I was wondering whihc would be better to put in a 96 or 98 maxima a turbocharger or supercharger. Which one would perform better and last longer. thanks Also, i dotn know that much about cars and i want to learn so could you guys give me some places where to start learning about cars. (reading books, taking classes or what) thanks mark

 

Hi,

Honestly it seems like in the Maximas people go with superchargers over turbos, probably because the Maxima motor is more suited to a steady boost curve instead of the sharp ones found on turbo cars. Also, the packaging is probably more efficient and easier on a supercharger because you don't need all that plumbing..

RE: your search for knowledge about cars. I would definitly browse this forum a lot. Join other car forums or at least browse. Subscribe to some car mags.. Have an open mind.

Good luck

Clint

 

Super Charger more reliable.

 

I would think that since the Turbo is so new for the Maxima, and only a few people have them, that it is hard to say which is more reliable.

Although the general rule is that SuperChargers are more reliable.

But I'm missing 3PSI of boost for no reason, so I'm hating SC's right now.

IanS

 

"Honestly ... probably?" and your proof for this would be ... ? That's probably why the boosted VQ30DET motors in the Glorias/Cedrics are turbocharged and not supercharged?

My humble opinion is that turbo kits have not been around for very long and Superchargers have. I cannot prove that turbos are more reliable cos I have only had mine for 3 months but I can say that more and more people are considering turbos over superchargers. Turbo95max has had his for quite a while.

The bad thing about turbos is that it is all too easy to turn up the boost and destroy your engine. You have to be sensible with boost. With power comes responsibility ... or a blown motor

 

Hey, remember when you were wondering if that excessive noise on your SC was normal? well go to KevinG's (is that G an inside joke? I don't understand it and I live in the same city as him, lol) cardomain site and download his movie files.

His supercharger seems very quiet (or possibly it could've just been the sound quality.)

 

I agree with that. I have done reaserch on both and it seems to me, if done correctly a turbo kit will last just as long as the supercharger.. People who don't know how to tune a turbo or boost it way too high are the reason why it's gotten a worse reliability rating. Also people like to cut corners and not have the proper parts installed in order to save money, which ends up screwing you in the end. I'll be putting either a T3/T4 or a T04E turbokit in mine in about 2 weeks. Superchargers are great but a turbo seems to be much more fun since you're at full boost at around 3000rpm's as opposed to a supercharger which reaches full boost at the redline.

In the end it all depends on your preferences and driving style.

 

I think a turbo would be a much better option. I am speaking from years of experience of a bunch of Mustang drivers that I know. A supercharger tends to put much more stress on the drivetrain. A turbo is much easier on the car. Superchargers have a reputation for ripping belts apart, whereas turbos don't have that problem since they just use exhaust gasses to get going. One other big thing that makes turbos better is that to get more boost, just turn the ****, whereas for a supercharger, to get more boost you have to go out and buy a smaller pulley and go crazy under the hood of the car for a good portion of a Sunday afternoon.

I think the fact that turbos are so new is a little misleading but it seems like these days, with the newer technology, turbos are the way to go. They do the exact same thing as a supercharger, but do it much more efficiently. Of course, to get a good turbo, you will be shelling out more money up front, but the long term maintenance costs of it is much less than a s/c.

Not to mention, gas mileage... with a s/c it will be greatly reduced in city driving, but with a turbo it is basically not in use in city driving.

 

I'm fairly sure that KevinG has a V2. Or a V1 2nd Generation.

I have a V1 First Gen. It's mad loud. I sent a movie to Loren, who owned it originally. He said that's what it always sounds like.

IanS

 

I don't see how a turbo can be easier on the motor/drivetrain; the boost is non-existant until, say 3 grand, than it comes on HARD from than on up. Talk about intractable power, just like a Supra. It's like bog...spin. And in a front-driver, where weight transfer works against you (at the strip), it makes hooking up even a nastier problem. A supercharger provides a consistent, solid boost curve up and down the rev range. It comes on smoothly, making it easier to launch, etc. I don't think a big-bore V-6 would benefit as much from a turbo as a supercharger, since most low displacement fours and sixes use the turbo to make up for their inherent lack of torque. A higher CI motor is gonna like a more consistent boost curve, because usually it matches the existing powerband of the NA motor.

Also, if a supercharger belt breaks, you can drive it home on the motor-only. If a turbo has a nasty oiling problem, etc, you are dead in the water.

I'm not saying a turbo is a bad thing; there are some turbo cars out there running sick, reliable power. Turbos are more efficient, with a higher peak power potential than a supercharger. But for a simple application w/out an extensive plumbing rework, a supercharger is the way to go. JMHO.

Clint

EDIT: It is true that during city driving the turbos are not in use, increasing gas mileage.
I guess it depends on wether you want a smooth pull throughout the powerband or a lag than pull effect in your car.

 

Ahem Ahem... With GREAT power comes GREAT responsibility...

 

Thanks a lot everyone... Ok i have one more question... WEll i dotn know that much bout cars but my friend has a eclipse gst which has a turbo and he is getting blow off valves for it... Can a S/C have blowoff valves to get the same effect. thanks again
mark

 

Its not that the turbo is NOT in use at lower RPMs, and then just engages at 3000RPM (or whatever size turbo is in use). At lower RPMs the turbo just spools up, so when it does kick in at full boost it is not too hard for our motors to handle.

I guess the point I was trying to make, which you outlined too is that with the supercharger there is a constant power supply, which is the kind of continuous wear I was referring to that the turbo wouldn't have.

You are right here, but given the fact that both the turbo and the s/c are properly installed, I was referring to the running cost of replacing the belts that would eventually make the s/c a more expensive investment as well.

 

My SC doesn't really kick in at all until about 4000 RPMs

IanS

 

This is incorrect. If your belt breaks, your water pump and alternator stop turning. You better hope that your battery drains before your engine overheats and locks up.

 

That's odd. It should kick in at about 3000 rpms since you have the 3.25 pulley. When I had the 3.33 pulley, the boost kicked in just a bit above 3k and with the 3.125, boost kicked in at a bit below 3k.

 

Well, as you know, I'm only getting 6PSI with my 3.25" pulley.

IanS