CF Veteran
Quote:
. not to mention iv actually owned a turbo vehicle an seen what it does to oil not properly cooled, super heating intake charge a lot more than a supercharger due to the turbo itself under low boost not a high charge situation with causes its own problems. superchargers now a days have very little in the way of parasitic drag.
imho
an agree with you on setup thats the biggest thing is setup.
S'chargers take power from the crank to spin the turbine blades. That is extra parasitic draw, like it or not. Please explain how a s'charger provides more effeciency. Facts, research, anything other than your word of mouth.Originally Posted by (*~*)lost
what you think is more efficient is completely different than how others think but ill. not to mention iv actually owned a turbo vehicle an seen what it does to oil not properly cooled, super heating intake charge a lot more than a supercharger due to the turbo itself under low boost not a high charge situation with causes its own problems. superchargers now a days have very little in the way of parasitic drag. imhoan agree with you on setup thats the biggest thing is setup.
The 505 kit includes an oil cooler and an intercooler. And with modern synthetic oils, oil coking isn't much of a concern. Maybe you didn't take care of your turbo car correctly, or maybe the previous owner neglected it?
Quote:
super heating intake charge a lot more than a supercharger due to the turbo itself under low boost not a high charge situation with causes its own problems
Please explain this statement as it is not very clear.super heating intake charge a lot more than a supercharger due to the turbo itself under low boost not a high charge situation with causes its own problems
CF Veteran
Some information for you comparing turbos and s'chargers:
Quote:
Turbo systems use flow and exhaust pressure instead of a belt driven pulley and are therefore more efficient at generating horsepower and torque.
Turbo systems use flow and exhaust pressure instead of a belt driven pulley and are therefore more efficient at generating horsepower and torque.
- Boost is easily adjustable with an electronic switch to match your performance needs. No pulleys or belt changes are required.
- Turbo systems are quieter when driving around town. Turbo noise isn't heard unless the boost is on.
- Turbo systems can increase gas mileage compared to stock mpg numbers because they make the engine more efficient and don't take power from the engine to make power.
- Turbo systems are more reliable than belt-driven superchargers because there are fewer mechanical and moving parts.
- Remote mounted turbo systems leave more room under the hood making it easier to perform normal engine maintenance.
- Remote mounted turbo systems do not increase under the hood temperatures.
- Remote mounted turbo systems run cooler because the exhaust coming in is cooler and the tubing coming from the turbo cools the boost charge before it gets to the intake manifold.
- Superchargers se belts driven by crank shaft to increase boost to the engine. It takes horsepower away from the engine to drive the supercharger.
- To change the amount of boost you must change the size of pulley used by the supercharger.
- Superchargers in general are noisy because the gear drive is always engaged, even at idle.
- Superchargers generally decrease gas mileage because they are using the engine's power even when the supercharger is not producing boost.
- Superchargers can throw belts causing damage to other components in your engine compartment.
- Superchargers are installed in the engine bay making it difficult to do regular engine maintenance.
Member
If your going to shell out 4K on a supercharger why not just buy stroker crate motor? just as much power and probably more reliable.
CF Veteran
Quote:
Low compression stroker and turbo! Originally Posted by tandersen45
If your going to shell out 4K on a supercharger why not just buy stroker crate motor? just as much power and probably more reliable.
Member
we already run low compression, as to my last statement both intake an exhaust turbines spin on the same shaft both housings are joined. try touching the intake housing at idle pretty toasty, you would know this if you ever worked on one let alone owned a vehicle with one.
each have there efficiency compared to the other an never said the supercharger was Superior
READ MY POST. iv worked on systems that ran both at the same time to make up for one anthers inefficiency's 
have a nice day. that's why they run both supercharger low rpm, turbo high rpm
kid please do some more research.
each have there efficiency compared to the other an never said the supercharger was Superior READ MY POST. iv worked on systems that ran both at the same time to make up for one anthers inefficiency's have a nice day. that's why they run both supercharger low rpm, turbo high rpm kid please do some more research.
CF Veteran
Quote:
. not to mention iv actually owned a turbo vehicle an seen what it does to oil not properly cooled, super heating intake charge a lot more than a supercharger due to the turbo itself under low boost not a high charge situation with causes its own problems. superchargers now a days have very little in the way of parasitic drag. imho
an agree with you on setup thats the biggest thing is setup.
Originally Posted by (*~*)lost
what you think is more efficient is completely different than how others think but ill. not to mention iv actually owned a turbo vehicle an seen what it does to oil not properly cooled, super heating intake charge a lot more than a supercharger due to the turbo itself under low boost not a high charge situation with causes its own problems. superchargers now a days have very little in the way of parasitic drag. imhoan agree with you on setup thats the biggest thing is setup.
Quote:
each have there efficiency compared to the other an never said the supercharger was Superior READ MY POST. iv worked on systems that ran both at the same time to make up for one anthers inefficiency's have a nice day.
Originally Posted by (*~*)lost
we already run low compression, as to my last statement both intake an exhaust turbines spin on the same shaft both housings are joined. try touching the intake housing at idle pretty toasty, you would know this if you ever worked on one let alone owned a vehicle with one. each have there efficiency compared to the other an never said the supercharger was Superior READ MY POST. iv worked on systems that ran both at the same time to make up for one anthers inefficiency's have a nice day.
Strokers typicall raise compression, which is why I said low compression stroker. Maybe you have little experience with the stroker motors available for Jeeps?
That s'charged/turbo dual application...what was it? What year was it made?
If you move the turbine housing back away from the manifold you won't get the heat issues your describing. I read your post, I'm aware of what you are talking about. But its simply not true. Have you ever touched your exhaust tip after driving? I have, and I can touch it bare handed. Now add a large turbo that acts as a heat sink, not to mention the longer charge piping bringing the air back to the intake and you've got a very effecient air cooling system even without an intercooler.
You may not have said superchargers are superior, but I did, and I've proven it with facts, not here-say.
On a side note, I owned a BUILT 93 Eclipse GSX. Anyone who is facebook friends with me can view the pics of her. I was running 32+lbs of boost on that thing, I could make my manifold glow red if I pushed the tune to its limits. But that turbo was right at the manifold, not at the back of the car. Huge difference.
I'd be careful with my implications if I were you. You may just end up getting your own foot crammed into your own mouth.
I'm still waiting for you to show all of us how your supercharger is more effecient than a turbo.
Member
move the turbo way back there an post up how much lag you get on the jeep as for my stroker knowledge look for my post on a 232 crank in a 242 an im not talking transfer cases
sorry but this is going 
an i must stop
as for my stroker knowledge look for my post on a 232 crank in a 242 an im not talking transfer cases sorry but this is going an i must stop
CF Veteran
Quote:
Had to hear some opinions on this lol, would something like this make a hair of a difference on performance?
Originally Posted by phoenix901223
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Jeep-...mZ170397595503Had to hear some opinions on this lol, would something like this make a hair of a difference on performance?
Quote:
as for my stroker knowledge look for my post on a 232 crank in a 242 an im not talking transfer cases sorry but this is going an i must stop
I beg to differ, sir. The thread is covering superchargers in Jeeps. I think its a waste, and I feel if forced induction is the route someone is going to take a turbo would be much better. And I'm giving factual evidence to prove my point.Originally Posted by (*~*)lost
move the turbo way back there an post up how much lag you get on the jeep as for my stroker knowledge look for my post on a 232 crank in a 242 an im not talking transfer cases sorry but this is going an i must stop
If you got the right turbo, clipped, the 4.0 or larger motor out of a Jeep 6 cylinder will produce more than enough exhaust gas to spool the turbo in less than a second. Lag will be non-existant. Just ask those guys who twin turbo corvettes and camaros with dual 60 trims under their rear bumper. Now get a single 16g or 18g and it'll spool anytime you want it to.
I'm still waiting for your factual information that proves superchargers are more efficient than turbos. But I'm not gonna get it, am I?
Cuz it doesn't exist. Its not true.
Quote:
Maybe its you who hasn't been reading my posts? Originally Posted by (*~*)lost
READ MY POST.
Member
Ok if you really want. Eaton believes that as makers seek to make smaller engines work more efficiently, they will find advantages not only in downsizing, but also in “downspeeding”—keeping engine speeds lower to reduce friction losses at higher revs.
And that, says Eaton, is where superchargers win out. The company points to Audi, which extensively tested both turbocharging and supercharging for a new 3.0-liter high-performance V-6 engine program.
In the end, Audi decided that a supercharger provided the best mix of immediate power, low-speed torque, and compact packaging against the pair of turbos that would have been needed. just one example like i said do some more research
Like i said before each have pros an cons that's why some platforms use both!
CF Veteran
Quote:
Ok if you really want.
Eaton believes that as makers seek to make smaller engines work more efficiently, they will find advantages not only in downsizing, but also in “downspeeding”—keeping engine speeds lower to reduce friction losses at higher revs.
And that, says Eaton, is where superchargers win out. The company points to Audi, which extensively tested both turbocharging and supercharging for a new 3.0-liter high-performance V-6 engine program.
In the end, Audi decided that a supercharger provided the best mix of immediate power, low-speed torque, and compact packaging against the pair of turbos that would have been needed. just one example like i said do some more research
Eaton, a supercharger maker and seller, would naturally believe that. Kinda bias, don't you think?Originally Posted by (*~*)lost
Ok if you really want. Eaton believes that as makers seek to make smaller engines work more efficiently, they will find advantages not only in downsizing, but also in “downspeeding”—keeping engine speeds lower to reduce friction losses at higher revs.
And that, says Eaton, is where superchargers win out. The company points to Audi, which extensively tested both turbocharging and supercharging for a new 3.0-liter high-performance V-6 engine program.
In the end, Audi decided that a supercharger provided the best mix of immediate power, low-speed torque, and compact packaging against the pair of turbos that would have been needed. just one example like i said do some more research
CF Veteran
Okay folks, enough with the gay jokes... Both of you have said some incorrect statements. refer to the bold
It is my personal opinion that I would rather have a centrifugal S/C on my XJ than a turbo system. Centrifugal units are easily mounted, easily plumbed and can provide equal power gains. As said before, your low throttle mileage will suffer though...
For reference, I do pro amateur drifting with a turbocharged 394whp 2.0L 4cyl. I am ALSO a register Rotrex supercharger supplier. I can get blowers at similar costs to a new turbocharger by Garrett, Turbonetics etc...
Quote:
agreed, truth, undeniable
Another bonus that turbos have over superchargers, they don't create power and decrease fuel economy unless you load the motor. Superchargers are fixed, turbos work only when needed. You can keep near factory fuel economy (in most cases actually improve as the system is naturally more efficient) all the time unless you need the boost. And if properly setup, especially with a larger 4.0 (or bigger if you wanna stroker like I do), you can have that boost come in as early as 1500-1800rpm. Its really all in how you tune your setup.
^ I would say that the specifics of the turbo are more pertinent than the "tune" (fuel/timing maps)Originally Posted by Gee oh Dee
Um, I didn't say that it was cheaper or easier. I said that a turbo is more effecient than a supercharger. This is fact, undeniable.agreed, truth, undeniable
Another bonus that turbos have over superchargers, they don't create power and decrease fuel economy unless you load the motor. Superchargers are fixed, turbos work only when needed. You can keep near factory fuel economy (in most cases actually improve as the system is naturally more efficient) all the time unless you need the boost. And if properly setup, especially with a larger 4.0 (or bigger if you wanna stroker like I do), you can have that boost come in as early as 1500-1800rpm. Its really all in how you tune your setup.
Quote:
(no, he's correct, its pretty straight forward). not to mention iv actually owned a turbo vehicle an seen what it does to oil not properly cooled(please provide more information as this makes NO SENSE), super heating intake charge a lot more than a supercharger due to the turbo itself under low boost not a high charge situation with causes its own problems.(DO WHAT? Heat is a result of compressing air; its physics, they both will produce outlet temperatures well over 100*F) superchargers now a days have very little in the way of parasitic drag.(depends on the type of supercharger you are referring too. If you mean a rotary lobe or twin screw, you are incorrect. If you are referring to a centrifugal then that's b/c they both use an impeller)
Originally Posted by (*~*)lost
what you think is more efficient is completely different than how others think but ill(no, he's correct, its pretty straight forward). not to mention iv actually owned a turbo vehicle an seen what it does to oil not properly cooled(please provide more information as this makes NO SENSE), super heating intake charge a lot more than a supercharger due to the turbo itself under low boost not a high charge situation with causes its own problems.(DO WHAT? Heat is a result of compressing air; its physics, they both will produce outlet temperatures well over 100*F) superchargers now a days have very little in the way of parasitic drag.(depends on the type of supercharger you are referring too. If you mean a rotary lobe or twin screw, you are incorrect. If you are referring to a centrifugal then that's b/c they both use an impeller)
Quote:
If you move the turbine housing back away from the manifold you won't get as much of the heat issues your describing. I read your post, I'm aware of what you are talking about. But its simply not true. Have you ever touched your exhaust tip after driving? I have, and I can touch it bare handed. Now add a large turbo that acts as a heat sink, not to mention the longer charge piping bringing the air back to the intake and you've got a very effecient air cooling system even without an intercooler.
You may not have said superchargers are superior, but I did, and I've proven it with facts, not here-say. (I think you meant turbo here. Either way, superior is only relative to the specific components in competition)
On a side note, I owned a BUILT 93 Eclipse GSX. I was running 32+lbs of boost on that thing, I could make my manifold glow red if I pushed the tune to its limits. But that turbo was right at the manifold, not at the back of the car. Huge difference.
Here is that "tune" word again. The manifold can easily glow due to the pressures, i.e. heat production again, that a turbo will cause. Also depending on the manifold construction and material, you'll see this at different times. If you were running 32psi, I would like to know the specific turbo used and whether or not you have access to the compressor map. There are MANY turbo's that can achieve and exceed 32psi but they aren't producing air volume very efficiently.
I'd be careful with my implications if I were you. You may just end up getting your own foot crammed into your own mouth.
^ calm down man, I can vouch that you are more knowledge able in this subject than he is but you have left some topics open for questioning. Originally Posted by Gee oh Dee
Strokers typicall raise compression, which is why I said low compression stroker. Maybe you have little experience with the stroker motors available for Jeeps?It's what ever you make it, high, low, you're putting the parts together.If you move the turbine housing back away from the manifold you won't get as much of the heat issues your describing. I read your post, I'm aware of what you are talking about. But its simply not true. Have you ever touched your exhaust tip after driving? I have, and I can touch it bare handed. Now add a large turbo that acts as a heat sink, not to mention the longer charge piping bringing the air back to the intake and you've got a very effecient air cooling system even without an intercooler.
You may not have said superchargers are superior, but I did, and I've proven it with facts, not here-say. (I think you meant turbo here. Either way, superior is only relative to the specific components in competition)
On a side note, I owned a BUILT 93 Eclipse GSX. I was running 32+lbs of boost on that thing, I could make my manifold glow red if I pushed the tune to its limits. But that turbo was right at the manifold, not at the back of the car. Huge difference.
Here is that "tune" word again. The manifold can easily glow due to the pressures, i.e. heat production again, that a turbo will cause. Also depending on the manifold construction and material, you'll see this at different times. If you were running 32psi, I would like to know the specific turbo used and whether or not you have access to the compressor map. There are MANY turbo's that can achieve and exceed 32psi but they aren't producing air volume very efficiently.
I'd be careful with my implications if I were you. You may just end up getting your own foot crammed into your own mouth.
It is my personal opinion that I would rather have a centrifugal S/C on my XJ than a turbo system. Centrifugal units are easily mounted, easily plumbed and can provide equal power gains. As said before, your low throttle mileage will suffer though...
For reference, I do pro amateur drifting with a turbocharged 394whp 2.0L 4cyl. I am ALSO a register Rotrex supercharger supplier. I can get blowers at similar costs to a new turbocharger by Garrett, Turbonetics etc...
Member
Quote:
no not really guess there just striving to make a better product than before. Originally Posted by Gee oh Dee
Eaton, a supercharger maker and seller, would naturally believe that. Kinda bias, don't you think?
but maybe they should have your mind set an give up all together.
haha all this cause of a POS fake fan built in china, look what i started
CF Veteran
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee oh Dee
Eaton, a supercharger maker and seller, would naturally believe that. Kinda bias, don't you think?
Quote:
but maybe they should have your mind set an give up all together.
Here, I found the article you were reading, and I stand by what I said. Its bias. This is a couple chunks I pulled from your article..Originally Posted by (*~*)lost
no not really guess there just striving to make a better product than before. but maybe they should have your mind set an give up all together.
"...no comparison or non-supercharged car was available for comparison..."
"Eaton provided airfare, lodging, and meals to enable High Gear Media to bring you this first-person report."
I'll leave alone all the reader comments that "bashed" your article at the end. Those you can read on your own.
HOwever, ou are right with your sarcastic comment. They should NOT give up. Their work furthers other's work, and benefits all of us. But the point I'm trying to make is s'chargers have their place. If the OP wants to "boost" his Jeep, the better choice would be a turbo. I love turbos, know tons about both s'chargers and turbos. So naturally I'm going to stand strong next to what I know is fact.
Quote:
^ I would say that the specifics of the turbo are more pertinent than the "tune" (fuel/timing maps)
**Agreed. Maybe I should have been more clear, worded my thoughts better. Supporting mods would also factor into "setup," and for this discussion the word "setup" should have been used by itself.
^ calm down man, I can vouch that you are more knowledge able in this subject than he is but you have left some topics open for questioning.
It is my personal opinion that I would rather have a centrifugal S/C on my XJ than a turbo system. Centrifugal units are easily mounted, easily plumbed and can provide equal power gains. As said before, your low throttle mileage will suffer though...
For reference, I do pro amateur drifting with a turbocharged 394whp 2.0L 4cyl. I am ALSO a register Rotrex supercharger supplier. I can get blowers at similar costs to a new turbocharger by Garrett, Turbonetics etc...
Originally Posted by s14unimog
Okay folks, enough with the gay jokes... Both of you have said some incorrect statements. refer to the bold^ I would say that the specifics of the turbo are more pertinent than the "tune" (fuel/timing maps)
**Agreed. Maybe I should have been more clear, worded my thoughts better. Supporting mods would also factor into "setup," and for this discussion the word "setup" should have been used by itself.
^ calm down man, I can vouch that you are more knowledge able in this subject than he is but you have left some topics open for questioning.
It is my personal opinion that I would rather have a centrifugal S/C on my XJ than a turbo system. Centrifugal units are easily mounted, easily plumbed and can provide equal power gains. As said before, your low throttle mileage will suffer though...
For reference, I do pro amateur drifting with a turbocharged 394whp 2.0L 4cyl. I am ALSO a register Rotrex supercharger supplier. I can get blowers at similar costs to a new turbocharger by Garrett, Turbonetics etc...
Quote:
Here is that "tune" word again. The manifold can easily glow due to the pressures, i.e. heat production again, that a turbo will cause. Also depending on the manifold construction and material, you'll see this at different times. If you were running 32psi, I would like to know the specific turbo used and whether or not you have access to the compressor map. There are MANY turbo's that can achieve and exceed 32psi but they aren't producing air volume very efficiently.
I had to cut up your post a bit, sorry, it wasn't coming through right on my screen. Here is that "tune" word again. The manifold can easily glow due to the pressures, i.e. heat production again, that a turbo will cause. Also depending on the manifold construction and material, you'll see this at different times. If you were running 32psi, I would like to know the specific turbo used and whether or not you have access to the compressor map. There are MANY turbo's that can achieve and exceed 32psi but they aren't producing air volume very efficiently.
Anyway, yeah, I see what you mean. I really did use the word tune loosely.
My setup was kinda heavy on that car. I was running a reworked (ported, cliped, 34mm flapper) Mitsu Super 16G with supporting mods to handle the hairdrier style blow of 32 psi on a "smaller" turbo. Huge injectors, huge intercooler (3ftx2ftx3"deep), cams, and the fuel to keep her from knocking. Until I was forced to part with the car a larger (50 or 60 trim) turbo or meth was planned. I was really at the max for that setup.
She actually dyno'd over the 500 mark, but that was with a crappy dyno, its tough to find an AWD dyno, and I hate AMS.
What I personally meant by I could make the manifold glow with the right setup was by adjusting timing and pulling fuel. I used a W/B o2 gauge and pyrometer (EGT, exhaust gas temp gauge) for tuning, and when really getting crazy, ballzy, and most of call careless I could easily see 1300* or more. And that was on an EVO III manifold.
Quote:
Both you and s14unimog are right, I do need to chill a bit. But I'm very passionate about cars, and its easy for me to get worked up. I really need to work on that!Originally Posted by phoenix901223
haha all this cause of a POS fake fan built in china, look what i started
Member
Quote:
Sorry, that is not a fact, that is your opinion. Originally Posted by Gee oh Dee
If the OP wants to "boost" his Jeep, the better choice would be a turbo. I love turbos, know tons about both s'chargers and turbos. So naturally I'm going to stand strong next to what I know is fact.
Personally on my jeep, with the large tires, low redline of the engine, and slow speed of crawling, i would rather have the more instant power of the supercharger than the build up from a turbo (would take the power of a V8 over either
). I'm not knocking turbos, I love turbos too, have owned 3 DSMs, and agree that they are more effecient and IME "turbo kits" produce more HP than SC kits with similar prices, but that does not make them the best option for every application.