Whats up Guys, I'm here from SRTForums ( Sufiztic ) and have joined here to join you guys in Kicking some Ricer Azz! Especially those Pesky RSX-S!!! I Really like the New SS and hope to see some of you guys and some meets and on the Streets ;)

Here's a few Pixs of my 2003 SRT-4:

My Fiance with my Old 18's RO_JA Formula 5's
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4710

Current Pixs

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18265
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18284
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18291
http://www.srtforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18268

wow, it seems like there's more of us than SS owners on here!!!

wow, it seems like there's more of us than SS owners on here!!!

Which car has been out longer? Need i same more..


Nice pix

I so agree about demestics sticking together for change. it is about time we fight those ***** **** back for the whole Pearl Harbour thing !

Dude your name is "gay...is...ok" what the hell?!?!

for the love of it, not another Noen owner on here!!!
stay on your forum!

srts suck, there slow as balls. and the people that drive them are little girls

who the hell will own a neon with a turbo and a body kit

wow, just because the Cobalt SS is slower and more expensive then the SRT-4 , you guys rank on it? thats truly ashamed. Who the hell would want a Supercharged 2.0litre anyways? makes less torque then hp aswell. how pathetic. go read your paid off motor trend magazines some more

the SS badge doesnt even deserve to be put on that car. Chevy has gone overboard since they got rid of the f-bodies :mad:

Hey i like that SS and i dont mind less power and torque the car will be more reliable that a turboed engine. I know this because a turbo is very hard on a engine a supercharger is not that hard on an engine. That is why there are more supercharged engine's most turboed engine's will need new gaskets after a wile of driveing. And don't try and say that i am wrong my dad is a mechanic and he works on car all day long. And he knows alot about turbo's and superchargers.
And BTW i have seen superchared car's with well over 100,000 miles will very little problems. All it needed was a supercharger cone.

so what your telling me, is because daddy is a mechanic, you know that a turboed engine is less reliable? BS. superchargers have been around much longer, and they ise belts, which puts more strain on the engine if you ask me then a turbine

so what your telling me, is because daddy is a mechanic, you know that a turboed engine is less reliable? BS. superchargers have been around much longer, and they ise belts, which puts more strain on the engine if you ask me then a turbine

Think about when you put a turbo on a engine you are causeing alot of heat which puts alot of strain on a engine causeing alot of parts to wear out alot quicker. And yes he told me him self that a turbo is much more harmful to a engine than a supercharger. Think about it. How many tubroed engine's have you seen blown up? Me personaly alot.

Go to this site and read.
http://www.rcspoolers.com/turbo_vs_sc.htm

Think about when you put a turbo on a engine you are causeing alot of heat which puts alot of strain on a engine causeing alot of parts to wear out alot quicker. And yes he told me him self that a turbo is much more harmful to a engine than a supercharger. Think about it. How many tubroed engine's have you seen blown up? Me personaly alot.

wow... so because in your experience you have seen a lot of turbos kill cars i am to beleive they are worse? :eek: and tell me how a supercharger doesnt create the same amount of heat? Tell me know, why do you see A LOT more turboed cars then supercharged if they are so damn good? the Cobra.. wow..the cobalt.. the GT and some others. When people do aftermarket work they usually either twin turbo or turbo their cars besides minor things

My GTP has over 105k miles on it and the only problem I've ever had was with one of the pullies seizing up. After driving this car, I don't think I want anything that isn't s/c. No turbo-lag, and an extremely responsive throttle convinced me of that.

one question... how do you all stand that annoying winding noise made by the S/C'ers? i couldnt bear it

Because alot of people use turbo's because they are much easier to get higher hp but you pay with lag and look how many drag cars use a supercharger(blowers) and only now you are seeing more turbos but they are on 4 cylinder engines.

Well the noise is not anoying to me.
BTW Sorry for getting so heated but i hate people telling me that i am wrong when if you do some resarch you will come to find out that supercharger's are much more reliable. And once again sorry and no bad felling twards you. :)

and only now you are seeing more turbos but they are on 4 cylinder engines.

not true, i have seen TONS of turbo camaros/mustangs/firebirds/vettes, so forth

not true, i have seen TONS of turbo camaros/mustangs/firebirds/vettes, so forth

You are right but still there are more that have blowers.

S/c on a 4 cyl = gettin owned by turbo boost....

Lag is necessary to get a good hole shot on a FWD making 20+ psi... so my lag will cut a nice sub 2.0 short on the 1/4 while your still sittin there doing a nice john force style burnout.... lol

LOL but when you turbo is lagging i am gaining speed. :D :p

Which car has been out longer? Need i same more..


Nice pix

Thanks Bro... Damn why we fighting over S/C and Turbo 4cyl American Cars?We should talk about our strong points and weak points and not bash each other!!!! Bash on Imports!!! We're Domestics and need to stick together!!! But if I had to pick between S/C and Turbo, Turbo all the way... The S/C has quick response, but when the Turbo Hits, it Hits hard :D Plus My SRT has hardly any lag what so ever, it hits instantly :eek:

both cars have a strentgth and weakness. im glad i have my ss and my 500 whp srt-4 because i enjoy somethings about one and some from the other. either way its cool to see another american company ghetting on the ball.

Thanks Bro... Damn why we fighting over S/C and Turbo 4cyl American Cars?We should talk about our strong points and weak points and not bash each other!!!! Bash on Imports!!! We're Domestics and need to stick together!!! But if I had to pick between S/C and Turbo, Turbo all the way... The S/C has quick response, but when the Turbo Hits, it Hits hard :D Plus My SRT has hardly any lag what so ever, it hits instantly :eek:

No fighting at all dude, you just stated that there are more SRT-4 owners on this forum then there are Cobalt SS. Besides i live in the northwest, ive only seen Cobalt LS's n shit. I WANT MY SS :mad:

Oh yes and, down with rice burners

LOL we need to start takeing ricers down a notch they are getting out of control. :)

O and for all of you people who own turboed cars here is a funny avatar if you want it.

87Camaro, I am with you all the way!!! Lets start modding these cars and take back the streets from those annoying slant-eyed JAP cars! As for my two cents, i dont care which car makes more power/torque, i will pick a Chevy over Mopar allday, everyday!! On the same hand, i have a few friends with SRT's and I have respect for their cars (a lot more than i would for any import) and what they have done to them. Just my two cents :)

Kicking some Ricer Azz!
:rolleyes: Very backwoods, if it wasn't for "ricers" there wouldn't be a domestic sport compact market.
I so agree about demestics sticking together for change. it is about time we fight those ***** **** back for the whole Pearl Harbour thing ! A little late, and a little unforgiving,and a lot ignorant, and it's spell "domestic"We're Domestics and need to stick together!!!
That I can respect, if that's how you feel, go for it. Keep in mind that most of our domestic companies these days are very intertwined with those dam furren car companies(ex. Mitsu/Chrysler/Dodge, Chevy/Suzuki...etc)..as well as the fact that there is a Honda plant in Ohio, a Subaru plant in Indiana, a Toyota plant in Kentucky..it's all part of the "Global Village"
Lets start modding these cars and take back the streets from those annoying slant-eyed JAP cars!
This is just straight up Nazi/ kkk. Most forums would have you banned for such ignorance. :eek:

It's cool to have a little rivalry, and competition doesn't hurt anyone. I could walk out the door right now and buy an RSX-s, an SRT4, a Cobalt SS, an EVO8, a BMW M3 (I wish), and so on...but when it comes down to it, I'm still the same car geek behind the wheel, no matter which I drive. I love all things 4 cylinder and forced induction. The car you are in doesn't magically transform you into another being, although some ppl migh have you think so. Oh wait, I think my eyes are starting to slant... :rolleyes:

S/C is responsive but inefficent. Effeciency is what kills engine life. All that heat being driven off a belt is not going to yeild better gains than that using spent waste gases. Let's not even get into power potential and ease of that in which we all desire...HP/TQ.

Have fun.

S/C is responsive but inefficent. Effeciency is what kills engine life.
Did you mean to say Inefficiency? Or maybe I don't get what you're saying. But I agree with the fact about it being inefficient. It's the old argument. The s/c is instant, but it has heavy parasitic losses from being belt driven. That's why is makes more sense to me to put them on high torque engines. The turbo has lag, but has way more potential in the mid to top range. The technology for both has come a long way though in just the last few years. It just seems to depend on where you want your power band.

Did you mean to say Inefficiency?


Same difference. ;)

Just said Effeciency as a root word. But yes.....inefficient production will not only kill the unit but pump the car full of hot WASTEFULL air. Actually KILLING performance.

SoloCam...actually, superchargers are most popular on cobra's. I rarely come across turbo mustangs (at least on the street).

But alot of the serious guys are T/C thier cobras now. Making some good power.

By T/C do you mean Turbo or Twin charged? Never seen a twincharged Cobra, that would be pretty sweet!

Prolly was saying turbo charged. I've seen a twin turbo'd Mustang GT...man that thing lit 'em up. I think it was running low 11's, maybe even faster but I can remember for sure......and it was streetable.

Think about when you put a turbo on a engine you are causeing alot of heat which puts alot of strain on a engine causeing alot of parts to wear out alot quicker. And yes he told me him self that a turbo is much more harmful to a engine than a supercharger. Think about it. How many tubroed engine's have you seen blown up? Me personaly alot.

Go to this site and read.
http://www.rcspoolers.com/turbo_vs_sc.htm


If that isn't a biased one-sided link, then I don't know what is :cool:

Lets examine it shall we?

Heat
Because the turbocharger is mounted to the exhaust manifold (which is very hot), turbocharger boost is subject to additional heating via the turbos hot casing. Because hot air expands (the opposite goal of a turbo or supercharger), an intercooler becomes necessary on almost all turbocharged applications to cool the air charge before it is released into the engine. This increases the complexity of the installation. A centrifugal supercharger on the other hand creates a cooler air discharge, so an intercooler is often not necessary at boost levels below 10psi. That said, some superchargers (especially roots-type superchargers) create hotter discharge temperatures, which also make an intercooler necessary even on fairly low-boost applications.

Ok, where to even start on that one... here's a tidbit:

Forced induction compresses air, and as a law of physics the temperature of the air increases as a direct counterpart to its compression. A lot of engineering goes into trying to compensate for this fact in supercharging and turbocharging design.

The word "adiabatic" describes a process in which no heat is gained or lost - 100% adiabatic efficiency would be the perfect forced induction device, creating no heat gain whatsoever, probably impossible to achieve ever. And the closest anyone can come yet is around 80% efficiency.

The problem with heat is it defeats the original purpose - the hotter the air, the lower the density possible, and the extra power comes from dense air. Another problem from heat is ignition - the hotter the inlet air, the more tendency the engine will have towards detonation and pre-ignition (knock and ping), which damages the engine, besides diminishing performance. Drivers of blown vehicles tend to keep an eye on the temperature gauge.

The goal of efficient charging is to compress the air and to keep it cool, for maximum power. The cooler the intake charge, the denser the air and the more horsepower produced.

The greater the adiabatic efficiency with which a supercharger compresses air, the less the heat that gets added to the intake manifold. Efficiency is measured by the discharge air temperature at a given pressure. For 6 pounds of boost, a supercharger with intake air temperature of 185 degrees is more efficient than another at 190 degrees. Boost itself is only the measure of pressure the intake air is under, not an indication of the power produced as horsepower.

Which has greatest adiabatic efficiency
The Roots blower has the lowest adiabatic efficiency of all the forced induction designs (including the turbocharger, which has to start off with hot exhaust gases to deal with) - generally around 50 percent. The roots type is so inefficient because it doesn't compress the air directly, but delivers uncompressed air which wells into the intake manifold, becoming more compressed, but with additional heat gain from the turbulence and reverse flows of air mixing. Centrifugal superchargers can vary from 60% up to perhaps approaching 80% efficiency, as can turbochargers; both are more efficient at higher rpm, which is another way of calling them more inefficient at lower rpm. The twin screw supercharger normally delivers lower output temperatures, for adiabatic efficiencies of 70-80% across the whole rpm range.

Cooling the air before it goes into the engine has a major effect on performance. Intercoolers are the physical means of cooling the compressed air, radiator-like systems using air or water for cooling. Inter cooling reduces temperature, but reduces boost (pressure) too because of flow restriction as the air circulates through cooling, and also as a direct result of the temperature change itself - again that law of physics. But the net result is compressed (dense) air at a cooler temperature. Cooler air at lower boost will give more power than hotter air at higher boost, because cooler air can be denser than hotter air no matter how much boost you throw at it. Drag racers often use cold water and ice in the intercooler for tremendous power over the short term.

Intercoolers come as air cooled systems and as water cooled systems. Very often the efficiencies of modern chargers permit running without an intercooler especially in street or OEM applications, but for performance uses, in general optimal performance comes from intercooling.

Surge
Because a turbocharger first spools up before the boost is delivered to the engine, there is a surge of power that is delivered immediately when the wastegate opens (around 3000 rpm). This surge can be damaging to the engine and drivetrain, and can make the vehicle difficult to drive or lose traction.

So traction isn't an issue with SC cars too? Could of fooled me. So one form of boost isn't a parsitic as another form of boost? Hah. The engine is seeing just that "boost".

Reliability
In general, superchargers enjoy a substantial reliability advantage over the turbocharger. When a turbo is shut off (i.e. when the engine is turned off), residual oil inside the turbos bearings can be baked by stored engine heat. This, combined with the turbos extremely high rpms (up to 150,000rpm) can cause problems with the turbos internal bearings and can shorten the life of the turbocharger. In addition, many turbos require aftermarket exhaust manifolds, which are often far less reliable than stock manifolds.

Simple fix, turbo timer. Allows the engine and turbo to cool down prior to the motor shutting itself off. Ingenious idea huh...wow a timed relay lol. Rebuilding a turbo is far more cheaper than rebuilding a SC I would hope.

Ease of Installation
Superchargers are substantially easier to install than a turbos because they have far fewer components and simpler devices. Turbos are complex and require manifold and exhaust modifications, intercoolers, extra oil lines, etc. - most of which is not needed with most superchargers. A novice home mechanic can easily install most supercharger systems, while a turbo installation should be left to a turbo expert.

Turbo hard to install? Pfft, maybe for a toddler. Its nothing more than a illaborate header install with some minimal plumbing. No biggy. If you can't "install" a turbo system, you have NO business working on your car in the first place. PERIOD!

Tunability
Turbochargers, because they are so complex and rely on exhaust pressure, are notoriously difficult to tune. Superchargers, on the other hand, require few fuel and ignition upgrades and normally require little or no engine tuning.

What kind of BS is that lol? You can "tune" a turbo very easily by WGA and boost controllers. Who the hell said you can't tune a turbo lol? Tuning on a SC...hmm...a pulley for more boost...rocket science and adjustability right? Nope.

Point is, there will ALWAYS be the infamous turbo vs supercharger debate. Its been going around in circles ever since they have been produced and always will go in circles. But I'm sorry, some of the info in that link was so damn narrow-minded that is was hilarious to read. Its like someone made some of that info right out from observation with NO resourcing or research at all. Very disappointed in that link to say the least.

There is a time and a place for one or the other depending on applcation... and in some cases.... both :D

I'm seriously toying with the idea of twinchargin one.

Im either gonna do one of two things:
1) Twincharge an 06 Cobalt SS
2) Or buy an 02 Camaro SS... not sure on any plans for that car, just always been my dream car... But if I get the Cobalt then it'll definitely be twincharged!

Ok I am a SRT owner and I love my car. Lets not get into a Forum war over this. The Cobalt has lots of great things to offer. Plus Chevy was missing out on a TON of money by not having a car out there for the HUGE tuner market. Any way I thought I would just throw my 2 cents in.

There is a time and a place for one or the other depending on applcation... and in some cases.... both
I didn't think there really was a case for both...turns out I was wrong. Here is a link to a supercharged and turbo charged STi. Sorry, it's not a domestic but still worth checking out.

http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=761289

Talk about the best of both worlds. It must be nice to have $$$$$ to throw around for the hell of it. Now they just need to use some of the $$ to kill that paint/decal job.

Whoa sick, that Twincharged STI is hott. I want one :)

Wow that is bad! I actually wanted an STi a while back, would still like to have one but dont wanna pay that much.

The link in question doesn't seem bias to me.
http://www.rcspoolers.com/turbo_vs_sc.htm

In your response to the heat issue you state roots superchargers create more heat in the charge temp than a turbo. The guy says that in the last line of his section on heat. So what you are arguing is what the guy said.


That said, some superchargers (especially roots-type superchargers) create hotter discharge temperatures, which also make an intercooler necessary even on fairly low-boost applications.


The second topic you address is surge. You say superchargers have trouble with traction too. Well thats not what the link addresses specifically, it addresses surge. Once the turbo overcomes the initial lag the addt. power can cause an unexpected loss of traction. I would argue it's something that can be anticipated for and overcome, but you really are getting upset over nothing again. Are you arguing turbos don't have surge?

The third topic you address is reliability. If you have parts with extremely high temps like a turbo and higher operating speeds your are going to have more wear on that item. Maybe you can yes higher quality parts to help curb that issue, but you can't solve it completely.


Rebuilding a turbo is far more cheaper than rebuilding a SC I would hope.


I think the point is you don't have to rebuild superchargers. To help overcome the high heat of a turbo you use a turbo timer, good idea :) It's just something you need in your setup. It adds to the complexity of the setup which lead to the next topic.

Your forth topic is ease of install. There is no question that a supercharger is easier to install. You don't have to touch the exhaust manifold. The turbo requires 4 sets of air ducts, exhaust manifold to the turbo, turbo to the exhaust system, air inlet, air outlet. A supercharger needs air inlet, air outlet and a source of mechanical power. At the very least there is one less hook that needs to be made. You also have turbo timers, wastegates, BOV, oil lines, ect. Supercharger doesn't have any of that. So it requires less setup.

I won't ever address intercoolers. Turbo's almost always need them and superchargers, sometimes do, depending on boost, type of supercharger, ect.

The last topic you address is tunability and you pretty much make the arguement for me.


What kind of BS is that lol? You can "tune" a turbo very easily by WGA and boost controllers. Who the hell said you can't tune a turbo lol? Tuning on a SC...hmm...a pulley for more boost...rocket science and adjustability right? Nope.


They link says that turbos require more tuning and you make that arguement by stating all it requires is a WGA and boost controller, well superchargers don't have those. So again the link is correct.

Sorry bro but it seems like you are going nuts over an article thats pretty strait forward with the facts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...what schumuck would buy a car with a huge wing on the back...???...

Oh..me.

:D

Does it really matter who drives what??

Wow that is bad! I actually wanted an STi a while back, would still like to have one but dont wanna pay that much.

I'm with you there. After making payments - and insurance on top of that - there would be no money for modifications..and what fun would that be!?!? I don't know how some people do it....