Why do people going all out on there 4.6's choose s/c over a turbo

[MustangLife]

I'm just curious why the guys going all out with there 4.6 cars. Spending lets say 8-15k on there cars go with like the jt-trim or paxton novi200 instead of a turbo. I've always been a s/c fan myself and probaly go that route one day. BUt it seems turbos make more power especially torque.

Any thoughts

Josh

 

[YLW99VERT]

All boils down to $$$$

Luv to have a turbo, but I dont think I can find one with a company that will stand behind it for 4000 bucks

 

[Ryan02Stang]

Turbo kits really arent priced bad for what you get. You get new headers, turbocharger, intercooler, and all the other neccessary hardware. Turbos are MUCH more complicated than a blower when it comes to install. And blowers have been around on V8's since WAY back in the day.

 

[cmb91LX]

I have heard of space constraint issues with the flip reverse headers and heat issues. turbos are notorious for roasting anything near them, cables, wires, etc. TURBO cars are truly impressive though for sure, and that wastegate sound, oh so beautiful

 

[mogs01gt]

Its partly because the design of some of the kits for our cars arent that great. You cant place them near the heads/manifolds for proper flow. You can produce more power the turbos of course but when it comes right down to it, you can get the blower on in a day while the turbo would take a lot longer with all the design specs in mind.

 

[hexum311]

Weird, I always heard that superchargers were more expensive, and better than turbos cause of no lag.

 

[Ryan02Stang]

Weird, I always heard that superchargers were more expensive, and better than turbos cause of no lag.

Superchargers are more expensive for what you get. A turbo kit is around $1000 more than a blower kit, but it comes with new headers, intercooler, etc. You get more for your money with a turbo kit.

 

[DJsZincGT]

Weird, I always heard that superchargers were more expensive, and better than turbos cause of no lag.

Nope. Turbos are spun by exhaust gases which doesn't rob the system of power. Superchargers are spun by a belt drive system, which in turn robs the car of power because you are using a mechanical force to drive the SC instead of the exhaust gases.

 

[GoBabyVroommm]

To much of a head acke installing that is why i wouldn't bother with a turbo. I like how a blower sounds over a turbo too.

 

[GTblack_00]

To much of a head acke installing that is why i wouldn't bother with a turbo. I like how a blower sounds over a turbo too.

I'll take that headache any day for the install so I can watch everyones face at the track!! you can't beat the gas milage/ reliability factor of a properly installed turbo system either, LB for LB more power and unbeleivable torque.

How is your Tweecing going??

 

[TARZAN]

Feasibility

-Will

 

[Joel's98GT]

Turbo kits really arent priced bad for what you get. You get new headers, turbocharger, intercooler, and all the other neccessary hardware. Turbos are MUCH more complicated than a blower when it comes to install. And blowers have been around on V8's since WAY back in the day.

turbos have been around for a long time too, the reason why you don't see manny GT turbo cars is price. I can get a Vortech SQ for 3400 or a turbo for about 6000 both tuned and dependable. I would LOVE a turbo stang, v-8 + turbo = teh win. It's just expencive.

 

[smokin'Red35th]

Weird, I always heard that superchargers were more expensive, and better than turbos cause of no lag.

Weather or not its better is personal preference. turbos do have more lag than superchargers. However, they tend to make more power too from what i have heard. However centrifugal superchargers also have lag, though i dont think its as much as turbos. If you want instant boost, twin screw is the way to go. (or nawz, but im not goin that route)

 

[twogts4us]

Weird, I always heard that superchargers were more expensive, and better than turbos cause of no lag.

Nope. Turbos are spun by exhaust gases which doesn't rob the system of power. Superchargers are spun by a belt drive system, which in turn robs the car of power because you are using a mechanical force to drive the SC instead of the exhaust gases.

What are you saying, "Nope" to DJsZincGT? Your explaination seemed to lead the reader to believe that lag is associated with parasitic power loss. Lag has nothing to do with the fact that a S/C is (belt) crank driven and therefore robs power. That doesn't speak to the cost nor the issue raised by hexum311 about lag.
Lag means the time between you hitting the throttle and the turbo or S/C providing full boost. This is less with a S/C because it is crank (read:direct) driven while a turbo is exhaust driven and there is more lag while the exhaust spins the turbo up to full speed. (Part of this is also due to the exhaust plumbing length to the turbo)

 

[Slider]

The reason that superchargers are used more often is that "mass market" turbo systems are new to the 4.6. There is minimal room in the mustangs engine compartment, and that makes turbo install a major PITA. This makes for a very complicated setup with all the piping, aftercooler, heatshielding, new k-member, and rearranging of the engine compartment. It is just much easier to install a supercharger. All you basically need is a mounting bracket and a belt. If you really want to turn up the boost you just need to add an aftercooler.

 

[OinkAodeOink]

I see poeple talking about turbos and blowers, but who actually has either on there car, and run it daily??
Ive ran both an S-trim setup, and 60mm turbo setup on my 94 5.0
Also have a 01 4.6 ( stock though)

Now i know were not here to compare blowers to turbos, but if you wana talk about Lag, and all that bull... I'de sure take a turbo setup over a blower anyday.. I love FULL boost at 3k rpms ( not just 1psi), and the hellish low end torque the turbo makes.

Reason blowers are more popular has plenty of reasons..
-Blower setups on 4.6" are usually much cheaper ( $3k vs $5-6k)
-Blowers are much easier to install ( less down time, less parts)
-Turbos are feared because of the bull**** people feed others, without actually knowing the facts.. Examples: Turbo Lag, Excessive heat, Tons of piping, ect
None of which are even true, if the system was designed correctly.

 

[01MustangGT]

if u live in CA, don't even mention about turbos because of all of the CARB craps and emission.
I am looking for a company with a turbo kit for mustangs that has CARB, and the answer is zero.
California sucks.
i hate those f8cking tree huggers.

 

[Rio96]

Check out the price of a Garret T-70.
You'l find out 'real quick' why independent
distributors recommend
$2000 superchargers.
.........................
wastegate, bov , costs money,
...
I know that

 

[Trublu01]

there is virtually no lag with todays turbos as long as you get the right size for your motor. Also Turbos will net you more HP and TQ anyday over a s/c, so your definetley getting your moneys worth. But when it come down to it, it's money and longivity, you can easily/saftely bosst the hellout of a turbo, but everyone knows a stock bottom end 2v will not handle over 450RWHP for very long.

 

[DJsZincGT]

What are you saying, "Nope" to DJsZincGT? Your explaination seemed to lead the reader to believe that lag is associated with parasitic power loss. Lag has nothing to do with the fact that a S/C is (belt) crank driven and therefore robs power. That doesn't speak to the cost nor the issue raised by hexum311 about lag.
Lag means the time between you hitting the throttle and the turbo or S/C providing full boost. This is less with a S/C because it is crank (read:direct) driven while a turbo is exhaust driven and there is more lag while the exhaust spins the turbo up to full speed. (Part of this is also due to the exhaust plumbing length to the turbo)

I know what lag is....I just misread his post. Somehow I got that he thought turbo's robbed the system of more power than superchargers. Beats me...I must have been tired. My bad!