Turbo vs Supercharger

[RobGT]

Hello...
Im getting a new black GT Turbo very soon....and was wondering:
Which would be quicker?
A GT Turbo or a Supercharged PT??

I cant wait for my Turbo!!!!!!!!! I want it nOWW!

R

Rob

[RAK]

A turbo is a super charger. It is a "Turbosupercharger" as opposed to a mechnically driven supercharger. Same idea-get a denser charge of air into the combustion chamber, just a different method of getting there-with different performance characteristics.

R.A.K.

[Ian-PT-GT]

I was reading my "power building" books and found a good answer to your question:

Round one.

Author William R Mathis: Supercharging is the choice for those individuals wanting consistent horsepower that is not dependent on the pressure level of a bottle (N.O.S.)... Superchargers are a radial compression design. Air is drawn into the middle of the compressor and thrown outward at extreme speeds (40,000 to 60,000 rpm) where the increased volume causes it to compress against the outer chamber, a supercharger operating at 10PSI of boost on a warm day (80 degrees ambient temperature) will heat up the air up to 200 degrees F. A turbo operating at the same temperature and with the same boost it will heat up the air up to 215degrees F. (the GT operates at 14 initially and later lowering the pressure to 12.9).
In this round the Supercharger wins.<img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle>

Round two.

Author William R Mathis: The belt driven supercharged engine must use 40% to 50% of the power it produces to turn the supercharger. This equates into considerably more strain on the engine at the same flywheel horsepower, than generated by the turbocharger. If the supercharger adds 120 horses at the flywheel, the engine is actually producing about 200 additional horsepower with 40 percent of it being used by the engine to turn the Supercharger. Since the turbocharger uses the spent combustion gases it produces no additional parasitic drag on the engine.
This round the Turbo wins.

Round three:

The PT Turbo is engineered and tested with the Turbo so all the components match. In a supercharger kit you may produce more than the stock 150 horses but if you go by the info above, in order to match the 215 horses the turbo model has, then it should produce 153 extra horses and loose 87 of them in the engine and most likely shorten the lifespan of your car.

Knock out!!!<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

I guess in this comparison the turbo wins!<img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>

[semar]

here is some good info about supercharging and other valuable info about performance/products, etc.
check www.kennebell.net

[kgdptblue]

And don't forget stock 2.4l engines are not enginered with a turbo and/or a supercharger in mind. The GT Turbo was re-enginered from the ground up so it is actually a new 2.4l engine.<img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>

Cruise on!

[renichms]

Turbo, on the PT, is better. Temperature isn't as much of an issue as the little "article" posted said. That's what an intercooler is for...

The Hahn turbo has much more upgrade potential for the PT than any supercharger available.

RN

See Mephisto


2001 Silver LE 5-speed with: way too much to list here (255 character limit)

[calgary_bulldog]

I have owned both supercharged as well as turbocharged vehicles before, and the turbo wins hands down. Turbos are incredibly more adjustible and expandable than superchargers. Anyone thinking of owning a turbo or supercharged vehicle should read the book Maximum Boost by Corky Bell to have the mechanics and physics of it properly explained. If supercharging is the way to go to create a faster more powerful vehicle then explain why no major road race has been won by a supercharged vehicle in the last 38 years. Now compare that to a turbo. I think that if supercharging was the way to go the race owners who invest millions in R&D for their cars would be using it instead of turbos. The only problem with turbos is if it is the proper size for your engine. Early 300zx turbos were way too small which results in no turbo lag, but then no real power later on. I am not slamming superchargers as I enjoyed my JRSC Acura, but no comparison for my turbo Mazda. For the same amount of money a turbo will destroy a supercharged system. Can't wait for my Pt turbo

[semar]

Do I see old controversies surfacing? Remember the Camaro - Mustang rivalry?
Hmmm, and Mercedes is building all their new cars with superchargers, so is Jaguar, the Ford Lightning even Buick with its Gran National V-6 success changed their Regals to supercharging.
On dragstrips I see mostly superchargers. I am not a mechanical engineer but could it be that turbos are good at full speed? Racing engines are build for that kind of power and can take 8000 and more rpm. Here on earth we are CRUISING (PT cruiser - not PT racer. For the occasional giddy - up the supercharger is bang on; then its back to cruising.

[2sb]

With the current technology, turbos have very little lag at any speed. They are less complicated i.e. less to go bad. Jaguar does not have a reputation for trouble free cars and is currently owned by, and shares technology with, Ford.

However the dicusssion will continue until all we're driving is fuel cell cars. Then we'll say, "Weren't pistons great?!"



Edited by - 2sb on 03/04/2003 23:25:45

[teves09]

Just keepn’ it real!
If you have a stock (Non-Turbo) PT and you want to turbo or super charge it you are throwing good money after bad, epically if you plan on using it as a driver. I have lusted after the extra performance since the day I bought my PT but have refrained from this upgrade because the stock 2.4 is not designed to handle a turbo or a super charger, from both the physical design of the engine to the capabilities of the computer to adjust fuel oxygen mixture at high RPM’s.
I can name you several people here in Texas who have destroyed their engines because of the computer can not compensate for this add-on. When the PT is at high RPM’s the turbos and super chargers run too lean. Not one of the manufactures has been able to remedy this issue (to my knowledge, if they fix it I will be the first in line to buy).

Chrysler did not have to completely redesign the 2.4 to accommodate a turbo though. The Rods are better ant the pistons have a lower compression (which is another problem for the after market turbo and super chargers – the compression on the stock pistons is too high)
My PT is about to his 36,000 miles and I am about to so some engine upgrades: Cam, Crank, rockers, rods – etc. I don’t think I will do the turbo or super charger though. If you have any good suggestions let me know!

Big Ern-
The Loan PT
http://www.thelonept.com