new Eco Turbo need to drive one. If possible drive one with the GM Turbo upgrade as these engines can be easily turned into monsters. 500 HP is not all that difficult to make with these and do it very reliably. GM has a book on how to build engines like this. The lag is not what it used to be and the reliability is spot on anymore. The versions in the Malibu are pretty tame but the Cobalt SS, HHR SS and Solstice GXP all had the LNF that was a little more aggressive. This 2.0 stock was better sorted than the GN.
I think the Eco SC engine might also be a good choice for the Fiero due to lower heat. Still the IC is going to be an issue and you will have to find a place to mount it.
I would recommend going with a more modern engine with the factory set up. In the long run it would be cheaper and more reliable. It is just hard to beat a LS engine or a 3800 for a reasonable prices reliable set up.
^^^Agreed!
Those of us who have actually DONE IT (either turbo or S/C) all agree "if we we're 'doing over' knowing what we know now" we'd be doing a 3800 S/C swap.
I haven't seen a suitable supercharger installed on a 2.8 in a Fiero yet.. that's why I lean toward a turbo setup and there's been quite a few of them over the years. The 2.8 does pretty well off the line without any type of forced air.. but really struggles in the upper rpms, the turbo seemed to help that quite a bit and really woke the car up across the entire RPM band both off the line and upper RPM's. The Rotrex SC'd 2.8 I drove still seemed to fall on it's face around 4-4.5k RPM's, although it was night and day better than a stock Fiero especially at 10PSI.
quote
Originally posted by hyperv6:
The best SC set up I have seen for the 2.8 was the Vortech that had the extended input shaft on the set up I mentioned. It was featured in a old High Performance Pontiac.
The SC was mounted to the left of the engine using the transaxle as a mounting point. The shaft was run from the charger to the front of the engine to the back of the car. It had a pulley at the front of the engine. It was a nice set up. The mounts were fabricated.
I can speak to this. My engine is a hybrid of 3400 roller cam block with DOHC pistons making 9.5 CR topped with Fiero heads and intake. In N/A form it had huge torque off the line and did the 1/4 mile in about 14.5 seconds, but the engine started "running out of breath" above 4500rpm.
Below is a video of my N/A 3.4 against a 2.8 running a turbocharger. Near the end he left it in 3rd gear (4-speed) and red-lined the engine to catch up and pass me. He was worried if he shifted into 4th he'd drop out of his power-band and I'd catch up.
Video: calgaryfieros.com/DOWNLOADS/kenTONY.mpg
After spending big $ for these FOCOA headers and Borla exhaust I certainly didn't want to cork up the exhaust with a turbo. I installed the Vortec V1 centrifugal Supercharger to compensate for this "running out of breath". (link in signature in above post) Since my car had no A/C I could mount it where the A/C compressor would be (ala the Rotrex kit setup). The engine pulls hard and continuously right up to 6500rpm running 6-8 lbs of boost. I took Kameo Kid and California Kid for a spin in 2003 at the 20th Anniversary Show in Pontiac and got
I hadn't had my car at the track afterwards (track is closed now) but did a street race against my buddy's 2.8 turbo again. I nailed it hard at a light and look over expecting to see him next to me - and he's way back there...! Next light - same thing. I ask if he's even pushing the gas, and he says it's not running right today...
That winter be rebuilt his exhaust, had bigger turbines installed in the turbo etc. then sometime later wrecked the engine. He now has a 3400 aluminum head engine in there running that turbo setup, but hasn't suggested another race...
However, rebuilding engines and building a DIY turbo or S/C system adds up fast in cost - often more than doing a swap. And you still have to somehow tune the computer. My buddy had a laptop as a passenger for several years tuning it himself. BOTH of us would go 3800 S/C now if we were "doing it over". One of our local guys has just done that - it's fast enough!!
[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 09-09-2015).]
.jpg)
