Turbo vs. Supercharger - Which is Best?

I personally never favor one over the other cause they have their own benefits. Also, they both make beautiful noises. Twincharging gives the engine the best of both & I don't feel as if they cancel out each other in that scenario.

I've had both on my car. When I was supercharged (Vortech V9) I loved the linear power and that I had peak torque from 2500 rpm's to redline. Only draw back with a SC is you dont make your peak hp until redline. I always wanted to put in a bigger SC but the fact it was a 3.2L VR6 I saw others struggle with the engine having a hard time turning the SC and constantly breaking belts so I went turbo (Garrett GT3582R) and never looked back. My wheel hp only increased by 70 from the SC level but my wheel torque increased by 160. I could go with some bigger injectors and a different tune to squeeze some more power out of it but then Id be close to my limits as far as my stock internals and transmission could handle.

For me it's the supercharger. Easier maintenance and instant power. Plus, that beautiful whine it makes.

I put a charger on a 2.4L VTEC Honda in my civic type r . I used a rotrex supercharger which worked really well with this screamer of an engine. The charge Temps were amazing and with a medium sized charger the engine made 500hp. Id also add that this car was a great daily driver.

Use both supercharger for low end and turbo for hi end power.

I’m blessed with a 6.2L LSA … so Supercharged all day for me. A relatively simple pulley size change and 18 psi of instant boost means the turbos are always in my rear view mirror.

There are ways to overcome turbo lag in dedicated drag usage. One is to use an external force to spool the turbo up at the line til the engine can build the RPM's and exhaust pressure. Another, and one that seems popular currently, is going to a ProCharger. Basically a Turbo but one that is spooled off the crank rather than exhaust. Exhaust is not free since exhaust pressure is robbing horsepower compared to a free flowing exhaust. Its all a game of pros and cons to find the correct balance.

Depends on the application you’re using it for then you can get a better answer. Both induction systems are great but they also got their downfalls too

thumbnail needs a separate video

This has always been a big discussion. Thanks for posting this ideal crew 👍😎👍

After building racing engines of both flavors I can say this: If you want to play on easy mode, just get a blower. If you want every last bit of power as efficiently as possible, and you don't mind extra challenge and complexity, get a turbo (system). Turbos, btw, arn't free either. They create backpressure that the engine has to work against, it's just much more efficient than a belt.

Not me who come here because of Sucker and blower 💀

The addage "no replacement for displacement" still applies, even with forced induction... More room, More air that can be forced.... There is a reason you dont see 5000hp 4 bangers...

I feel the instant power is a little under expressed here. To make a turbo system good for a big engine that truly makes sense to use over a supercharger is when you're trying to hit ridiculous horsepower numbers. We're talking about 1500+. For less money, less time, and a better feel, the supercharger always makes sense. Heck SS camaros and GT mustangs have companies still putting out super charger kits for under 6k installed and tuned that can get them 200+ horsepower with no other supporting parts or mods needed, that still get them the instant off the line power most of them are looking for. I think that's such a big selling point for those cars specifically. Very few people look at muscle cars and car about their top speed or even their horsepower rating. It's all about torque and getting off the line baby!

I think a turbo also robs power from the motor because it's clogging up the exhaust. I still like any forced induction.

Sucker & blower. The nicknames me and my friend had in school

also one difference is that superchargers have very linear power delivery since it runs parralel to your engine revs, while a turbocharger would have to build up and spool the turbo to kick in. i mean with anti-lag you pretty much cut off that delayed response it takes the engine to burn fuel and then get out the exhaust to then spool the engine. Or even sequential turbos that have a smaller turbo for lower RPMS and help the bigger turbo spool up and take over at higher RPMS. They both have their quirks and both sound amazing.

Well explained Trav! Covered the question impartially which I was not expecting TBH. Running a Audi TT RS 5 Cyl 2.5 Ltrs making over 400HP a Turbo does the job to get the AWD 6 Speed Manual to 62MPH in 3.7 Seconds so quick enough to loose my licence fast!

Turbos do consume power to drive. They create additional back-pressure while squeezing the exhaust through the nozzle and turbine sections. It takes less than a supercharger, but turbos still consume power.

I've only had a couple examples, but I had a supercharged old Oldsmobile that was a beast and it was so fun to drive, unless I was a really low on gas and then the whole car didn't want to go lol The Impreza I had with the turbo was a completely different experience and I 100% get why some people like them. I'm in the supercharger camp though since it just went when I hit the gas and instant gratification and all that