GreyFox

Which do you guys think would be better a turbo or a supercharger?? And one more question which models actually came with a turbo??

TechSmurf

1989 20th anniversary Turbo Trans Ams were the only stock turbocharged F-bodies between 1982 and 2002. ~1557 produced. Very rare.

Turbocharger is probably the easiest to set up, though it's still definitely not a cakewalk.

Matthewy8

supercharger seems easier to me, and you can still run an intercooler and you dont have to mess with any of the exhaust. how is turbo easier?? turbo would provide more of a gain if you are using the same psi though because the supercharger has parasitic draw from the belt whereas the turbo doesnt.

GreyFox

sweet bring on the knowledge:lala: :lala: :lala: :lala: :lala:

GreyFox

what exactly do you have to change from stock for a turbo/supercharger

TechSmurf

I dunno man.. it doesn't really make sense to me either. Tiago's turbocharged, Doward's turbocharged, I'm turbocharged, Raven's turbocharged, and 614Streets is roots supercharged TBI... noone's slapped a centrifugal supercharger onto one of these 60 degree motors to my knowledge. It *should* be easier.. but then why is noone doing it?

Setting up a turbo requires (at this time) custom fabricated exhaust components to mount the turbocharger, an oil feed teed off near the oil pressure sending unit, an oil return into the oil pan, usually coolant (easily supplied by a throttle body coolant bypass into the turbocharger instead), alot of intake piping, custom chip (burning your own HIGHLY reccomended), larger injectors, and, in the case of speed density, some way to add fuel under boost (switching to a 2-bar MAP system or a FMU)

... searching on the V6 board and power adder board will answer these questions in far greater detail, though, rather than beating on a long-dead horse.

oil pan 4

iTrader: (1)

Turbos are better in out case.
The intake side of our engines doesn't flow that well and on a blower engine you need a good folwing intake head.
The exhaust flow is allmost as good as the intake on out heads.
To just put on a blower you would have to go out of your way to put on headers because the exhaust manifolds are real crapy.
The stock cam is no good for blower, no enough intake duration for a blower.
The 1989 TTA was the only year turboed by the factory and it was the first and last year to get a 3.8 in a 3rd gen.
I have a lot of pictures of my twin turbo 1985 3.4L top half of the motor build up on my car domain site in the sig.
I think no one is realy puting blowers on there motors because, you will limit boost some what, people think they can make a bracket to bolt to the engine and super charger to, they arn't sure if they can get a belt or if the pullies will line up, super chargers arn't as cheap and as easy to get as turbos and blower engines tend to use more gas.

TechSmurf

Erm.. oil pan...
No, No it is not. That is an externally balanced flywheel for 1982-1986 *only*. To put that on an 87+ internally balanced motor you need to have it neutrally balanced at a machine shop or you *will* take out your main bearings very very quickly.

And I think you've got it pretty well summed up as to why there's no centrifugal superchargers in use here

FbodTrek

That and the fact that a centrifugal blower costs quite a bit. If you want quick cheap power, i'd suggest nitrous. You don't race CONSTANTLY, although the turbo sounds like the ultimate mod for these motors, I already went through the trouble of adding hedders, so the turbo is out of the question. I'll be spraying mine soon.

Matthewy8

ok well, im talking about centrifigal superchargers here, as good as fabricators we have on this board someone should be able to make brackets, I would be able to do it if i was at my house in FL but im still in school here in Tx. and as far as headers go it dont matter becuase if you go with turbo you have to have a set custom made for the downpipe and turbo anyhow, supercharger you have the option to either keep the manifolds for the time being or step up to the headers which are already being made for our cars PF&E and the Headmans so no fabrication there. so the only problem for the superchargers is making a bracket which isnt that hard, mustang guys do it all the time, ive seen the crazy stuff they do. plus you can still run an intercooler. roots blowers are out of the question totally, its just not feasable. you cant run an intercooler with our motors and the power isnt as great as the centrifigal because they run hotter. if i could get ahold of a supercharger cheap enough i would try it. which is another thing superchargers do cost more than turbo generally. lets keep this going becuase i want to see what else you guys think about it. i love the turbo but ive never seen a supercharger on one of our motors yet and thats why i want to see it done, just because.

FbodTrek

I could make a bracket without any problem whatsoever. I just need the actual supercahrger. Plumbing it in is easy, I could just set the MAF in the inlet side of the charger. As for an intercoooler, I prolly wouldn't use one, I'm not looking to run enough boost for it to be of much use. Oh yeah, Matt, I'll have your blockoff done tommorow, need to get some aluminum.

camaro_junkie

I have to question this. I'm not saying it's wrong because I'm not sure... If you are just saying that for the same psi, a turbo is better, maybe... but to start talking about the power needed to overcome the charger, it's not like the turbo isn't parasitic, which is what it sounds like you were saying... or maybe not.

I'm also dreaming up a supercharger set up, but it will be a long time before I have any money to start because I don't even have enough money to get an alignment done.

Matthewy8

hey thanks again FbodTrek i really appreciate it. as for the supercharger causing parasitic draw and the turbo doesnt. im not saying that. what i am saying is that the supercharger has more parasitic draw than the turbo, from the belt and pulleys and all where as the turbo just relys on exhaust pushing it and that can be freed up so much easier just by changing pipe diameter in the downpipe and all. its kinda hard for me to explain, im not good at teachin lol but i try. im going to school for this, so i do know what i am talking about but i dont claim to know everything by any means.

TechSmurf

A supercharger uses power that would otherwise be transferred to your transmission to generate compression, a turbo uses power that would otherwise be pumped out of your tailpipe to generate compression. How much backpressure the turbocharger generates is the only drawback, and correctly sized, this tends to be less of a drawback than the supercharger, generally at the expense of boost on launch. Large torque converter can make up for this easily in drag racing, and on a road course you only have to launch once, after which your RPMs will generally stay high enough to spool the turbocharger very quickly.

AM91Camaro_RS

never seen a centrifigul sc on one of these cars? i found a page where a guy had one. i'll have to see if i can find the link. there was lots of pics and some video clips.

Matthewy8

techsmurf summed it up pretty well. i wanna see that site with the supercharger, you guys have me interested in this now.

camaro_junkie

Alright, we're on the same page now.

oil pan 4

iTrader: (1)

I know that that is an externaly balanced fly wheel.
The internal one looks just like it when looking at it from the top but it is less holey.
That's how engine # 3 died, my mechanic said it (the orginal 85 wheel on a 88 s-10 long block) would work, 300 yards later and the mains were gone. That was a long time ago, winter 2000 before I knew better.
The under side of the fly wheel has a weight looking thing cast into it, and that's what it is a weight.
I had a 91 fly wheel on there for a while.
That one in the picture is in my room in maine safe for now, the shop around the fly wheel in that picture is toast.
The 91 fly wheel got burned up in the shop with the bad 2.8.

614Streets

Yes I remember that site. Its just what your looking for but I dont remeber the site address nor did I turn it up in a search. It was a Beautiful Mpfi Camaro with I belive a 3.1 with a paxton supercharger.

AM91Camaro_RS

i cannot find it again, either. it was cool but i really wasn't terribly impressed with it. i'd love to be able to bolt one on my motor though!

614, you in FL now, or what?

614Streets

Yeah Im in Kissimmee

fly89gta

iTrader: (1)

A turbo still takes some power from the engine, it's not exactly free horsepower either. The draw just isn't as much as a blower.

devianb

I saw that 3.1 supercharged Maro too, I emailed the guy about it and from what he had to do it is really not worth it for the gain. Turbocharger in my opinion is better and you can develop more power than supercharger. I'm not an expert on either so thats all im going to say about it.

AM91Camaro_RS

do you have the link to the page still? i cannot find it.

devianb

Why yes I do




http://www.trcperformance.com/Camaro.html

camaro_junkie

I wondered if he's dynoed it. I guess that he must have, but I don't see any numbers posted there.

ScrapMaker

seems like our cars have so much damned room for a supercharger though!!! from a newbie standpoint, it seems that you could build a custom bracket, get some piping and feed it straight into the intake, with the maf sensor I guess... and find a longer belt off another car or something, or take off your a/c... dunno just seems easier than turbo by leaps and bounds...

also I thought s/c's had a clutch, so that when you weren't demanding power from them, they spin freely, not robbing power from your motor?

AM91Camaro_RS

i think that a s/c would be easier to do too but some people prefer turbos. lol...all depends on what you like. i've only heard of like one type of, um, i think Jaguar, that has a clutch on the s/c. its not common although it would be very nice.

TechSmurf

supercharged MR2s were clutched too. The vast majority of supercharged vehicles, however, are not. Also, realistically, fabricating the bracketry for the supercharger vs fabricating the exhaust for a turbocharger... there's really not alot of difference. With the turbocharger, you just have to account for the routing of hot exhaust... this is solved by the supercharger at the expense of having to place it so the pulley lines up with the belt system.

Also, when's the last time you went to a junkyard and saw a centrifigul supercharger that was the right size for your engine? A little easier to 'scrounge' a turbocharger

Doward

Techsmurf hit it - the reason that we're all running turbos, is that we can snag them easily from the boneyards. I know of precisely ZERO supercharged cars that came with centrifugal superchargers.

ScrapMaker

that sucks... they should have just offerred a turbo kit from the factory as an upgrade... damn GM, damn them to hell for not making exactly what I want 14 years after they stopped making my car... when will they get anything right? sigh

fly89gta

iTrader: (1)

GM already has a factory turbo V6

Dale

iTrader: (12)

I wish my 91 looked as good as that guys with the s/c

I like the different look of the s/c. However, anyone else notice that his piping is crushed bent rather then manderel? Plus still has that flex tube, which could be pulled out and replaced with hard piping? His air filter is in the engine bay, right behind the radiator.

Still cant overcome the sound of v6 exhuast though Anyone up for helping me get a s/c and headers so I can show how its to be done

AM91Camaro_RS

i'd help you install it if you were closer to me!

ScrapMaker

damn you and your fastest firebird ever made... damn you!

I bet you could even up the boost on those TTA and make 'em a lot faster, just like a lot of other stock turbo'd cars.

Dale

iTrader: (12)

I'm trying, job market of my skills in Pensacola sucks!!!

If I wanted Miami, Tampa, Orlando I could have been gone 6 months ago

TechSmurf

That's an understatement... you can put a TTA deep in the 11s, possibly 10s, for about 2 grand.

AM91Camaro_RS

come to tampa and i'll help you work on a s/c setup for your car. no smog laws here!

ScrapMaker

I wonder if the TTA is the best price/speed ratio? My bet is still with anything with a 350 though.

fly89gta

iTrader: (1)

it depends...if you put a turbo on a 350 sure.

but the STOCK motor can go deep into the 11's without lifting a valve cover.

ScrapMaker

do you just swap the turbo or what? change the boost bov? tweak the chip?

I bet a TTA is still hella expensive though, which is why I would think that maybe the 350 trans ams are better value... but I can't ever seem to find any tta's to compare...

Are the 3.8's the same exact motors as the new 3.8's? dohc's or anything like that? (if the new ones even have that)

Matthewy8

did i hear pensacola??? i live here and im trying to find a job too lol. i wanna do the supercharger swap sooo bad but i just dont have the money to buy the head unit yet.

fly89gta

iTrader: (1)

there is no boost BOV. You change the boost through the wastegate...that regulates the boost. Swapping out a chip is usually the first thing the turbo buick guys do.

The TTA is more than just the motor...it's suspension and 1LE brake upgrades

As for as the similarity to the newer 3.8's there is nothing that is the same...totally different motors..totally different setups.

ScrapMaker

wonder which ones are better? not putting down the older ones or anything.

I had a ford truck in '82 with a 3.8 in it... it really sucked ***, and had less than 120 hp...

fly89gta

iTrader: (1)

Again totally different motor...you're talking about a Chevy 3.8 I assume...the TTA/GN motor is a Buick motor...as are the newer 3.8's found in the Grand Prix's,Bonnevilles, Regal's etc..

TechSmurf

Plus the GN/TTA 3.8 is hardly joe schmoe 3.8, either, with its high quality internals and 8:1ish compression straight from the factory, and capability of handling 700+ flywheel hp without breaking a sweat.. usually.

You seriously just need to go read up on them if you're going to poke at them this much... www.turbobuick.com and www.gnttype.org ---EDIT--- FLY!!!!! Wtf happened to gnttype.org?!?! *cries*

fly89gta

iTrader: (1)

Believe it or not the N/A 3.8 had the same block rods and I THINK crank in 86-87

GNTtype.org is down for a little while. I think they're redoing the site or something(not 100% sure though).

camaro_junkie

How would the size of an MR2 supercharger be for the 2.8? Too small?

TechSmurf

way too small, of course.

ScrapMaker

I want a TTA anyone donating?