|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: fastfish]
#857299
11/19/10 03:07 PM
11/19/10 03:07 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 760
Southington Ct.
turbobitt
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 760
Southington Ct.
|
I don't know what the typical cost of a blower kit would be but there is definatly more fab work with Turbo's. Based on my own experience with my turbo buick, I think the HP potential is much better with turbo's because theres more flexibility and options with turbocharging. Either way, I would do EFI with both.
Allan G.
1970 Challenger w/572 Hemi street car and my pride and joy.
1986 T-Type with 272 Stage 2 Buick V6 engine - True 8 second street car. Just updated the engine and put down 928 HP @ 35# boost to the ground on chasis dyno.
1976 Cee Bee Avenger Jet Boat - 460 Ford powered.
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: turbobitt]
#857300
11/19/10 04:05 PM
11/19/10 04:05 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 266
Northeast
fastfish
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 266
Northeast
|
Quote:
I don't know what the typical cost of a blower kit would be but there is definatly more fab work with Turbo's. Based on my own experience with my turbo buick, I think the HP potential is much better with turbo's because theres more flexibility and options with turbocharging. Either way, I would do EFI with both.
Allan G.
I'd agree for the home-builder, but if someone wants to buy a high-quality kit designed to last, we offer them along with our supercharger systems.
turbo kits for mopar cars and trucks
turbo mopar price sheet
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: bigtimeauto]
#857301
11/23/10 12:54 PM
11/23/10 12:54 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,165
Left Coast
BobR
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,165
Left Coast
|
Quote:
Quote:
I've set up both for drag cars and I'll tell you this:
The turbo is A LOT easier to control at launch.
The Procharger creates boost instantly which (at least on the engines I have done) blows off the tires or causes wheelies you don't want to do. With a turbo you can launch easy, hook up, and then the boost comes in for the rest of the race. Can be the difference between life and the alternative.
On the street the Procharger is more fun for the same reasons...
I have to disagree with this. a properly set up procharged car will go right down the track without any help. I do it regulary and i'm on true 10.5's
A procharged car can leave off idle, a turbo can't
No need for a boost controller with the procharger as the boost is directly associated with RPM
i have more but lets let the turbo guys come up with their pros
Our 135 Procharger ran a best speed of 210 at 45 pounds of boost. Our twin turbo car with the exact same engine has gone 225.50 with 44 pounds of boost weighing 200 pounds more. Guess which makes the most power?
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: BobR]
#857304
11/27/10 11:58 AM
11/27/10 11:58 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,646
Plymouth Meeting, PA
bigtimeauto
Trophy Winner
|
Trophy Winner
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,646
Plymouth Meeting, PA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've set up both for drag cars and I'll tell you this:
The turbo is A LOT easier to control at launch.
The Procharger creates boost instantly which (at least on the engines I have done) blows off the tires or causes wheelies you don't want to do. With a turbo you can launch easy, hook up, and then the boost comes in for the rest of the race. Can be the difference between life and the alternative.
On the street the Procharger is more fun for the same reasons...
I have to disagree with this. a properly set up procharged car will go right down the track without any help. I do it regulary and i'm on true 10.5's
A procharged car can leave off idle, a turbo can't
No need for a boost controller with the procharger as the boost is directly associated with RPM
i have more but lets let the turbo guys come up with their pros
Our 135 Procharger ran a best speed of 210 at 45 pounds of boost. Our twin turbo car with the exact same engine has gone 225.50 with 44 pounds of boost weighing 200 pounds more. Guess which makes the most power?
You didn't list the ET, so i'm going to guess the procharger ET'd better. Plus what was the comparative size of the twin turbo's inlets versus the single procharger?
BB, TT5,Procharged 3300lb Street Car 4.79/154
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: 526ciduster]
#857308
11/27/10 10:24 PM
11/27/10 10:24 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
feets
Senior Management
|
Senior Management
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,067
Irving, TX
|
So your chassis is set up a little better than his when it comes to the hole shot. Nice job.
I'll stick with my turbos.
We are brothers and sisters doing time on the planet for better or worse. I'll take the better, if you don't mind.
- Stu Harmon
|
|
|
Re: PROCHARGER VS. TURBO
[Re: feets]
#857313
11/30/10 01:35 PM
11/30/10 01:35 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,635
Oakland, MI
dizuster
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,635
Oakland, MI
|
It really depends on the power level too... you can buy a BW-S475 turbo for less then $600 brand new, or chinese MP stuff even cheaper if you dare.
Yes, you'd still need to build the hot side, and get a wastegate, but you can't even come close to touching that price with a procharged system at that HP level.
I'll have less then $2500 into my entire turbo build for my '62 (Turbo, wastegate, blow off valve, hot side piping, cold side piping, flanges, bands, clamps, hat, carb conversion, etc...)
But I'm doing it all myself too... if you had to pay someone to fab the piping, it certainly wouldn't be that cheap...
|
|
|
|
|
