
© Copyright 1995 thru 2008 - The Mustang Works™. All Rights Reserved.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
|
|
#5 |
|
Registered Member
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Blacksburg, VA
Posts: 1,526
|
Its an interesting question. Turbos are by nature more effecient since they run off power that would otherwise be lost vs superchargers which are driven directly off engine power.
From a practical view view though the limiting factor on how much power you make from a 4.6 isn't really an efficiency issue. The limiting factor is the stregnth of the engine internals and drive train. With say a $7,000 budget I would go with a supercharger. With the saved costs of easier tuning, installation, and parts that leaves quite a bit left over for replacing engine and drive train parts. The turbo will eat up most of the budget leaving the limiting factor as the internals and drive train. With an unlimited or much greater budget I would go with the turbo. In the long run if breaking stuff isn't a concern the turbo will be more efficient and more powerful the supercharger, not to mention much cooler. |
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| supercharger vs. turbo | 6 banger | Small Ponies | 4 | 08-15-2002 06:10 PM |
| Ran a turbo Integra, a Grand National, and two bikes!!! | WhiteT78Supra | Stang Stories | 23 | 07-19-2002 07:21 AM |
| TurboCharger vs Supercharging | StangGT02 | Modular Madness | 4 | 07-09-2002 12:01 PM |
| Turbo vs. Supercharger vs Other on 93 cobra | Sonics2042 | Windsor Power | 3 | 02-04-2002 08:36 PM |
| Which is better: Kennybell supercharger or turbo kit? | Blue Stallion | Windsor Power | 8 | 03-16-2001 12:40 PM |
