turbo or supercharger

i have a 98 4x4 chevy blazer 4.3 v6 i cant figure out if i wanna buy a supercharger or a turbocharger. i heard turbochargers put out more hp but superchargers are easier to install. anything to sway my decision
would help.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Flatline____44 wrote:

Superchargers are easier to install??? If it were me, I would do some reading on the subject. Library books.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Find whichever one you can get as a kit, I think the old Typhoon and Syclone S-10/Sonoma's had turbo'ed 4.3's, but don't quote me on that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Both're pretty hard to install from what I hear. Turbos have to spool up, but there're many different things you can do to play around with them. Get a smaller turbine and it spools up quicker, but less gain and vice versa. Turbos are more efficient because they're run off exhaust gasses while superchargers are run off the engine. There're different kinds of superchargers too, some put out a constant boost, others increase as the engine speed increases (I THINK this is right but I'm not 100% sure on it). Either way you may have to tap the oil pan to get oil to the charger (this is more common with turbochargers then superchargers). And Paradox is right, the Syclones and Typhoons had turbos. Myself, I'd look for a kit with a self-oiling charger and go either way.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Get
it).
right,
Heres a kit, its a centrifugal style supercharger instead of roots style like on the 3800SC Impala/Monte/Prix, which means you can intercool it, (really only needed at 10-12+psi....)
http://store.summitracing.com/?target=partdetail.asp&part=PWA-K10525-101&N 0+400215&Ntk=P_ManufacturerPartNumber&Ntt=K10525-101
And for around $2500 thats a good deal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 16:59:02 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Flatline____44) wrote:

6 of 1, 1/2dozen of the other:
Turbo uses the still expanding exhaust gasses to drive the impeller to compress the incoming air. This is the source of the turbo lag and the imparting of heat to the intake compressed air.
Lag can be mitigated with variable vane turbo's and alternate sized twin turbo setups. The imparted heat can be reduced with an inter cooler. But the increased intake heat combined with higher combustion pressures will require knock sensors and a seriously strengthened bottom end for reliability at higher pressures along with hardened valves etc. With a Turbo you can easily run from about 7-30 PSI of pressure (whether the engine can survive those pressures is another matter).
Superchargers provide quick response power, impart less heating of intake air (all air that is compressed does heat however) and requires less plumbing. However, Superchargers constantly drain power (if you are using them or not), Superchargers can be noisy (esp roots types at higher pressures). It is not as important but if you want an inter cooler your choices are more limited (eg water to air), superchargers also require clearance on the top of the engine as well as a drive belt source location (Turbo's can be more conveniently located).
There's many many other issues with both systems that aren't listed here. But you've got to ask yourself this:
How much power do you need? How much can you afford to spend?
Would you have room to install a small block? (say a nearly new, used Vett engine)?
You can get quite a bit of power out of the 4.3 even without added air pressure, would you be willing to port, polish, balance & blueprint & further tweak your present engine?
Turbo & Supercharging is best the domain of vehicle manufacturers looking for more power from smaller engines.
There is no substitute for Cubic inches. If it were my money (which it isn't) I'd go for a light weight small block and squeeze it in. It will be the most reliable, most efficient route to go.
that's my 2 cents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I was looking for info on Syclones, and found this thread a bit late, but.... I have put turbos on my car, myself. Although it is not a computerized engine, so that made things quite a bit simpler, but the power was awesome. Turbos also are quite easier on the drivetrain because the power comes on as rpms build. I have also put a 350 in place of a 4.3 S-10. WOW, now that was a ride. I loved pulling up to a full size pick up at a red light. They never knew what hit them. My truck would leave them wondering what the hell just happened. My total cost was under 3 grand. I had the reliability of a stock engine, but the power to weight ratio was better than that of a Z-28 or SS Camaro. I went to the added expense of putting in a limited slip rear, though, just cuz I liked the look of two long black strips being left behind as I burned out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just drop a V-8 in it. Direct swap, and about the same cost.
RJ in WV
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.