Thread: supercharger vs turbocharger
Hybrid View
-
07-17-2004 08:05 PM #1
supercharger vs turbocharger
Hey man i say get rid of them both and put an NOS system on it cause you have power when you want it plus it is a tenth of the cost in the long run
-
07-17-2004 09:02 PM #2
Re: supercharger vs turbocharger
Originally posted by ebadal
Hey man i say get rid of them both and put an NOS system on it cause you have power when you want it plus it is a tenth of the cost in the long run
LOOK Here.
http://www.clubhotrod.com/forums/sho...t=supercharger"PLAN" your life like you will live to 120.
"LIVE" your life like you could die tomorrow.
John 3:16
>>>>>>
-
07-23-2004 05:11 PM #3
No good when you a) want power ALL the time, b) don't want to refill your bottles after every run, and c) don't want to replace things like rings on a monthly basis. I myself say turbo - no belt friction, and pretty lightweight.
-
07-23-2004 06:15 PM #4
I like a blower because there's no lag. With a turbo you have wait for the turbo to spool up. A supercharger will give more low end torque, and the low end is what's used on the street. Notice GM and Ford have started using Eaton superchargers for a power adder. No turbo's in their lineups at all. What does that tell you.Originally posted by heheheha
No good when you a) want power ALL the time, b) don't want to refill your bottles after every run, and c) don't want to replace things like rings on a monthly basis. I myself say turbo - no belt friction, and pretty lightweight.---Tom
1964 Studebaker Commander
1964 Studebaker Daytona






LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
I'm on Firefox and generally don't have any problems.
Back online