whitelegacy98

nope still nothing, just says "page cannot be displayed" thanks for trying but dont worry too much about it.

WRX_REED

Well, not only is there no appreciable lag, but the reliablity is better in *most* cases (hence the reason manufacturers prefer to supercharge than turbocharge), costs are generally cheaper, and if the belt breaks you still have a working ride, as opposed to a turbo going out on a turbo'd car. The parasitic draw really doesn't make the supercharger bad or the car unable to accept a supercharger, just means the turbo is more efficient in boost than the supercharger. But real world needs generally have people running needing a broader power band rather than the peakiness of some turbos, that may work well on racetracks that allow you to run at peak rpms. Only main problem with supercharger is that we may not get to have a working kit, as the ROI (Return On Investment ) for companies is not there for our older non-turbo'd subies. And the newer vehicles that aren't turbo'd, are generally different is mounting configs from the older platforms. The picture at the lead of this thread is probably as stated, an experimental kit for the Baja MY2000. Though it still looks mighty nice...

- WRX_REED The Boy Blunder :banana:

WRX_REED

Oh, BTW, almost forgot... DON'T SPEND ON THOSE INTAKE FANS, THEY ARE CRAP AND DON'T WORK!! Whole threads are dedicated to them on how they are more likely an obstruction and money pit, rather than an aid in the Intake. Save your money for better things in life!!

- WRX_REED

i2()N!N

thanks for the info it was helpful

whitelegacy98

thanks! I had kinda figured as much.

i2()N!N

well its back to google

i2()N!N

were working ont,were working on it.im hearing a lot of this.
here are some more pics
http://staff.maxwell.syr.edu/ajoncas...rger/photo.htm

i2()N!N

i think its a my00 2.5 RS

nypatrick

This debate has raged for ages! My first encounter with a supercharger was on a GMC marine diesel 6/72 (6 holes of 72 ci each) which powered small landing craft and the like. It was a positve displacement 'charger, and make a hell of a whine! And it very much resembles the ones on John Force's dragsters, even these many years (don't ask) later. I still like the turbo, even with its bit of lag. 13# of boost is much more than that old Roots blower ever thought of putting out. I did check the e-charge site- why bother?

i2()N!N

the e-charger was just an idea,i hadnt seen one before.
if i had 300 dollars i would buy a header (borla),and a k+n
air filter. :banana:

WRX_REED

Yes, the Turbocharger is more efficent and can sometimes produce more boost. No one is doubting this, the main point for a supercharger over a turbo, is that a supercharger is far more reliable and cheaper to produce and maintain than an equivolent turbo. Even you stated that your first experience of a supercharger was on a GMC marine diesel (GMC is one of the largest manufacturers to heavily use a superchager in other applications aside from regular automotive use) which powered small landing craft. The reason an engineer would place a supercharger on such a craft, is that if for some reason the supercharger went south, the pilot could still operate the craft. A turbo that grenades basically can stall the motor as a whole and leave the craft dead in the water. Granted the technology has made turbo's far more reliable than back 15 - 20 years ago, but the fact still remains that if the turbo is broke, you basically aren't going anywhere too soon, while a supercharger will not (even if the belt is shared and breaks, only that shared component will be affected, i.e. A/C, or alternator). Also the second major point is that the cost are far less than any equivolent turbo out on the market today. All you need is some basic tubing to direct the airflow through the supercharger and then to the intake (even the addition of an aftercooler is basically a drop in between the supercharger and the intake). A turbo requires much more due to the basic nature of a turbo's operation, also the pressures developed with a turbo can reek havoc to a non-strengthened bottom end (ever hear about the guy who over tweek their boost on a turbo and grenade the crank on their street ride?? Honestly the only way the blow up a motor with a supercharger is basically try to place too much positive pressure in the intake manifold and have the manifold bolts rip, of course this only happens on dragsters running outrageous amounts of power to begin with. In other words, it is very difficult to do with a supercharger as opposed to a turbo). Sorry this seems long, but tired of people thinking that turbo's are better than superchargers, when in reality it is based on how you judge your needs of the vehicle. If you want to the most efficency because you are using the car at peak levels most of the time, and are looking for lots of boost (sometime too outrageous) then a turbo generally will fit you driving needs. However, if you are looking to use a more usable, broader power band range, and are concerned about reliablity and costs; then a superchager is the best bet.

i2()N!N: The picture of the superchager kit above, did you find out what make the superchager kit was? Looked like a centrifugal type charger, not Paxton, but some else's. Yes it's a older platform (GC8 type), but would like to find out more on that kit as it appears to be nice and simple, even with appears to be a small water to air aftercooler. If it is for the MY00 model, would definitely find out more as my is a MY00 2.5 RS.


- WRX_REED
:banana:

i2()N!N

i found it in a nasioc forum the guy says a kit will be out around the first of the year.he wont say much just that it will fit 1.8,2.2,and 2.5.

serrano

rs25.com forced induction forum has a thread on a soon to be supercharger kit

i2()N!N

info
on the kit above
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show...hreadid=460521
:banana:

The Mirror

iTrader: (1)

I'd much rather have a supercharged WRX than the turbo for a street car. I'll give up parasitic loss for low end torque and better throttle response.

That being said, supercharging is illegal in the WRC, Turbos are more efficient at high rpm, and turbos are much easier to tune by changing compressor size, blade design, etc. etc. Superchargers don't have that kind of tuning variability. Oh well.