Supercharged vs. Naturally Aspirated

[Mike_W]

I was looking at one of the vendor's websites tonight, and I noticed the S/C was $7495, while the naturally aspirated beefed up motor was $16k. I am guessing that the S/C puts out just as much if not more HP. So what is the benefit of spending 2 times the amount on a naturally aspirated motor when you can just get a supercharger? I am thinking of doing one or the other right now. Is it because you can get the beefed up motor, and later get the S/C for even more power? Thanks

Mike

 

[Buckeye Viper]

Hey buddy!

Naturally aspirated beefed up motor is 16k? From who?

 

[Mike_W]

http://www.westcoastviper.com

go to the engine packages page.

Mike

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

I am guessing that the S/C puts out just as much if not more HP.

Not necessarily.

At $7495 I'm guessing you're talking about the Roe supercharger. Benefits would be you could bolt on 100hp in a weekend . Downside would probably be an increase in heat, doing the work yourself, maintenance and the addition of an added component to the motor which to me means another component to work on and around.

N/A at that price has got to mean head work at the very least and probably pulling the whole motor and fitting with a new cam and possibly pistons, bearings, etc. Labor cost probably make up half the price. Actually 16K sounds fair to me depending on the HP and work performed. The big boys like Caldwell charge twice that, but then they built the Viper motors that whooped everyone's *** at LeManns, Daytona, Sebring, etc.

Hope this helps.

 

[Silver Snake]

I believe there is a longevity issue with forced induction. Otherwise, it cost more than an S/C because there is a lot more work involved with building a "beefed up" motor. An S/C is pretty much just a bolt on.

Mark

 

[Viperfreak2]

The RSI 'all engine' package in this months Car and Driver is about $24K. Heads, cam, exhaust etc. reported 690 hp.

What's cool about a package like that, is you could then add your $7K supercharger and turn really good HP numbers.

 

[Paul Hawker]

Four different world for different power adders.
NOS= Lots of bang for the buck, but you gotta keep filling the bottle.
Turbo= Quiet operation. Exhaust even quiets down. Lots of HP, but lots of heat and throttle lag.
Supercharger=Lots of HP. Lots of heat and noise. You can hear the whine although many people like the sound. Throttle response issues. More maintenance, and extra weight.
Built motor. Wonderful for road racing, but don't go to far or you will have reliability issues. Wonderful testosterone sounds. Cool idle, and shakie feeling.
You gotta know what you are trying to accomplish before going down the road. Trying to get the most HP for the buck often leads to frustration.

 

[Fast Freddy]

when was the last time you ever saw a supercharged car on the pole for a winston cup race or a lemans race or a f1 race or any other road race for that matter. superchargers are great for going in a straight line but throw a few curves in the road and i will take n/a power all day long. that is what i bought my viper for > road racing and therefore the last thing i will ever due to my viper is put a supercharger on it. my lightning truck has a supercharger on it because i would never try to road race my truck. i bought my truck for drag racing.

 

[joe117]

Most N/A mods give more power at the higher rpm end and cost you some hp at the lower end. Use of the high rpm hp often strains things, requiring beefed up components.
Streetability often becomes a problem.

In a car like a Viper, you need to be an experienced road racer before you can take much advantage of any power mods.

 

[MaxedGTS]

Long ago i remember my search for mods to do for my viper. At the time i would only consider LPE to go the N/A route but they were twice the cost and half the horsepower. i took the risk and went sc and thank god i did.The power is just right for me and ive never had a N/A car pull on me.
so far anyway

 

[Viperzilla]

when was the last time you ever saw a supercharged car on the pole for a winston cup race or a lemans race or a f1 race or any other road race for that matter. superchargers are great for going in a straight line but throw a few curves in the road and i will take n/a power all day long.

When was the last time you ever saw any supercharged car* in any race (not just pole) for NASCAR or F1???
*I think you need to add to your post that superchargers aren't allowed in NASlowCAR or F1!

They do have cars with turbochargers in Le Mans and I've heard/read they have worse lag than supercharging (I know they've gotten better since the dreaded Porches of years past). As well as turbocharged cars needing high RPM clutch drops for best 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. I also think turbocharging has had more research going into it, and that's why they're more often used in racing, and production cars. Comparing what comes from the factory: 9 production cars are supercharged cars compared to 19 turbo'd from the factory. (Source- Road & Track Road Test Summary)
That comparison was just to show why turbocharging may be more widely used for Le Mans and ALMS.

I think supercharging would be fine for road racing though. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[joe117]

There were a number of German supercharged cars involved in world class road racing just before WW2.
That was a very long time ago but it does show that it was done.

I believe turbo is easier to do than sc. No drive belts or gears. More flexibility in location. The turbo unit itself is probably cheaper.

 

[Torquemonster]

Choice comes down to preference and how you like your power served.

There's no reliability issues on a properly sorted SC package, and a well built all motor V10 should last fine if treated right.

For all out road racing there are serious issues for a SC car, but that does not impact on their suitability for street driving or drag racing.

There should be no "throttle lag" on a turbo - the "lag" is the time between it acts like a normal 488 cubic inch V10 and when boost takes it to much higher levels of power. Once the engine is spinning quickly and loaded - spool up times are very quick for most applications. For road racing - the transition from no boost to full boost can be hard to control coming out of a turn - and that gets called "lag".

If the motor can deliver good power off boost - then road racing could be quite practical with turbos. The old 2 liter Cosworth turbo were one of the most sucessful racing engines ever - but they were mongrels to control because they were all or nothing.

In fact the "all or nothing" turbo reputation is based upon mainly small engines that have nothing off boost and so people jump to conclusions.

Jet Sprint boats went off them because someone spent huge money trying to perfect a 4.5 liter Nissan V8 twin turbo and found that it lost time getting to full power after coming off the gas.. but had they used an alloy 500 cubic inch engine - that transition might have actually been helpful.

 

[Fast Freddy]

i said superchargers! not turbochargers. superchargers and turbochargers are two different devices. again, superchargers are for drag racing. as far as turbochargers are concerned i agree they work great for road racing. that is why my old road race car had a turbo on it and i used it very effectively on various road courses in arizona back in the 1990's.

 

[Torquemonster]

Agreed Fast Freddy - I just brought up the turbos to correct the post talking about "lag" - it isn't throttle lag - in fact a turbo car can be very responsive - it just won't go to full boost instantly from low rpm.

 

[Martin D]

I am quite happy with the power and reliability that my N/A car has....add a big ol shot of gas and ........ WHO'S your daddy!

Regards,

 

[JimDavis MT 97GTS 650R]

I am quite happy with the power and reliability that my N/A car has....add a big ol shot of gas and ........ WHO'S your daddy!

Regards,

Hay Martin, how many miles you got on that motor now? 53K here, and still pulling strong. (JD)

 

[Martin D]

Well, I have 57K....But I have a new crank, rods, pistons, cam, etc.... I went with the 510 package for MORE POWER! I am in the process of working out the fuel issues and will then redo the NX kit for 2 bottles and the 300 shot.

I love this car.

Regards,

 

[Vipera Russelli]

From a Vette board:

"Driveability is the biggest part IMO in N/A vs FI.
A supercharged/turbo car drives like stock untill the boost hits.
A N/A car tends to drive a little harsher but some people can deal with that.
A FI car has to wait for boost.
A N/A car doesn't need boost to make power.
A N/A car tends to break valve train components more often than a FI car.
A good FI setup can deliver massive power safely.
A N/A car with 500rwhp tends to be a lot faster than a 500rwhp FI car.
A FI car is more popular or cooler to the general public then a N/A car. (Most people seem to think if it doesn't have a turbo or S/C its not fast, especially the import guys)
A N/A car doesn't require a built bottom end.
A FI car must replace the stock bottom end if they want more than 7-9psi of boost.
A N/A car is loud with a big cam and ported heads.
A FI car can sound almost stock till you really get on it.

If i could have a 550rwhp N/A car or a 550rwhp FI car, I would take the N/A car."

 

[JimT 99RT]

If you like street driving and don't spend much time on a road race course the S/C is just plain fun. Lots of power everywhere, great seat of the pants feeling, and the easiest way to get to 600hpr at the rear wheels.