so, as most people dream of doing, i was gonna swap out my my 6 banger for a 350 and a 700r4. butttt...i didnt want to lose my effiency on gas milage etc. so im considering turbo charging it...i have a automatic. my friend told me its not really good to turbo a auto, but rather supercharge.

i was wondering if any of you have a turbo auto v6...or which you think is better. im also on a tight budget...so which ones cheaper, more efficient. any opinions would be great.

thanks.

 

id rather have a supercharger than a turbocharger.

 

i don't know what your friend was thinking but there is no difference between which transmission you have, auto or manual, the engine still runs the same. it really just depends on what you would rather do, you can usually make more power off of a turbo, but there is lag so you don't have great low-end power, but good high-end. with a supercharger you have good power constantly over the powerband. do you like the whine of a supercharger, or do you like the sound of a spooled up turbo with a bov?
personally i haven't seen too many supercharged 6's in 3rd gen birds, and i would go with a turbo.
but it doesn't bother to get other opinions too.

 

I believe Turbo's are generally regarded as more efficient. If you are on a tight budget...I think you should wait until you have a bigger budget. These things have a way of getting out of control in a hurry.

 

i appreciate the replies guys...im leaning towards turbo now...i do love the sound of a turbo spinning up...now i need money...haha. i wish things were free...

 

the more hp you have the more gas you will consume, just do a mild 350 swap

 

with an auto u can spool the turbo off the line,if u have the right converter.hmm all the grand nationals are automatic,werent all the tta cars auto as well.i wouldnt suggest trying to do a turbo setup inless u know u have the money.it gets real exspensive real fast,depending on how far u wanna take it.if i dont include the forged pistions,and other stuff ythat went into my engine,and just include the price of turbo parts.i.e turbo chargers,bov,intercooler,piping,braided lines,wastegate,boost controller.ive got in about 2k,amnd thats without it installed,granted for me that was free,since i do all my own work,but besides that ive droped 1,200 on a set of j.e forged pistions,another 800 on a trans+400 on converter, and mor emoney on misc parts like nitrous and co2 intercooler spray system.
granted u can build a turbo system for alot less,but its adictive,ur always gonna wanna up the boost,make more power,and ur gonna spend a decent amount doing it

 

So if one was going to add boost, eather with a supercharger or turbo, would it be better to boost compression before(milling heads, etc.)? I have heard both ways. Just thought Id ask while there is a topic about it.

 

i have always heard that your supposed to lower initial compression cause like 6psi of boost on a 8:1 comp ratio is like a 11:1 or 12:1 or something like that. its the whole point behind boost lets you have a well manered engine at low RPMs for normal use and when ya gets on it you get lots o power.

Probably not exactly correct but oh well.

 

i ran mine witht he stock cr or 8.9-1. i was told not to drop my base cr below 8.5-1 cause it could cause non boost driveability probs

 

yeah you want to keep a relatively low compression ratio because if you're running a lot of boost into a small combustion chamber you can risk blowing a head.

 

8.5 is normall compression for a boosted engine. I've seen some up in the 9.25 range.

With an auto tranny, you will need it rebuilt FIRST to handle the extra power. But alot of stock boosted cars are auto.

As said, turbos are generally more efficent. But since I have an s/c on one car, I would have to do it on the other if I was to boost this one.

I would also suggest upgrading the suspension a bit, but not necessary. Just a little insurance when you let the beast out