willwren and all you other moderators are looking at this topic and thinking, "Great, an other idiot who could have just looked in TECHINFO!!!"

However I did look at TECHINFO but it didn't really answer my question (in its entirety).

Anyways, I was wondering which is usually better (PONIES BABY!!!) a supercharger or a turbo (I'm not talking bout a NA bonnie either).

I'm asking this regarding my next possible car. I know turbos can have turbo lag, but I've heard that superchargers also require higher rpms to kick all dat boooost.

I was under the impression that a Supercharger gave you boost at lower RPM. What I have gathered is that the Supercharger works best in 2nd gear at about 2500-3000 RPM...or am I totally off base?

I believe superchargers work best at low rpms as well...

Turbos take time to spool up but make you fly at high rpms, maybe I be wrong.

Anywho, if I were to leave the realm of H-bodies...I could go turbo. *cough* Talon, Eclipse, Daytona *cough*.....what? I didn't suggest anything.

Turbos are exhaust driven & do need time (lag) to spool up. Superchargers are belt driven (mechanical) and require NO time (lag) to gain the extra power (boost). This topic on Turbos VS. Superchargers is very old & never been fully solved to date either!

A turbo that is properly matched to its motor will have very little lag. Cars using twin turbo sequiential systems will have so little lag you probably won't be able to notice without special equipemnt.

The best of both worlds is probably a belt driven centrifuigal supercharger using its own oil supply breathing through an intercooler.

Procharger makes units like these which combine the best aspects of a turbo and supercharger.

I think the confusion is coming from the centrifugal SC, which is the same unit as a turbo in its basic design but is turned by a shaft that is belt driven. Even with that the centrifugal is not much quicker to put power to the wheel than a turbo that is properly set up. The turbo and centrifugal sc are "better" due to there higher power ceiling. The function of a roots style sc is limited to a ceiling that is reached sooner. Roots style SC have a set limit of CFM’* .

There are some shops that will sell you on the idea of porting and trying in effect to make a roots style SC meet with the centrifugal sc. I don’t care how they cook their math regardless of intellect or wordy language the centrifugal unit is always a better unit for the ease of use, versatility and end HP gains. Well unless you adapt a much much bigger roots unit. But then you could use a bigger centrifugal unit. LOL

For torque on the front end a roots style Sc is fun but mostly forced due to its availability. Gm likes it because of the immediate feel you get and since most owners will not really use there 3.8 for serious racing it does what it is supposed to do quite nicely.

Compare the sc (roots) for the Grand Am and the centrifugal unit you will find the centrifugal sc kit makes the roots system look weak.
Turbo is a centrifugal format but I personally (no functional merit) don’t like the turbo as much. Honestly I just don’t like all the extra heated piping. No other reason.

So if you want another persons opinion I would get a centrifugal sc or if you must a turbo.

Ty
Domestic Performance

Or the best of all combinations. Use a Roots blower for your low-end, then at 3000rpms, after the Turbo kicks spools, switch over.

Interesting concept?

How about converting an L67 from roots to centrifigul? The thought has crossed my mind before.

Why REPLACE the roots, when you can ADD a Turbo?

Or a Centrifugal sc
LOL

Personally my favorite (if I was going to stay with a 3. would be a twin screw with a centrifugal. I still believe a non-sc 3.8 set up with a centrifugal sc is the best deal. Yes I know or Turbo. lol

Ty