Nope. A turbo hits the mid range, almost like hitting nitrous, but holds it for a couple thousand rpms. A supercharger starts building as soon as the throttle opens, so its not holding as much psi. Its just a constant flow.

 

I still prefer a supercharger. I haven't driven a turbo car, but i like the idea of my boost being there at all times compared to waiting then turbo lag.
I'm sure bonestock can give a better explanation. He seems more knowledgeable about turbod than I am.

 

Well, with a turbo, there isn't the parasitic losses from turning the rotors in the blower(as much as 2-300hp on top fuel dragsters), so there is a gain there...

With a turbo, (or a centrifugal supercharger) you also have the freedom to run a big air-to-air intercooler on the front of the car, which will massively drop your IATs compared to our roots blowers... Instead of being 150+ degrees, they will be close to ambient temp, which was 65* today... That means that the tuner can dial more timing advance into the engine without getting preignition/spark knock, and this(along with the lack of parasitic loss due to the turbo being driven by waste gases) means more power, and better fuel economy...

However, there is a drawback... Since the turbo is driven by exhaust gas, it takes it a little while to spool up and start making boost, and if you got a small turbo, you will find yourself running out of boost on the top end... Take our old Chevy Cruze for example(we traded it today), it had a 1.4 liter engine, so it required a small-ish turbo... The one they used, however, delivered lackluster performance... It didn't spool until about 3500 RPM, and it was small enough that it ran out of steam after 5500 RPM... Made for a narrow powerband, and they compensated with gearing... It shifted three times before it hit 60, and above 60 so so, punch it and there's nobody home... It would hold speed in the interstate, but that's all... No spirited acceleration...

 

yeah, pretty much every new 4cyl out there these days is a 4 cyl + turbo.
Take our '14 Escape. They build the engine the same size as an S car or Ion and turbo it up at the factory all neat and pretty with the kinks worked out and the software to control it integrated into the PCM/ECM/ECU/PMU/GFU whatever you wanna call it.
_________
Imagine if Saturn had tried that with an S car in the 90's........stock.......BEFORE GM stepped in and dictated Saturn's death. No, the other advances in materials and fuel management were not there yet, but a SC2 Redline maybe pullin 220 wHP straight off the lot?
__________
The Ion and Sky Redlines were/are sweet -- they were just TOO LATE to save Saturn....GM didn't want to anyway. Too much customer loyalty. All those nagging customers wanting car after car......
____________
So people get better gas mileage driving heavier vehicles with undersized engines with low gearing (i presume), then when you need it, there's an overhand right hiding under the hood that allows you to safely blast your way out of a dangerous situation --IF the turbo lag is short enough.....actually not too bad on the Escape.

2014 was the last year you could get the larger 2.0L 4cyl w/o having to buy the top of the line trim package that comes with a wireless toaster (dual band), 3 virtual cup holders (all for the kids), and a pair of knitting needles for grandma to stab little Johnny's eyes out with when he misbehaves.

I do await bones' response as we both know it will be a good one.

I've always known that turbos give you the push in a more narrow rpm band, which is why I can't figure out why, given the choice, you'd pull a SC off a motor to replace it with something that only gives you useable boost in a much narrower range.

I suppose it ultimately depends on what you want the car to do

 

That's true, most new cars have a small, turbocharged engine that provides the power...(our Subaru doesn't, it's a normally aspirated engine) I have a split opinion about that..

Yes, with a turbo you can have respectable power for the segment type(or way more), and it will achieve better EPA fuel mileage for having the smaller engine, but sometimes they make the engine too small, in my opinion... Take GM for example...

The Cruze we were driving, had 138hp/140tq and weighed 3100lb... Sounds competent(my 95 Taurus had 140hp/3100lb), but the thing about using the small turbo engine for fuel efficiency, is that the smaller engine has to work harder against the weight of the vehicle than a larger engine would with its better low end torque, the turbo aside... This means that the car is almost constantly on boost just trying to climb a small hill, etc, which eats fuel... I think that the 1.6T that was used in the global version of the Cruze would have made a better engine... I mean, our L61 Saturns are getting 33-36mpg(in 2004), but a new Cruze only manages 29, in the same driving loop?

As for a factory turbo S-car, it would be nice... I figure it woulda made closer to 180hp(90s technology), but still woulda been silly quick, given its 2300# curb weight, and probably would have gotten even better fuel mileage, because the engine, without boost, was competent to carry the car in 80% of situations, and the turbo would help with the 20% without eating too much fuel when you weren't romping on it...

... And I will say, that not every turbo setup is so compromised as in that Cruze... From the factory, they have to compromise performance for emissions BS, so they ended up with a small turbo, and more restrictive downpipe to improve catalyst warm up times... Just doing a downpipe by itself is supposedly a big upgrade for the Cruze, helps immensely with spooling up... The kits from ZZP, OTTP, etc are not designed for emissions compliance, but for performance, and the turbos are sized for power output... They say that the smaller turbo spools around 3k, and pulls like mad to 7k(although I can mash it at 2200 RPM in my redline and have 8-10# boost)

That, and some car companies build better factory turbo systems than GM does, just look at the 3.5 EcoBoost... Peak torque(in the Taurus) from 1500 to 5000... That's a pretty broad torque curve, if you're asking me...

 

So, all turbo talk aside, I got my ZZP 1.0 PCM, and installed it today... HOLY S**T! What a difference! Now, it still drives good(needs a CASE learn), seems to be easier on fuel(according to UltraGauge), but it ABSOLUTELY FRIGGIN FLIES! I haven't checked fuel trims, but there is way more timing advance(other than at idle)from what I seen during the short time I was able to look down... There doesn't seem to be quite as much vacuum at idle, and it's running retarded timing(0.5deg), but it idles pretty well... Once again, HOLY S**T!

On a related note, I think I may have pissed my neighbor off, when I first opened it up onto the straight in front of my moms house(he is her neighbor), it built speed way faster than I was anticipating, and I ended up going past his house at nearly 90...with him on his lawn shouting and pointing at the road... Whoops...

 

Glad to hear! Now get that 60-120 pull video posted!

 

I don't have any reliable way to capture video of the speedo... I could get a videographer to ride along for a 20-80 pull or something like that... I still need to get the ZZP intake on though, before doing anything too crazy... The high IATs(been in the 120-130* range all day) and the increased timing advance could spell disaster if I don't watch myself... So far the only code is the P0315 though, and it doesn't small like it's running nearly as rich...

It absolutely will fry its tires in first though... Not sure how much boost I'm getting(I asked for 50%), but it feels pretty nasty...

 

Your gauge doesnt read boost?

 

Congrats one being one huge step closer to your goal!!