Depends on the Turbo or SC you're comparing. And alot of other variables. So no, not necessarily. When you say 'more power', it's pretty elusive. More boost? Not the right question either. We need to compare CFM's. A SC can provide more power at 3500 rpm's than a Turbo, depending on which components you're comparing.

 

well a turbo and an sc at 11 pounds of boost.

 

If you're comparing, say, a T-25 and a JRSC both running about 6 or 7 lbs, the T-25 will be spooled and ready when you hit about 3,200, so it's going to pull just like a SC (but not before that, unless you know how to keep it wound). That's why GSX's kick so hard once they hit positive displacement, because when you punch the gas, that tiny-*** T-25 spools in no time. So it really depends on what turbo/setup you're using. Low-end torque is nice (unless you have TOO MUCH), but I would never drive below about 3,000 anyway...

 

That's not valid. 11psi out of each may be totally different CFM's. What is the CFM rating of the Turbo you're comparing to that of an Eaton M45? At what RPM?

 

There's this hybrid turbine: the Forced Performance Big 28. It uses a T-28 core in a modified T-25 housing and compressor, spools like a T-25, makes full boost before 3,100 rpm and holds it to red, and moves 520 CFM. FP strapped one to a GSX, cranked it to 21 psi, and bested 11.82@119.3. That's a full-weight, lightly-motored up, GSX.

So you see, if you actually explore your options, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

Or to have full boost at 750 rpm's, right off the line with an Eaton M45

 

First of all, SC + 4g63 = Winner of the "Worst Idea of This Generation" award...

Second, if you're digging your engine to 750 rpm anytime other than idling, it's time for driving school...

And third, this whole concept of too much low-end/not enough weight just isn't getting through to you... A Civic is NOT an SSEi, no matter how you slice it.

 

why do u guys think its so bad? You can never have enough low end power

 

This is one of the biggest misconceptions I've heard on this topic.

I know several people that have transplanted modified L67's (Supercharged 3800) into many different types of vehicles. All of them light cars. Fiero's, Cavaliers, and even a couple sand rail/dune cars.

If I want to, even with good tires, low pressure and sticky VHT all over a proffessionally prepared track, I can skip the water, and burn out all the way to the staging line. But if I want to manage it, I can launch without a chirp. Without using traction control. The guys running these in the smaller cars have twice the 'problem' with traction that I do. And they manage just fine.

There's a two-sided argument going here. If you spool at the line with a turbo, what's the difference? Don't you still have the very problem you're talking about with a SC? The difference is that with the SC, you don't have to rev to spool. Your RPM's are dictated by what RPM is best to launch at, not where you need to be to be in boost. So you can rev to 1500 (like I do) and launch, and you're in boost all the way up to 3000 when the turbo WOULD have spooled. You just left Mr. Turbo in the dust.

 

there's no convincing them red, they are all turbo groupies j/k... Like i've said before. I have owned both an find a s/c'd car alot more fun to drive. Yes my Turbo was alot quicker, but took alot more money and time as well.

Im not fighting a turbo vs. supercharger discussion, i'm defending the "superchargers are no good for FWD light cars". When they are just as great, if not better in some aspects.