I see, so for what I am seeing is that a turbo is a little bit if not more suffiecient in making horsepower for a vehicle. But I also read that the Radix claims that it only uses about a 1/3 hp to power S/C, which at the end it amounts to nothing compared to the HP that it is making in return.

Also say if you get a turbo, is it always best to try to get a specific turbo for a specific application. What I mean is that say if you want to add 100 hp more or less on an engine a 60-1 turbo would be suffecient for that application in "general". But if you want more power you need a bigger turbo. So if you get a big turbo first but you are only able to run a low boost becuase "financial issues, buying injectors, intercoolers" would it hurt you at first. Can you run a big turbo if you are only intending to make a little bit of power first because of the current application.

I hope I made sense .

 

What I meant by boost is boost pretty much is 4psi from a blower is going to make near the same power as 4psi from a turbo as long as it is the same temp.... for the most part. Ive read that turbos consistantly make more torque than S/C.
You will get no arguement from me that turbos are the better method of FI.
One thing that always got me was that since the turbo relies on hot exhaust gasses to spin the turbine impellar thing and obviously heats up quite a bit in the process, wouldnt it stand to reason that the intake air from a turbo would be hotter even with a comparable intercooler? I mean hot air only looses so much temp while in the intercooler, so wouldnt it stand to reason that it would still be hotter?

 

^^^ yeah that what i would think too. Also I heard that a turbo needs to be hot to make good power, what is all that about, is it true?

 

The exhaust gases spool the turbo - which by default creates heat. So you put a FMIC (front mount intercooler) in to lower the IAT's. All FI perform better at the coolest temps possible.
A turbo will come in at almost full boost by 3,500 rpm's and maintain that boost to redline, also creating nice torque gains. At the same PSI a S/C will create HP as the RPM's increase. Eventually making nice HP gains but not having quite as much torque or as high of HP ave. This is a very generic comparison and many factors are not being considered. Many like the attributes of the slow but steady increase in power that a S/C gives. Traction can be handled better. Others like the hit of a turbo.

If you are building a 100 hp truck. Get the smaller turbo - fuel pump - super unleaded fuel - and run 5-6 psi all day (S/C or Turbo)

If there is ever the chance you will want more HP then I would just start with the larger turbo. The only draw back is it will have more turbo lag. It will take the exhaust gases longer to spool a larger turbo than a smaller one. To jump the psi up over the 10 range requires injectors - methanol kit - rod bolts - tranny upgrade (maybe rear-end as well).

Over 15 psi then you should forge the bottom-end and expect things to break anyways. Suspension, tranny, rear-end, traction issues, possibly even the engine.

 

If your looking for a trouble free set up, the Radix can't be beat, at least not as of today.
There are alot of things to consider when turbo boosting, alot of the positives were mentioned above, some of the negatives are lag, long term dependability, heat, & complexity. I'm not sold on the STS setup (mainly due to location). STS has managed to make a decent setup while excluding the I/C (also due to location). For a street setup, IMO, you need I/C or equivalent.
Historical Facts: Turbos are not as reliable as superchargers. Turbos require more maintenance. Turbos are more complex. Turbos have Lag. Plain and simple, these are the facts.
Now, that said, If your looking to make 12PSI and above, and Turbo or Centifugal SC can do that quite well. Note, the Centrifugal will still be more reliable than its equivelant Turbocharger. Each setup will have its associated requirements to make running that setup NON-destructive Parish has done much in this area for the Turbo, and in addition, any Turbo forum can help you out, generally, in that respect.
Personally, believe it or not, I like them all. I definetly sway the way of the SC, but the Turbocharger is awesome as well.
Good luck if your trying to decide what to do

 

Boost is boost,but the supercharger imposes a load on the engine to generate that boost.The load generated by the superharger generates heat and hp losses not associated with a turbo.At the same boost as turbo a supercharger must overcome the losses,so while they both produce the same power at the same boost the net power of the supercharged motor is minus the parasidic losses required to drive the supercharger.

 

I think the website meant that when not boosting, the radix has only 1/3 hp of parasitic drag thanks to a bypass valve. It definatly takes more than 1/3 hp to spin the blower at 14,000+ rpm.

Moregrip can you please explain how superchargers are more reliable, require less maintainance and are less complex? I thought a turbo was pretty simple, just two turbines stuck together. I know on superchargers you have to worry about belts as well as changing the oil and blade seal wear on some models. No one has really talked about this maintainance stuff. good thread!

oh yeah 5lbs of radix boost has a warranty and a cool CARB #

 

Quickly, before I eat, a turbochargers main enemy is the heat it produces. Bearings are a maintenance item on Turbos. I have posted MUCH info w/ links on this in the past, specifically on the STS vs something thread, I'll give that thread a bump, go eat lunch, and come back to this

 

Tubochargers are constantly heated red hot and exposed to particals in the exhaust,while having to spin to extremely high revs.Tubos don't live an easy life.

 

I think this is an old wise tale. Yea the first few generations of turbos did have some issues but they seem to have been resolved for the most part. I have seem less failed turbos than I have seen turbos with 100+ thousand miles on them.