TURBO, SUPERCHARGER....WHO OR WHICH ONE WOULD YOU BUY?

[TWIN TURBO]

Alittle touchie aren't we!

 

[HAMMER]

searched high and low....in other avenues of motorsports this still applies and they have dyno charts....I have found none

Ok fine...allow me to search TY4 for you...

You don’t see them fancy pieces of paper on TY4 as often as other sites because most everyone here........."let’s their sled do the talking" !!!

Why ??? too many variables: http://www.ty4stroke.com/viewtopic.php?t=14703

MCX TC VECTOR:

http://www.mc-xpress.com/images/rs%20vector.gif

MCX TC RX-1:

http://www.mc-xpress.com/images/RX1%20Temab.jpg

CPR TC VECTOR:

http://www.ty4stroke.com/download.php?id=9793
http://www.ty4stroke.com/download.php?id=9794
http://www.ty4stroke.com/download.php?id=9798

CPR TC RX-1 (hot after 6 Back-to-Back runs)

RPM-TQ-HP-Turbo-Intercooler-Boost
5800 112.40 124.00 224.00 151.00 8.47
5900 113.00 127.00 225.00 151.00 8.43
6000 112.30 128.30 223.00 151.00 8.47
6100 113.40 131.60 223.00 153.00 8.38
6200 113.00 133.30 222.00 151.00 8.39
6300 113.10 135.80 220.00 154.00 8.28
6400 112.50 137.50 222.00 156.00 8.26
6500 111.80 138.30 223.00 154.00 8.25
6600 111.50 140.10 222.00 155.00 8.25
6700 112.00 142.80 221.00 156.00 8.18
6800 112.00 145.00 221.00 155.00 8.18
6900 112.10 147.50 221.00 154.00 8.18
7000 112.50 150.10 223.00 154.00 8.27
7100 112.80 152.50 226.00 155.00 8.23
7200 112.80 154.60 227.00 155.00 8.25
7300 112.50 156.50 226.00 152.00 8.13
7400 112.90 159.10 224.00 154.00 8.10
7500 112.50 160.60 225.00 153.00 8.06
7600 113.00 163.50 224.00 153.00 8.02
7700 112.00 164.30 227.00 154.00 8.06
7800 111.60 165.80 226.00 156.00 8.10
7900 110.60 166.50 224.00 155.00 8.13
8000 110.10 167.80 224.00 154.00 8.10
8100 108.50 167.50 224.00 155.00 8.05
8200 108.30 169.00 225.00 156.00 7.98
8300 107.00 169.10 227.00 154.00 7.96
8400 106.40 170.10 226.00 153.00 8.02
8500 107.10 173.50 226.00 154.00 8.02
8600 105.60 173.00 225.00 154.00 7.96
8700 105.50 174.80 224.00 153.00 7.90
8800 104.60 175.30 225.00 153.00 7.86
8900 104.10 176.60 225.00 155.00 7.86
9000 103.90 178.00 225.00 155.00 7.84
9100 103.50 179.30 225.00 154.00 7.78
9200 103.60 180.60 224.00 151.00 7.76
9400 103.30 184.80 226.00 150.00 7.75
9500 103.60 187.60 225.00 152.00 7.61
9600 103.30 188.80 225.00 151.00 7.61
9700 102.50 189.30 226.00 151.00 7.63
9800 102.80 191.80 225.00 152.00 7.67
9900 101.90 192.10 224.00 152.00 7.69
10000 100.80 192.00 225.00 152.00 7.65
10100 99.50 191.50 224.00 151.00 7.65
10200 98.00 190.30 224.00 152.00 7.57
10300 97.80 191.80 223.00 151.00 7.59
10400 96.30 190.80 224.00 152.00 7.61
10500 95.40 190.60 222.00 151.00 7.55
10600 93.10 188.10 221.00 149.00 7.50
10700 92.10 187.80 221.00 149.00 7.50
10800 90.90 187.00 220.00 149.00 7.51

LINK TO BENDER & BOONDOCKERS TC RUNS : (but you have to be a member $20-year)
http://www.dynotechresearch.com/techarticles.asp

 

[BlueMax]

Here is a comparison of the MPI graph and the Dynotech Boondocker test.

Comments please!

 

[efiguy]

Here is a comparison of the MPI graph and the Dynotech Boondocker test.

Comments please!

What are we comparing? These results are from different dynos, different dyno operators, different locations (air density), different testing objectives, different run lengths, etc. I can show you dyno results for the same turbo at 10psi that produced 235hp on a different dyno, different location, different operator, etc.

Edit: I just did a quick check through the dyno results I got and I see an earlier run at 12.5 boost that produced 250hp (sorry, no runs at 10psi since we were targeting higher boost runs). I now remember during the testing that after we made a high boost run we were suddenly down on hp. We made several lower boost runs (which produced these published results) until we found the problem: we blew off a vacuum line underneath the intercooler. I think Jim forgot we were having problems during these runs when he posted the results...

A couple of points about the Boondocker Dynotech results: 1. That motor was built to make around 300hp, therefore it had lower compression pistons (9:1) which we've seen produce less hp at lower boost levels. 2. We did not spend much time tuning for results at lower boost levels (air/fuel ratio was not optimized, and the A/F ratio recorded on the dyno was off from what I remember). 3. The intercooler became heat-soaked during the multiple back-to-back runs we did at lower boost settings as we were preparing for the bigger boost runs. We saw dramatic increases after allowing the intercooler to cool off.

One last thing. I have ridden several different (4 or 5) MPI supercharged sleds last season. Even at 10psi boost, the turbo clearly pulled stronger - I could not beleive the difference and everyone who compared them said the same. I know there were some tuning issues on the S/C sleds and they ran better with better tuning (most installed the boondocker controller), but the overall feeling of power just didn't compare to the turbos. There was a stage II MPI sled I was going to ride, but the belt on the S/C kept breaking.

 

[BO4RE]

Hammer, your first response to mine was that there is too many variables. This was the reason for my insisting on dyno graph comparisons to help MY DECISION MAKING PROCESS. There is no need to get snoody or offended by my request. But if you are going to try and make a big deal or be a jerk then read my posts a little closer. I am interest only in comparing like test models in order to get a baseline with which to begin. This has gotten totally blown out of proportion. How can I possibly use any of the dyno graphs you have supplied. My goal is to compare the same sled type, under same conditions, with different boost application. Thats all. If the turbo pulls harder with the same boost, then why? More cfm maybe. I dont have the luxury of riding a bunch of boosted sleds in order to decide. I just want to be properly informed. People seem to get real offended when newbies start asking questions. Yes, I know how to use the search function and type dyno graph just as you did, or go to MPI's website and copy a picture but I want to compare apples to apples. Anyway I apologize to anyone who has misunderstood my line of questioning and has taken offence. For what its worth I do still appreciate the subjective opinions of which boost application is better. [/quote]

 

[Yammerhead]

BO4RE,

I don't own a turbo or supercharged sled, but I have read this forum with great intrest since it was created. The information you are asking for does not exist. Nobody have ever made back to back comparisons of turbo to turbo or turbo to supercharger. Many of the contributors on this board who own boosted sleds offer their experience based on whatever type of setup they have. Sledding is a small industry, maybe that is why you are having a hard time to find the true apples to apples comparison you are looking for. There isn't a big enough market to justify someone building two or three identical sleds and performing back to back testing under controlled conditions.

After extensively READING these forums over the past few years my conclusion is that the S/C's still need some more development time to optimize their performance. My personal opinion is that the current turbo systems (for whatever reason) have an advantage with their intercooler designs that seems to work better in sled applications. With some tweaks, I think the S/C can get there, especially at low boost applications. Currently, however, for the big HP junkies, a turbo seems to be the ONLY way to go.

I really respect the individuals on this forum who take the time to share their experiences with whatever setups they own. They are doing it out of sheer kindness. People need to remember that.

:ORC

 

[HAMMER]

BO4RE -- Sorry bout the attitude...it's just that there is so much MISINFORMATION out there...gets aggravating.

The Stage-II SCs are far from being "dialed-in" from what I hear and you cannot compare a Stage-I SC that's maxed out at 300CFM to GT25s, TDO4s, GT28Rs, GT28RSs... This is just retarded, yet people continue to do so, thus the aggravation... I do what I can to raise awareness and provide informative links and remind everyone of the principals on which these boosted vehicles operate, to no avail for the most part... In the deep powder hill climb arena I know of 2 Apex Stage-I SCs that were getting beat up on by their friends with modified REV800s, I also got beat up on by a few modified 900KKs/REV800s/RMK900s with my Apex Stage-I SC, at first ...BUT... now that I have mine properly setup it is NO CONTEST !!!... At this point I feel confident and I would have no problem going head-to-head with an equivalent hp turbocharged sled running an equivalent SIZED (300CFM) turbocharger under 10lbs boost at 8000ft... This would be as close as you would get to an "apples-to-apples" comparison.

 

[TWIN TURBO]

Well, this is getting interesting. The last 4 posts sound good to me and I would bet that all 5 of us would have good common ground to discuss the issue. Hammer,efiguy,and Yammerhead you are all right in my opinion. I own and have operated a Superflow 901 testing automotive and snowmobile engines for some 15 years. That does not makes me a expert in every respect but I learn everytime I dyno. I've also spent time talking to other good dyno operaters such as Jim at dynotech, who's opinion I value deeply, and we all seem to agree some dyno's are trying to sell products and biggest numbers win. That being said, efiguy is correct when he said dyno's and the operaters style make them hard to compare, and thats only scratching the suface in fact there are literally hundreds of factors that can make a difference, some big some small. I've also done lots of turbo dyno sessions and I mean LOTS over 1000 dyno pulls. Turbos will win the ultimate HP contest hands down at least for now. But turbo's and Dyno's aside for now as we cannot compare all the tests being posted, I 've been playing with MPI SC's this last year and owned Stage I and Stage II's. They have their place for HP levels under say 260HP, trail/lake race, not all out lake race. They are really fun to drive and would recomend them for guys that want to do both! They are even more user freindly even with EFI and much easier to install, no exhaust mods, thats a big plus in my book.
I could post lots of numbers but they really only mean something to me!

 

[Bossman]

Hammer hit the nail on the head with PROPER SETUP. Anyone can buy a sled these days that makes 200 - 250 hp but its the guys that know how to get the most of that power to the ground that are going to win the race. There are alot of great systems out there and there is no one system that is perfect for every persons riding style.

 

[BlueMax]

Here is a comparison of the MPI graph and the Dynotech Boondocker test.

Comments please!

What are we comparing? These results are from different dynos, different dyno operators, different locations (air density), different testing objectives, different run lengths, etc. I can show you dyno results for the same turbo at 10psi that produced 235hp on a different dyno, different location, different operator, etc.

Edit: I just did a quick check through the dyno results I got and I see an earlier run at 12.5 boost that produced 250hp (sorry, no runs at 10psi since we were targeting higher boost runs). I now remember during the testing that after we made a high boost run we were suddenly down on hp. We made several lower boost runs (which produced these published results) until we found the problem: we blew off a vacuum line underneath the intercooler. I think Jim forgot we were having problems during these runs when he posted the results...

A couple of points about the Boondocker Dynotech results: 1. That motor was built to make around 300hp, therefore it had lower compression pistons (9:1) which we've seen produce less hp at lower boost levels. 2. We did not spend much time tuning for results at lower boost levels (air/fuel ratio was not optimized, and the A/F ratio recorded on the dyno was off from what I remember). 3. The intercooler became heat-soaked during the multiple back-to-back runs we did at lower boost settings as we were preparing for the bigger boost runs. We saw dramatic increases after allowing the intercooler to cool off.

One last thing. I have ridden several different (4 or 5) MPI supercharged sleds last season. Even at 10psi boost, the turbo clearly pulled stronger - I could not beleive the difference and everyone who compared them said the same. I know there were some tuning issues on the S/C sleds and they ran better with better tuning (most installed the boondocker controller), but the overall feeling of power just didn't compare to the turbos. There was a stage II MPI sled I was going to ride, but the belt on the S/C kept breaking.

I agree it is difficult to compare. Most dynos compensate for all of those variables but there are still differences. The comparison was to show the relative power bands of the two options. I have read articles of the turbo power band being wider, but these tests do not indicate that result. The actual numbers may vary by 10 % but the power bands should remain. I am very curious about your actual riding tests. Were these actual side by side races or just seat of the pants tests. I have owned supercharged and turbocharged cars and the turbo cars definitely have a larger surge but overall performance was similar. I have tested the Apex and it feels to accelerate faster than my current sled, but in side by side tests my sled pulls away significantly after we hit 60 MPH. I appreciate your input because I too am trying to make a decision on what type of forced induction to purchase. I have searched this section of the forum many times and I am less certain now than when I started.

 

[BlueMax]

Well, this is getting interesting. The last 4 posts sound good to me and I would bet that all 5 of us would have good common ground to discuss the issue. Hammer,efiguy,and Yammerhead you are all right in my opinion. I own and have operated a Superflow 901 testing automotive and snowmobile engines for some 15 years. That does not makes me a expert in every respect but I learn everytime I dyno. I've also spent time talking to other good dyno operaters such as Jim at dynotech, who's opinion I value deeply, and we all seem to agree some dyno's are trying to sell products and biggest numbers win. That being said, efiguy is correct when he said dyno's and the operaters style make them hard to compare, and thats only scratching the suface in fact there are literally hundreds of factors that can make a difference, some big some small. I've also done lots of turbo dyno sessions and I mean LOTS over 1000 dyno pulls. Turbos will win the ultimate HP contest hands down at least for now. But turbo's and Dyno's aside for now as we cannot compare all the tests being posted, I 've been playing with MPI SC's this last year and owned Stage I and Stage II's. They have their place for HP levels under say 260HP, trail/lake race, not all out lake race. They are really fun to drive and would recomend them for guys that want to do both! They are even more user freindly even with EFI and much easier to install, no exhaust mods, thats a big plus in my book.
I could post lots of numbers but they really only mean something to me!

Great post and thanks for answering the same questions again. The fog is clearing. One question. Why the limit of 260 HP? Also thanks to the rest of the posters who are tired of beating a dead horse.

 

[TWIN TURBO]

260HP limit not really a limit, I'd like to see 300+ somewhere down the road but I haven't heard or seen much more than call it 250/260 yet have you?

 

[BlueMax]

260HP limit not really a limit, I'd like to see 300+ somewhere down the road but I haven't heard or seen much more than call it 250/260 yet have you?

No that seems to be the limit for the units currently available. I thought there may be a technical reason for the limit. I too like the ease of install on the supercharger units and would like to still trail ride. The stage 1 uses a C15 rotrex supercharger good for 300 CFM. MPI now has two stage 2 kits that use C30 rotrex superchargers that flow between 450 and 500 CFM. I am told they are developing a kit with the C38 rotrex supercharger that flows over 800 CFM for a drag race application.

 

[efiguy]

I work for Boondocker so my opinion might be a little biased, but I try to be objective as possible on these forums. I don't want to bash MPI, they do have a clean install and have paid attention to detail. If you honestly think you could be happy with 200-250 hp on a heavy sled (unless you want to spend major $$$ for lightweight parts), you might consider the S/C, but once you've been on a sled that makes 16-20+lbs of boost (250-300hp), you just can't go back and nothing will satisfy you except a turbo. We replaced 3 S/C's with turbos last winter (one had a stage II), but I don't think these customers would have been happy no matter how well their superchargers worked - they just had to have more boost and a turbo is a for sure way to get it. Again, not to bash MPI, but I have yet to see any turbo owners who have converted to a supercharger, but I have seen rear-mount turbos converted to front/side-mounts and smaller turbos converted to larger ones.

 

[HAMMER]

I'll get in...........I've had two of each. Two fronts and two rears.......and one in the middle!!!!
Nobody has built the perfect kit.....IMO.
They all have pros.......they all have cons.
Depends what is important to you and your riding style.
My 16t apex rear mount is my ride today...........but my original switzer @ 14lbs was huge fun factor.....Have a nice day

I have first hand experience with all the systems for carbed machines, and a few with the efi's. I personally am returning to a carbed Rage this year with Simons CPR turbo power. I may also try a MPI blower on the Attak this winter and see how it does.

Depends on what's important to each individual, my choice meets my needs, I have a blast riding it, and that's what matters to me.

Do I want a 400hp/500lb sled...of course I do !!!

But do I need one...nope...this one gets me into plenty of trouble.