which set up to choose, turbo or Super Charger? why would you pick either one? and your opinion on the choice you picked.
this is for a 2.2OHV egine.
with the input i recieve from this post will help me to choose the set up for my car
website comming soon!
I always say to go with a turbocharger because you can always get more power from them. There's advantages and disadvantages to both though...
With a supercharger, you're basically USING power to make power. When you want to get more power, you have to change pullies, belts, etc. With a turbocharger, you can simply change the spring in the external wastegate, or adjust the actuator on the internal wastegate.
I've always liked turbo better, but I've honestly never ridden (or driven) in a supercharged car. My personal car is also turbocharged, so maybe I'm biased?
Good luck with whichever you decide to go with!
MaximumBoost.net
1-888-TURBO-31
sales@maximumboost.net
TAX ID: 45-8013458577-3
id go with the 2.4 or 2.2 eco engine and go for the gm s/c (2.4) cause the 2200 is piss slow and plus i think turbo's are too hard to install cause not many kits come with everything, always some modification and the gm s/c goes straight on and comes with all lines.
Quote:
cause the 2200 is piss slow
wanna race
go turbo its easier to peice together on your own.. you don't need a kit.
also, they're more efficient, and tend to make more power
superchargers have instant boost (roots style) when you punch the go pedal, but I don't know if there's any roots style superchargers for the 2200 the only one I know of is the RSM kit and thats centrifugal, which is basically a belt driven turbo.
go turbo and peice it together yourself. You can make some serious horsepower for pretty cheap.
don't let anyone talk you into a motor swap either. for the amount of money you'd blow swapping in the engine thats "better" you could make what you have faster than them anyway.
dude the 2200 engines are piss slow, you cant tell me they arent. 2200 not the 2.2 eco's. my buddys put so much cash in his 2200 engine and its not even close to being as fast as my car was stock. theyre a waste of time.
Quote:
jsunfireGT2000
Today 12:28 PM
dude the 2200 engines are piss slow, you cant tell me they arent. 2200 not the 2.2 eco's.
Yea I know what a 2200 is I have one. (yea my 2200 NON ECO runs 15.7)
Automatics are piss slow, you can't tell me they aren't.
If you're car was manual, you'd be a half second faster at least and might have a chance to beat my "piss slow 2200"
Quote:
my buddys put so much cash in his 2200 engine and its not even close to being as fast as my car was stock.
why do I have a feeling 'so much money' is an intake and cat back exhaust?
the problem with people "putting cash" into them and still being slow is they don't do it where it counts. Its not a 'make fast with bolt ons" engine it requires a bit more work (namely headwork at least) just because its not a twin cam doesn't mean it can't be fast.
Quote:
theyre a waste of time.
The OHV is not a waste of time... It might be slightly harder and a lil more expensive to get it that way, but its more satisfying to have a reasonably quick (15s are not THAT fast...) OHV when posts like this come up.
Quote:
sticky tires / HTR / 719C
this is for a 2.2OHV egine.
Besides, I don't see any other engine mentioned in the first post.
I agree, OHV isnt a waste of time. My GTP seems to run just fine.
Also, turbo is the way to go. Either turbo or a custom whipple design. Mmmmmm.... 2300ax....
1997GAGT/ 2.4/ 5-speed
i forgot to mention, my 96 2.2OHV will be having the 2200 (98+) head/TB swap done
[and i'll be installing that 2.3 TB with it too]
so far my 2.2OHV have beaten BMW's/Honda/Mustangs [it could have been due to driver error, but i still beat em!], so i can say they are NOT a waste of time. you just need to know what mods to do to make em faster
does any one sell a header flange for the 2200?? and do they even make a intake flange (to custom make your own intake manifold?)
website comming soon!
exploited has a header flange and ebay sells them sometimes. but have never seen an intake flange
DRIVE HARD OR DONT DRIVE AT ALL!!!
um..im not very experienced in the subject..so correct me if i am wrong...but i have price checked some turbos and s/c...the turbo kits usually come out around 2500 dollars or so...i don't know about the GM s/c but i found a vortec s/c kit and it was 5k... so if you got the money you can go either way...but s/c i do know run off of a pully which means it is always boosting and it gives you way more torque than a turbo...but after a while the turbos will catch up...but i agree with goin with a turbo....but if you were goin all out and making a drag car...s/c is the way to go im pretty sure
TheFlyingSquirrel (PJ) wrote:Quote:
jsunfireGT2000
Today 12:28 PM
dude the 2200 engines are piss slow, you cant tell me they arent. 2200 not the 2.2 eco's.
Yea I know what a 2200 is I have one. (yea my 2200 NON ECO runs 15.7)
Automatics are piss slow, you can't tell me they aren't.
If you're car was manual, you'd be a half second faster at least and might have a chance to beat my "piss slow 2200"
Quote:
my buddys put so much cash in his 2200 engine and its not even close to being as fast as my car was stock.
why do I have a feeling 'so much money' is an intake and cat back exhaust?
the problem with people "putting cash" into them and still being slow is they don't do it where it counts. Its not a 'make fast with bolt ons" engine it requires a bit more work (namely headwork at least) just because its not a twin cam doesn't mean it can't be fast.
Quote:
theyre a waste of time.
The OHV is not a waste of time... It might be slightly harder and a lil more expensive to get it that way, but its more satisfying to have a reasonably quick (15s are not THAT fast...) OHV when posts like this come up.
Quote:
sticky tires / HTR / 719C
this is for a 2.2OHV egine.
Besides, I don't see any other engine mentioned in the first post.
to me theyre a waste of time and yes i am cocky so i could care less about you 2200 ladies who think your ohv's are the hot stuff, and my friend has not put on just intake and catback, hes done intake, full exhaust, mounts, port and polished head and pulleys so far and i havent seen one bit of a differance and i did all of that to my 2.4 engine and seen a differance with each mod so to me, 2200's are a waste of time. And about the automatic comment, hey talk all you want, when your missing your little gears and im hitting every one, we will see who comes out on top son.
Quote:
to me theyre a waste of time and yes i am cocky so i could care less about you 2200 ladies who think your ohv's are the hot stuff, and my friend has not put on just intake and catback, hes done intake, full exhaust, mounts, port and polished head and pulleys so far and i havent seen one bit of a differance and i did all of that to my 2.4 engine and seen a differance with each mod so to me, 2200's are a waste of time. And about the automatic comment, hey talk all you want, when your missing your little gears and im hitting every one
You're not cocky, you're just an ass
God you twin cam guys annoy the living hell out of me
For some reason you all think just because its not a 2.4 or an ecotec it can't be fast
Your ignorance and narrow-mindedness makes me sick
I made the automatic comment to hopefully make you realize what you're saying about this engine, with an analogy to your transmission... but you must have missed that section in english class.
With all those mods, I highly doubt that you saw no difference on the OHV. It doesn't matter what engine you do it to, everything is going to yield something. I think we have some situational amnesia going on...
And I don't miss gears... and last I checked, you don't hit anything... its AUTOMATIC, hence it does it for you. Pushing the little gear selector forward doesn't count
Quote:
we will see who comes out on top son
...alright SON lol
When I bolt on my turbo we'll get a little grudge match going on since you're apparently boosted now.
You're in cecil county, its worth a road trip down there to settle this little disagreement and shut you up for good
All in good sport of course
...or if you'd like, I could take my car down there thats already turbo... hey and guess what! that one's manual too...
I'll miss a gear just for you =) I betcha I'll still win
Now onto a CONSTRUCTIVE addition to this post:
Quote:
Rob Silvera
Yesterday 11:49 PM
um..im not very experienced in the subject..so correct me if i am wrong...but i have price checked some turbos and s/c...the turbo kits usually come out around 2500 dollars or so...i don't know about the GM s/c but i found a vortec s/c kit and it was 5k... so if you got the money you can go either way...but s/c i do know run off of a pully which means it is always boosting and it gives you way more torque than a turbo...but after a while the turbos will catch up...but i agree with goin with a turbo....but if you were goin all out and making a drag car...s/c is the way to go im pretty sure
GM only makes a supercharger for the 2.4, and soon for the ecotec. I believe its partially since you can't fit a roots style on the back of the OHV by the firewall, and if you could it'd be rediculous tight, hence why there's only vortech centrifugal kits available.
As far as the torque comment, you worded it wrong.
Roots style Superchargers give IMMEDIATE torque, meaning that supercharger would make your engine feel like it was just a larger version of itself. Centrifugal superchargers (vortech) and turbos have a bit of lag associated with them... meaning power isn't available right away.
so whereas the roots style supercharger gives torque and full boost IMMEDIATELY
a turbo needs to time to spool so it doesn't deliver right away, but it's peak torque could and probably is greater than a supercharger.
as was previously said in this thread I believe, a supercharger takes power in order to make it thru parasitic belt loss. Basically, the charger is a drag on the engine because it uses a pulley to spin itself, therby taking away horsepower.
But it also adds it back... usually much greater than what it takes, but you still lose horsepower in order to make it.
A turbo is a very efficient power maker that (despite some added backpressure that can be aleviated with a good exhaust) adds heaps of power with no downsides.
The only thing that comes to mind with a turbo is lag, but if you properly match a turbo to your engine lag won't be an issue.
TheFlyingSquirrel (PJ) wrote:Quote:
to me theyre a waste of time and yes i am cocky so i could care less about you 2200 ladies who think your ohv's are the hot stuff, and my friend has not put on just intake and catback, hes done intake, full exhaust, mounts, port and polished head and pulleys so far and i havent seen one bit of a differance and i did all of that to my 2.4 engine and seen a differance with each mod so to me, 2200's are a waste of time. And about the automatic comment, hey talk all you want, when your missing your little gears and im hitting every one
You're not cocky, you're just an ass
God you twin cam guys annoy the living hell out of me
For some reason you all think just because its not a 2.4 or an ecotec it can't be fast
Your ignorance and narrow-mindedness makes me sick
I made the automatic comment to hopefully make you realize what you're saying about this engine, with an analogy to your transmission... but you must have missed that section in english class.
With all those mods, I highly doubt that you saw no difference on the OHV. It doesn't matter what engine you do it to, everything is going to yield something. I think we have some situational amnesia going on...
And I don't miss gears... and last I checked, you don't hit anything... its AUTOMATIC, hence it does it for you. Pushing the little gear selector forward doesn't count
Quote:
we will see who comes out on top son
...alright SON lol
When I bolt on my turbo we'll get a little grudge match going on since you're apparently boosted now.
You're in cecil county, its worth a road trip down there to settle this little disagreement and shut you up for good
All in good sport of course
...or if you'd like, I could take my car down there thats already turbo... hey and guess what! that one's manual too...
I'll miss a gear just for you =) I betcha I'll still win
Now onto a CONSTRUCTIVE addition to this post:
you dont miss gears? unless your a professional driver and have like the luck of the f_uck_in irish i doubt you NEVER miss gears. Your right i dont have to shift, meaning i hit the gears perfect every time meaning, it revs out to where its perfect for shifting while your sitting there either hitting them as good as me or messing up on a over rev or shifting before the perfect point which im hitting everytime, im consistant, your not.
About the little race you wanna do, im up for it as long as you tell me what mods you have and around what your runnin at the track, no bullsh!t NOS crap or anything, straight up racing.
my registry is up to date, but I'll spell it out
4:1 header, 2.25" piping front to rear, no cat, Y pipe to twin magnaflow cans (hah yea)
RSM intake
MSD ignition, magnecore wires, ngk iridium spark plugs
ported and polished head, 5 angle valve job, stainless steel back cut valves, silicon race springs, chromoly pushrods
Motor mounts, tranny mounts
B&M short throw shifter
stock tires on 14" steelies
best 60' was a 2.200
best 1/8 mile was a 10.043 @ 69.06mph
best 1/4 mile was a 15.769 @ 85.57mph
best trap speed was 86.03mph
you really got that supercharger on now? I think it's a little swayed with that supercharger if you really have it on lol
TheFlyingSquirrel (PJ) wrote:my registry is up to date, but I'll spell it out
4:1 header, 2.25" piping front to rear, no cat, Y pipe to twin magnaflow cans (hah yea)
RSM intake
MSD ignition, magnecore wires, ngk iridium spark plugs
ported and polished head, 5 angle valve job, stainless steel back cut valves, silicon race springs, chromoly pushrods
Motor mounts, tranny mounts
B&M short throw shifter
stock tires on 14" steelies
best 60' was a 2.200
best 1/8 mile was a 10.043 @ 69.06mph
best 1/4 mile was a 15.769 @ 85.57mph
best trap speed was 86.03mph
you really got that supercharger on now? I think it's a little swayed with that supercharger if you really have it on lol
what do you mean swayed? and yes it is on, all im waiting for is for the computer to be reflashed later today and a few other things i gotta put on and i should be finished.
lmfao
i can NOT beleave that this post turned into ANOTHER ohv VS Dual Crap, i mean DOHC engines.
point being, STAY THE @!#$ ON TOPIC, THANKS!
website comming soon!
flying squirl that is wat i meant... but i appologize for the wrong wordin...i thought the vortec worked off the pulley too...i just never really RESEARCHED it... and thats myfault i should know wat im talkn bout before i open my big mouth.... but thanks for not being an a$$hole bout it
jsunfireGT2000 wrote:the 2200 is piss slow and plus i think turbo's are too hard to instal
jsunfireGT2000 wrote:dude the 2200 engines are piss slow, you cant tell me they arent.
jsunfireGT2000 wrote:to me theyre a waste of time and yes i am cocky so i could care less about you 2200 ladies who think your ohv's are the hot stuff
You know whats funny? A turbo 2.2 @ 10psi with stock internals, stock head, and no other bolt-ons will put out more power than a 2.4 with the GM S/C with bolt-ons.
2.2s are piss slow? A few years back, wasnt the fastests all motor J-body a 2.2?
What is the fastests that a 2.4 with the GM S/C has gone in the 1/4th with no nitrous?
275hp & 306tq - 1999 2.2 ohv
13.2 @ 108 mph
-1996 2.4 liter + Turbo + Built motor + Torco + More boost = Lots o' Power
-2000 Mustang GT + 2004 Cobra motor, Whipple 2.3 supercharger,
built rear-end,Dodge Viper spec T56 6 speed, bolt-ons = wheelies at the track!!!!!
i think i've made my choice, and i'm going to go with HANH RACE CRAFT's new LN2 turbo kit
i cant wait untill i can get it installed, and then i'll be beating all the local cars that think thier @!#$ dont stink
website comming soon!
Yeah... if I was cocky enough to run my mouth about other people's cars being slow, I doubt I'd have a GM S/C kit on my car. No offense to anyone who loves their setup, but it has much less potential than others, such as a turbo kit. The turbo kits are more complicated, yes, but if you really want to go somewhere, you should be willing to sit back and learn. Anyways, I think you made the right choice. A bolt on s/c kit is best for someone who wants limited, reliable performance and a turbo kit is more for someone who wants the most potential out of there car, and willing to sacrifice more time, and comitment getting there.
I have an OHV (GTP) and a DOHC(Grand am), and the OHV will win.
But, if i boost my 2.4, i have a feeling it will kill. The 2.4 heads actually outflow the GTP heads because of more valves and dohc.... so yes it is better. Get over it.
That doesnt mean you cant make it fast... you can make anything fast.
cmon guys, grow up and have fun talking about cars.
1997GAGT/ 2.4/ 5-speed
with that motor go turbo the s/c kits arent as available only 1 out there and its upgradablity is limited
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
1st and for most........... you have a 2.2 (OHV) so Turbo is more suited.... Only reason why I say that is because of the location of the T.B. You can get RSM's S/C but look at the long rod that comes with it.... That's a major power loss.
Now as far as a swap that's garbage........... How much money are you gonna spend for a 2.4??? Lets say what $1000... Now who is going to install it???? If you're like me that's more money.... A GM super charger is how much??? $3000... So total cost is roughly $4000 for 200hp's... So we agree on that??? Now a turbo kit on a stock 2.2 (ohv) is less then $2000 and that's 200hp's on a stock 2.2. Now with the money saved swap out the connecting rods and pistons... Now you can play with the boost and add more Hp's...
Quote:
Now a turbo kit on a stock 2.2 (ohv) is less then $2000 and that's 200hp's on a stock 2.2.
i dont think your gonna get 200hp from a $2000 kit, especially on a 2.2...your gonna almost have to double that figure to get a 2.2 200 hp.
