ISF twin turbo conversion or supercharger conversion

[A's F-word]

Hey all I know there has been many arguments regarding this topic but things have moved along since the first test pilots. With at least a 5k price difference... lag is dependant on the size of the turbo but only 200 rpm or so... yes true supercharger is more instant power but turbo is less invasive to the engine and being recommended by a few tuners especially due to there being no heat related issues or blow off valve requirement. What's the people in the know opinions?

[Jgtcracer]

8 hours ago, A's F-word said:

Hey all I know there has been many arguments regarding this topic but things have moved along since the first test pilots. With at least a 5k price difference... lag is dependant on the size of the turbo but only 200 rpm or so... yes true supercharger is more instant power but turbo is less invasive to the engine and being recommended by a few tuners especially due to there being no heat related issues or blow off valve requirement. What's the people in the know opinions?

I don't know the specifics of the ISF conversions but generally I would think you would have more heat issues compared to a supercharger due to increases in boost temps and because it's driven by exhaust gases.  Turbos generally need oil/coolant supply also and they will add heat to the respective systems.

With regard to a blow off valve, you will either need a dump valve to atmosphere or a recirculating type but without either then compressor stall can occur when coming off throttle.  This increases wear on the turbo.

Superchargers tend to run lower boost that turbo set ups so may be a little more gentle.  Similarly, the install can be a little less complicated to complete.  Running higher boost tends to need a change of compression and block work which isn't needed for the supercharged route initially.

We all know you can get 600bhp+ from supercharger set up so can't see you needing much more than that.  Added to the fact it's proven reliable then your can't go wrong.  The 420bhp the car already has is more than enough for me where I live, any more is a waste.  A guy I that lives near me had a C63 with around 500bhp and he can't catch me on the back roads as he just wheel spins.

All just my opinion obviously but I bet you bust the car somehow if you try to turbo.

Marcus

[Flytvr]

46 minutes ago, Jgtcracer said:

The 420bhp the car already has is more than enough for me where I live, any more is a waste.

Each to their own, but this is exactly how I feel 

[A's F-word]

7 hours ago, Jgtcracer said:

I don't know the specifics of the ISF conversions but generally I would think you would have more heat issues compared to a supercharger due to increases in boost temps and because it's driven by exhaust gases.  Turbos generally need oil/coolant supply also and they will add heat to the respective systems.

With regard to a blow off valve, you will either need a dump valve to atmosphere or a recirculating type but without either then compressor stall can occur when coming off throttle.  This increases wear on the turbo.

Superchargers tend to run lower boost that turbo set ups so may be a little more gentle.  Similarly, the install can be a little less complicated to complete.  Running higher boost tends to need a change of compression and block work which isn't needed for the supercharged route initially.

We all know you can get 600bhp+ from supercharger set up so can't see you needing much more than that.  Added to the fact it's proven reliable then your can't go wrong.  The 420bhp the car already has is more than enough for me where I live, any more is a waste.  A guy I that lives near me had a C63 with around 500bhp and he can't catch me on the back roads as he just wheel spins.

All just my opinion obviously but I bet you bust the car somehow if you try to turbo.

Marcus

Hello mate

A rear mounted turbo setup has no heat issues and I think you get oil cooled turbos feeding from the sump with just the filters tucked away and a wastegate.. by the time the gas flow gets to turbo I think most built up pressure will just dissipate there for no need for blow off valve... Will need a piggy back ecu and either electronic boost controller or spring boost valves....

I spend most of my driving on the motorway or at least a roads very rarely am I doing winding roads which if you have street raced as a youngster in turbo cars (guilty lol) is all about gearing with engine revs to keep turbocharger spooled.... there a few Americans that have done it and seems very rapid on take off but I don't actually know anyone who has done it to ask them the highs and lows other than cost.

Must mean something when 98 percent of performance v8s or turbo now and only really jag sticking to S/C... Pete swears by his S/C conversion but my Mrs just swears when she hears the cost hahaha

 

Andrew

[Martin F]

5 hours ago, A's F-word said:

A rear mounted turbo setup has no heat issues and I think you get oil cooled turbos feeding from the sump with just the filters tucked away and a wastegate.. by the time the gas flow gets to turbo I think most built up pressure will just dissipate there for no need for blow off valve... Will need a piggy back ecu and either electronic boost controller or spring boost valves....

Your knowledge is seriously incorrect.

The oil in the sump is not pressurised, so how do you think it will make it's way up to the turbo?

 

[A's F-word]

I put in simple terms and oil feed is simple to make including creating pressure situations using a pump or oil feeder line from the bay.... a oil feed isn't the hardest task for a professional race car builder to create so I don't need to worry he does lol... it's more the factual pros to cons known 

[Peter P18]

I’d sum it up like this, no one has successfully fitted and run a turbo setup that has been as reliable or generated as much horsepower as the RR-Racing supercharger kits. 

Simples! 

Drop the microphone! 

[A's F-word]

3 hours ago, Peter P18 said:

I’d sum it up like this, no one has successfully fitted and run a turbo setup that has been as reliable or generated as much horsepower as the RR-Racing supercharger kits. 

Simples! 

Drop the microphone! 

Hahaha says the man who recently fitted the RR racing charger...

[Northern isf]

Pete is 100% correct just do a quick bit of research and you'll soon find out turbo setups are a complete waste of cash I did a lot of research into this mainly just out of interest.

[JonP]

Given that major reasons why people choose the F brand is the combination of performance and reliability, I must admit that I think the measured performance gains provided by Pete's conversion totally in keeping with the car. As a well engineered supercharger implementation puts less overall stress on the engine, I think it's likely to be trouble free for significantly longer that a turbo setup. 

[Peter P18]

17 hours ago, A's F-word said:

Hahaha says the man who recently fitted the RR racing charger...

Yes, having spent many hours reading up on various threads around turbo setups and superchargers. Fact is I have a huge amount of confidence in RR-Racing. They don’t do things by halves, so the testing, development and trialling is second to none. No it’s not cheap, but if you want to preserve the reliability and not risk damaging your car, that’s the price you pay.

14 hours ago, Northern isf said:

Pete is 100% correct just do a quick bit of research and you'll soon find out turbo setups are a complete waste of cash I did a lot of research into this mainly just out of interest.

Thanks, as did I. Even know the turbo guy in the States isn’t making what I am.

10 hours ago, JonP said:

Given that major reasons why people choose the F brand is the combination of performance and reliability, I must admit that I think the measured performance gains provided by Pete's conversion totally in keeping with the car. As a well engineered supercharger implementation puts less overall stress on the engine, I think it's likely to be trouble free for significantly longer that a turbo setup. 

Thank you, couldn’t agree more. 

Sure, you can buy turbo kits off eBay, but they tend to go horribly wrong. Just as I won’t fit inferior parts to other areas of my car (OEM or better), I wouldn’t risk grenading my engine with a relatively untested turbo kit.

There are several of us now running the supercharger kits, not aware of any significant issues? Had one guy who made a minor mistake with the install (fact some folks have managed to DIY this is testament to Rafi and Simon for making such a comprehensive kit), but generally these are very well thought out and executed. 

[ThebigC]

Would also have to go with supercharger.. the kits there. Rafi and Simon have both tried and tested it like Paul says, plenty of people realiablity run the power they tried and tested of 625 with tune etc. 

Surely the gearing is all wrong for a turbo aswell

[NothernDan]

I may be wrong but in all applications I've ever seen turbos are known for heat generation where's a supercharger typically runs cold.

Running a turbo from the rear of the car has obvious disadvantages (length of pipework for one) which will certainly affect power output and efficiency of any turbo.

Turbos are popular now for cheap power gains in most cases and for those manufacturers with a focus on emissions in 'power' cars.

As already advised, you need a recirc or dump valve on a turbo ot it'll be laggy as a laggy thing or fluttering like a pigeon!

I'm not sure if i'm reading it wrong but the very first post here sounds like you've got the requirements (and pros and cons) for a turbo and supercharger the wrong way round? Might just be me.

I'm with Pete and all other responders. SC all the way for our motors. Preferably from RR so you know it's well thought out and properly tested, unlike the Tesco Value Range Turbo kits that eBay has on buy one get one free!

You gets what you pays for and if you've shelled out top money for an F-Car don't stick a shonky turbo on it cos it was 'cheaper'.

And that's coming from Mr Fast and Furious MR2! 

 

[NemesisUK]

6 minutes ago, NothernDan said:

I may be wrong but in all applications I've ever seen turbos are known for heat generation where's a supercharger typically runs cold

It's all relative of course but the supercharger in my AMG ran very warm. Intercooler pump failure quite common and resulted in the ECU disengaging the 'charger.

But I agree with the above, supercharging is the better way to go. Instant, low down torque and no lag. Far more reliable than a turbo