Quote:
| Originally Posted by iroc-z89 yeah im @ 70 a week and thats registered @ insured under my parents names. If It was registered to me about $25 a day insurance on a 20 year old car. |
Holy crap! You know, the insurance company is betting almost all of their chips that you're going to wreck any minute now. Or more like your chips, that's a *****.
Superchargers are reletively inexpensive in relation to turbos. Simpler setup overall, less time, easy power - This is why they are popular with manufacturers like Ford SVT and GM who uses the versatile Eaton M90 extensively in there 3800 V6 cars.
Turbos themselves, minus the plumbing, are really no more complicated than SC. They're tunable, and sometimes just as compact. So turbo's and superchargers both offer versatility in their own way. Although I tend to favor turbo myself, since they are suitable for just about any engine, whereas SC would not suit an engine with no torque at the bottom. A good turbo application does not screw the turbos up after 3-5 years as was quoted, which would be rediculous and no carmaker would use them. And these days, lag is only the product of a crappy turbo job. But when all is said and done, both turbo and SC have evolved favorably over the years.
Since this is the "New or Old" topic, I might make a suggestion for everyone to take this discussion to the new "Turbo vs. Supercharger" thread Bleh opened in miscellaneous.