I'm trying to decide between....
BBS Designs Turbo
or
ATI Procharger

I understand that on a stock motor, only 7 PSI should be used, 9 psi if intercooled (ATI)...
I know to truly reap the benefits, the motor will need to be rebuilt for a blown application...
Both systems can be tuned to apply little or more boost to stock or modified engine...
ATI is a little more, but comes with intercooler... which can be added later to Turbo...
Will need increased fuel injectors / ening tunning, etc...

Any other reald advantages / disadvantages ?
Had any bad experiences with either?

Rafael

 

You have to know what you want from the system, i.e. what you use your car for. Here's some pro's/con's for each.

Turbo:
-more complex to install, with routing the exhaust.
-has a lag, which isn't too noticable on a V8.
-more efficient.
-easier to change amount of boost.
-only uses the extra fuel when making boost.

Supercharger:
-builds boost quicker.
-less efficient.
-you have to swap pulleys to change boost level.
-since you're always making at least a little boost, fuel consumption will always be high.

I only have experience with a turbo though, not really any with a supercharger. This debate has been covered a lot of times too.

https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...s+supercharger

https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...s+supercharger

 

Correct, except an ATI Procharger is a centrifugal supercharger which doesn't make boost super quick like a roots or twin screw style blower. It still has to "spool up", albeit by a pulley and gears, related to RPM.

7 psi, 9 psi, it doesn't matter as much. What your engine can handle isn't always related to intake manifold pressure.

Search is what I would say too.

 

Whenever I see this question, I like to quote a bit of Corky Bell off the Cartech website. He wrote books on both turbochargers and superchargers, so he has experience with both forms of boost. I don't agree with everything he wrote in his books and on his site, and I think he is a little biased towards turbos over superchargers, but I always liked this paragraph:

This quote was regarding his turbo kits for the BMW M3, but the info applies to all IC engines.

 

!!!TURBO!!!

 

Not correct, you could drive hundreds of miles and stay out of boost the whole time. It's a combination of load and RPM that determines whether or not you get into boost.

 

What are your goals for the car?

 

Arg…

Anything properly designed and streetable on a v8 will not have any noticeable lag, at least not at all as compared to a centrifugal blower.

6/half dozen… they keep coming up with more efficient compressor designs at both speed ranges, it’s pretty much a moot argument.

Always restricts the exhaust, so there is always some loss in efficiency.

On what planet? Centrifugal blowers build boost with rpm. If you to WOT in high gear with both setups at 2500 rpm, the turbo will build boost on the spot, the centrifugal supercharger will not build boost till the engine reaches higher rpm’s

Positive displacement blowers are a little different and can build boost pretty much everywhere, but he isn’t comparing to one.

read above

With a bypass the only loss you have is whatever parasitic loss there is with turning the blower shaft/gear drive… I don’t know that anyone has ever measured this with a centrifugal blower but the eaton positive displacement types with their large rotors spinning all the time usually post less of a loss at part throttle cruise with the bypass open then comparable turbos. Something in the range of .3hp for an M112, which you almost can’t measure accurately WRT to MPG.

Unless the drive assembly on the centrifugal blowers is just a total dog, the actual blower part is lighter and smaller, so it shouldn’t draw much more power to turn when not actually making boost.

 

As far as efficiency, I was talking about the percentage each system robs from the possible power output. A turbo with a little exhaust restriction will always consume less power than a belt-driven supercharger.

I didn't know the difference between the two types of superchargers. I assumed they were all the quick spooling roots or twin screw style. My bad.

 

That’s just the part that you’re missing, a turbo “robs” just as much power with it’s exhaust restriction as a belt driven supercharger does through the crank.

 

Do you have any evidence to support that? I'm just curious, b/c that is the first time that I have heard that.

 

My post is strictly opinion, because I do believe every post needs a tad bit of that, but of the two, I would go with supercharger.

 

The numbers can be documented/calcluated.

Somewhere out there there is actually a turbo caculator that actually posts how much loss you'll have from the turbine restriction.

You could also set it up yourself by hooking up a turbo but not run the compressor outlet into the engine but instead restrict it so it builds boost like it would if it was blowing into an engine and test it on a dyno...

 

I found a few websites that explained a little better what I was trying to say. Maybe I'll just link them first.

The first one was very detailed and didn't seem to appear biased.

http://www.superchargersonline.com/content.asp?ID=19

http://www.turbochargedpower.com/Tur...%20Blowers.htm

http://www.ststurbo.com/turbo_vs__supercharger

The last one considers the remote-mount turbo, but a turbo non-the-less. Also it includes a graph that compares the various methods of boost.

 

The first two links have good info. STS is info. is usually a scam biased toward selling Remote Mount Turbos. Read there FAQS and you will see how they contradict themselves all over the place. I see them as the SSAutoChrome of the "turbo kit" world. They are using turbo data that is not RMT data so it really seems out of place.

Remote mounts require a smaller turbine to spool decent and therefore restict more on the top end. A normal turbo setup can be adjusted/tuned via the turbine A/R with enough time and money. This would give a fair spool time and top end HP. The only advantage I ever saw with going with a turbo is you can have boost at a low-mid RPM and the ability to "turn it off" by going easy on the throttle. You don't have that with a super.

From a HP required to power the power adder point of view. Well, a super takes crank HP. A turbo uses exhaust HP. The crank HP is generated while the rear wheels HP is generated. The exhaust HP is generated after the the rear wheels HP and would essentially be lost. So I see it having a slight advantage. The turbo also becomes a restriction and causes a loss of HP at the top end if it was chosen for low RPM spool. Of course there is some feedback that comes into play also.

Oh yeah, notice Hot Rod's HP curve where the turbo makes more mid-RPM boost but less HP at the top end. It is all about the turbine A/R and of course they make no mention of it. HHHhhhmmm, I wonder why I stopped buying those car magazines a long time ago. Always biased info without a good explanation. I would have liked to see a equiv. compressor on both the turbo and super and a comparison of that with a properly chosen turbine A/R. That is the only real way to show the power adder differences.

83 Crossfire TA,
Where you referring to the "gncalculator.xls" that shows HP required to drive the turbo? That calculator does the math, but that HP is coming from an expelled energy after the crank HP was made. Yes, the turbine will become a restriction at the top end and cause HP to be less than what a free-flowing exhaust would have generated. They are two different HP losses to me. In the end HP is lost no matter what.

EDIT - all that is opinion with no proven testing. Feel free to point out where it is incorrect or BS.

 

Centrifugal and Turbo... sounds like a Ford VS Chevy arguement. Know which is best?? Whcich ever you purchase, the truth is it does not matter. I can tell you though there are at least 3 major manufactureres making Centrifugal kits to bolt on a third gen. In my opinion it works more like this...

If you want to make power choose one of the 2 setups and SMILE!!!
Here is what you should be comparing not HP every one can argue why the alternate is better in that Dept.

Turbo
Custom setup, you fabricate it
Tuning is a little more difficult since the power more or less hits all at once
it you run an automatic car the turbo will stay spooled as long as you have the guts to stay in it....

Centrifugal
any one with patience, and a wrench set can put it in,
Most companies have people sitting waiting for you to call with a problem so they can answer you Q's
More Linear power, predictable, thus making a easier tune.
This setup is a little more user friendly.

End result, at WOT they will both make you smile, end of story.