Turbo vs Supercharger

[JP-s-in st. louis]

Originally Posted by NickCats

JP,

They claim the boost kicks in at 2500 rpm, so I don't think lag would be a problem.

Nick

Yea and if you ever go for a ride with me you know my car is NEVER under 2500RPMs

In the IA video you can hear the SC wine. In mine since it is a 3.2 you cant since they have to add headers. I also have a Cargraphic muffler. It is schduled for cat bypass pipes this week

As for Turbowerks I would feel better about them if they did not use photos from other websites (Techart & Porsche NA) JMHO

[JP-s-in st. louis]

I have more plans not this motor but since I like this car so much and it is all but paid off. I hope to find a 3.2 or 3.4 sleeve it out to a 4.1 (alla Todd) do some head work and tune via IA, Tit connecting rods, pistons, Cams and and some N20... I figure I like this car that much and am already knee deep. So anyone who has a line on an engine please keep me in the know...

I will eventually do a wide body kit like an RSR so I can fit bigger meats under it. I already have issues hooking up. 1st is useless and 2nd is almost the same.

[TriGem2k]

I really have no preference. Turbo vs. Supercharger makes no difference for me. I just want more POWER.

I made my decision to go with the Turbo on two reasons. I spoke with the guys at Turbowerx and the sounded pretty good about their product (what else would you expect from a guy trying to sell a 7k kit). I also spoke with my service advisor from Beverly Hills Porsche. Although he discouraged me with doing either, he said if it was to be done that I should stick along the line of the Turbo kit. He claims these engines would benefit more from a Turbo than they would with a Supercharger. So I set myself up for a Turbo.

The guys at Turbowerx claim their kit for the 2.7L will add 80HP and 90ft lbs torque to the Wheels. This would put my car at 270+hp at the wheels.

All that really matter is the end result and that won't be known until my pocket is 8k lighter. I will keep you guys updated as the project nears. Right now I’m hoping to have it all done by Mid March to Early April. Hence I will dub it "March Madness"

~James

Turbos would have a greater potential than superchargers. You can modify boost so much easier and in theory less strain on the engine (not belt driven, hence no parasitic loss). Now all you will need is some ceramic headers.

[RandallNeighbour]

I sure would like a set of links for all the supercharger and turbo manufacturers for boxsters. If you've discovered them, please post them to this thread. Thanks!

[blinkwatt]

Originally Posted by RandallNeighbour

I sure would like a set of links for all the supercharger and turbo manufacturers for boxsters. If you've discovered them, please post them to this thread. Thanks!

Both links are located at the lower section of this thread.

[ohioboxster]

Let just say in advance Im not getting defensive but you guys say some funny stuff. The service guy tells you the motor would benefit from a turbo over a supercharger, ok good enough for me. I would never settle for an answer like that.

You can modify boost so much easier and in theory less strain on the engine
Please explain this theory.

I can up my boost with a pulley change and how is one form of FORCED INDUCTION easier on the motor than another? I just wish people would speak from experience rather than what they read on the net. We are talking a couple ponies either way in favor of SC vs. turbo.

Forcing compressed hot air into a motor is just that, period. The delivery is the difference.

[JP-s-in st. louis]

www.Imagineauto.com


http://www.turbowerx.com/page1/page3/page3.html

All I have to say is that a reputation is earned. The SC that IA uses is very similar to a turbo but does NOT need a I/C. Many of Stephens (IA) Kaspers’ cars have been in mags and he sits on the board for turbos of the PCA. As for boost adjustment, get it done once and be done do not try to play with it yourselves let those who have Mucho bucks in Cpu testing/programming and dyno time do that. I know I am making a strong point and may seem very biased but if you saw their shop and met the IA crew you would understand. They have cars shipped to their shop from all over North America every week. I just do not want anyone to us a system that has not been tested or has a solid backing behind it.

[David_J]

Originally Posted by JP-s-in st. louis

I have more plans not this motor but since I like this car so much and it is all but paid off. I hope to find a 3.2 or 3.4 sleeve it out to a 4.1 (alla Todd) do some head work and tune via IA, Tit connecting rods, pistons, Cams and and some N20... I figure I like this car that much and am already knee deep. So anyone who has a line on an engine please keep me in the know...

I will eventually do a wide body kit like an RSR so I can fit bigger meats under it. I already have issues hooking up. 1st is useless and 2nd is almost the same.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Making the car a blast to drive. Hell, I'm deep into mine already, so what's a little more $$$. I think I will keep mine around for the race/show vehicle but mod the crap our of it.

Josh, let's go take your car out in the snow. Let's have some fun. You said I can drive it anytime, I'll be over in 30 minutes.

-David

[MNBoxster]

Hi,

A Super is Crank Speed dependent ± the Pulley used. Power comes sooner, little spool up time (lag). But, it loses something at the top end over a Turbo due to parasitic loss (you need more boost from a Super to achieve the same HP). Roots type are less efficient than the compressors in a Turbo. Vane type are about the same as a Turbo.

A Turbo comes on later (lag), but creates more power higher in the Tach with less Boost. More complex plumbing and Oil circuit (most Supers use a self-cotained Oil System). Heat Management becomes an issue, especially on a mid-engine.

I'm not yet convinced of using either on the Boxster w/o Intercooling due to the high CR and variability of available fuel. I'm skeptical of the longevity of a Boosted M96 engine. There are few high-mileage examples, so it is yet to be proven to my mind.

But, for simplicity, the Super kits are the better of the two for the Boxster IMHO...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[NickCats]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

A Super is Crank Speed dependent ± the Pulley used. Power comes sooner, little spool up time (lag). But, it loses something at the top end over a Turbo due to parasitic loss (you need more boost from a Super to achieve the same HP). Roots type are less efficient than the compressors in a Turbo. Vane type are about the same as a Turbo.

A Turbo comes on later (lag), but creates more power higher in the Tach with less Boost. More complex plumbing and Oil circuit (most Supers use a self-cotained Oil System). Heat Management becomes an issue, especially on a mid-engine.

I'm not yet convinced of using either on the Boxster w/o Intercooling due to the high CR and variability of available fuel. I'm skeptical of the longevity of a Boosted M96 engine. There are few high-mileage examples, so it is yet to be proven to my mind.

But, for simplicity, the Super kits are the better of the two for the Boxster IMHO...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

Jim,

Found another thread about this subject :

turbo or supercharge ?

Look like your opinion hasn't changed much in the past year.

I am surprised you prefer the supercharger over the turbo for the Boxster, though...

Nick

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by NickCats

Jim,

Found another thread about this subject :

turbo or supercharge ?

Look like your opinion hasn't changed much in the past year.

I am surprised you prefer the supercharger over the turbo for the Boxster, though...

Nick

Hi,

Doesn't surprise me that my information (or opinion) hasn't changed at all. I have had a fair amount of experience with Forced Induction both in Aircraft and Automotive applications. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. But these are not generic, rather, they often depend upon the application.

With the Boxster, being mid-engined, I think the Heat Management issues alone (let alone the plumbing issues) would outweigh the advantages of a Turbo. So, I would most likely choose the Supercharger route.

That's not an endorsement, at least without Intercooling, or some other way to prevent detonation given the high CR that the Boxster has...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[pecivil]

Trigem2k!

When you get your turbo set up, lets hook up and you can compair it to an NA 3.4l :dance:

If you will get 270 to the wheels, it should be close to mine. I am in San Diego and would love an excuse to get up there to drive some of the canyons in Malibu!!

If you guys are spending 7k for the kit, and 2k for install, why not just go with a 3.4 conversion, with no detonation potential, no real heat issues, and no worries about going to FI on a high CR motor?

Theres no way I would go to FI on with the CR the M96 has with no IC.

I have an eaton SC on my E36 318i with no IC and the CR is 10:1. And that is pushing it but it only gets up to 6 psi. But it kicks ass when a E36M3 can't pull on me in a little ol 318 :dance:

I would imagine that they tune the ECU to accomodate the additional fuel required to match the FI, for either system, right?

[JP-s-in st. louis]

Originally Posted by David_J

Now that's what I'm talking about. Making the car a blast to drive. Hell, I'm deep into mine already, so what's a little more $$$. I think I will keep mine around for the race/show vehicle but mod the crap our of it.

Josh, let's go take your car out in the snow. Let's have some fun. You said I can drive it anytime, I'll be over in 30 minutes.

-David

I can spin the tires thru 3 in the rain and you want me to go out in snow...hahahahaha

I would not even make it up the hill on my street.