FordFusionClub.com banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,813 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
V6 guys, who's going to get a turbo or supercharger kit when they come out? This car has the smallest engine out of any car I've ever owned and just wondered what would give most bang for the buck. My mustang has a supercharger, but a co-worker has a turbo in his 302 f-150 and it's pretty cool too. I just don't like the noise of the waste gate when he lets his foot off the throttle. I guess what I'm wondering is, with the turbo, would it be more higher rpm power and with a supercharger, would it be more power throughout the rpm range. This car needs more balls off the line. Any comments/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. (as you can tell, I've never owned a turbocharged vehicle before)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
[quote author=kevjur link=topic=88819.msg1707268#msg1707268 date=1189561039]
V6 guys, who's going to get a turbo or supercharger kit when they come out? This car has the smallest engine out of any car I've ever owned and just wondered what would give most bang for the buck. My mustang has a supercharger, but a co-worker has a turbo in his 302 f-150 and it's pretty cool too. I just don't like the noise of the waste gate when he lets his foot off the throttle. I guess what I'm wondering is, with the turbo, would it be more higher rpm power and with a supercharger, would it be more power throughout the rpm range. This car needs more balls off the line. Any comments/suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. (as you can tell, I've never owned a turbocharged vehicle before)
[/quote]

if you want off the line then you do not want a turbo. And automatic turbo with a low stall speed like stock ( i would have to assume around 1500 to 1800 rpm's) would be laggy as hell. But on the other hand a super charger would build more power low and just keep building the higher you go. I have had cars with both and a turbo needs a manual trans or a stall converter to get the rpms up to launch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
[quote author=kevjur link=topic=88819.msg1707372#msg1707372 date=1189562422]
My co-workers f-150 is a 5 speed, so that makes sense.
[/quote]

i have had lots of turbo cars just like playing with them but they can also be a pain in the ass. that is why if they make a supercharger kit for the 4 cyl i would get that over a turbo kit. here is what i have had and got sick of working on them.

87 shelby z daytona 5 speed MTX
89 shelby z daytona 5 speed MTX
91 shelby z daytona 3 speed auto with 3500rpm stall and 150 hp nitrous shot
88 chrys lebaron turbo II
98 neon with t3/t4
and am working on a friends SRT-4 right now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
for a v6, if you do a turbo, a twin turbo setup would be best. otherwise, go for a supercharger, especially since the cars a bit on the heavy side for the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,813 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
[quote author=slaterracing link=topic=88819.msg1707407#msg1707407 date=1189562815]
[quote author=kevjur link=topic=88819.msg1707372#msg1707372 date=1189562422]
My co-workers f-150 is a 5 speed, so that makes sense.
[/quote]

i have had lots of turbo cars just like playing with them but they can also be a pain in the ass. that is why if they make a supercharger kit for the 4 cyl i would get that over a turbo kit. here is what i have had and got sick of working on them.

87 shelby z daytona 5 speed MTX
89 shelby z daytona 5 speed MTX
91 shelby z daytona 3 speed auto with 3500rpm stall and 150 hp nitrous shot
88 chrys lebaron turbo II
98 neon with t3/t4
and am working on a friends SRT-4 right now


[/quote]With the dodge 2.2 and 2.5 liter engines, I can see how you would be tired of working on them. How many cracked heads did you end up with? lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
[quote author=kevjur link=topic=88819.msg1707636#msg1707636 date=1189567203]
[quote author=slaterracing link=topic=88819.msg1707407#msg1707407 date=1189562815]
[quote author=kevjur link=topic=88819.msg1707372#msg1707372 date=1189562422]
My co-workers f-150 is a 5 speed, so that makes sense.
[/quote]

i have had lots of turbo cars just like playing with them but they can also be a pain in the ass. that is why if they make a supercharger kit for the 4 cyl i would get that over a turbo kit. here is what i have had and got sick of working on them.

87 shelby z daytona 5 speed MTX
89 shelby z daytona 5 speed MTX
91 shelby z daytona 3 speed auto with 3500rpm stall and 150 hp nitrous shot
88 chrys lebaron turbo II
98 neon with t3/t4
and am working on a friends SRT-4 right now


[/quote]With the dodge 2.2 and 2.5 liter engines, I can see how you would be tired of working on them. How many cracked heads did you end up with? lol.
[/quote]

i used the copper head gaskets so never had the issue with blowing them out or cracking the head. I had these cars running 300hp plus and i would break axels all the time. With the 91 i would have to rebuild the tranny after every event (about 6 to 8 runs down the strip) and that got old. That thing was sick when it ran good. 25PSI of boost w/ a 150 shot. I miss that car just do not miss the headaches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
Personally, having turbo'ed a non-factory turbo car, I would stick to supercharging. Much simpler design, easier to install, less complex parts to go wrong = higher reliability IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,444 Posts
[quote author=kevjur link=topic=88819.msg1707372#msg1707372 date=1189562422]
My co-workers f-150 is a 5 speed, so that makes sense.
[/quote]

Must be a manual trans.

If a supercharger comes out, I will be first in line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
In a realistic world full of realistic options. A turbo or multi-turbo will get you more power, and will have more options, but for the V6 it will not be as cost effective.

It really depends on your ultimate goals for the car. If you want it to last, and its going to be a daily driven vehicle, by all means you will have a hard time beating a well produced supercharger kit. Remember now, you have 2 sets of runners for your intake, so a turbo will call for a lot more pipe. And when you have more of anything, its ultimately going to be more maintenance. More parts, more moving parts, more material costs = less efficiency, and thats the bottom line, and why most superchargers will be the preference of choice.
As for the I4, 1 less intake manifold. Thats the bottom line, and does make it a fair argument to go either way on a I4 for the common F/I modder.And as for the RWD truck with a lot of room under the hood(F150,) its a fair option as well. But again, more pipe and thats a bit of one individuals preference.

Forced induction technology has become versatile as far as the preference. But the target remains the same; more air, more power.
Hopefully the tuner side of the Fusion will come out and about in the coming years. We will get to see many applications and custom rides to better judge the moot issue with a new generation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
so, have you noticed why no ones made a supercharger for the i4, but they've made at least 4 turbo'd fusions?

its because theirs no room at the pulleys to set one up, or at least you'd have to do a centrifugal supercharger.

behind the exhaust manifold, theirs quite a bit of room to work with. having a short pipe exhaust manifold and a turbo under it is a lot easier and more spacious to do then cramming a supercharger.

granted, i LOVE the lowend/midend power of a super charger, but for the 4cyl goes, i think a turbo is what it needs.

also, running about 15 feet a tube around the bottom of the engine for an intercooleer isnt that much work. granted, you'd have to dip into the oil pan, i think its still easier for a turbo.

thats my 2cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Super all the way. In world war II turbos were being used every where. because expled gases powered the engine intake. SCs were powered in most part by the motion of the crank or cam. Under heavy stress the circular motion of a high speed turbo would throw blades. You can feel these stress by grabing a spinning top and moving it around in your hand, it will pull here and there. Turbo fins can be made out of titanium and chiping in a aluminum block is .. well game over

For me the SCs CENTRIFICAL force !! excuse the caps :) is in line with the HP being produced by the engine. Think turbo Lag now. Boost is boost. This is why turbos come with presure release valves because you can wind up a turbo past your specs and throw a baring. I think the best way to think of it is turbo speed SC is torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
hmm turbos from WW II huh? im pretty sure we're a bit more advanced then before, not to mention if you're spinning up your turbo fast enough, the engine is gonna bust before the turbo throws a blade... you'd only be doing 8-12psi.... comparing Turbos from the 1930's as apposed to Turbos from 1980-2007 is like comparing cars from each age. Sure, the idea is the same, but the makeup is different. They all have new specs, and quality assurance AS WELL as formats and fittings for ideal applications and usage.

and also, its Centrifugal Force. not centrifical...

Sure, Turbos for the most part are "gained" HP the higher RPM range, and Super Chargers are more Low rage RPM/HP.

again, application is the biggest issue here. are you looking for a 1/4 mile car? or something a little more fun to drive on the road?

No point in having a super charger on a car, if you're not looking to do 0-60 faster. Either way, the average 0-60 w/ a v6 and SC or Turbo, will be pretty close. you'll be hitting almost the exact same HP, either way... just one will get you started faster, then other will finish faster. (in theory)

Thats why, i personally say "Twin Turbo" is ideal for a v6. Older Nissan Silvias, 250, 300, 350z/zx models ran best w/ a twin turbo setup on almost all of their v6 platforms. twin turbo gives you a decent low end response as well as high end RPM that people want.

unless that is, twin turbos setups from WWII weren't any good :screwy:

not to be rude, but its just a particularly bad analogy/comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
[quote author=Crystallas link=topic=88819.msg1713624#msg1713624 date=1189758024]
It really depends on your ultimate goals for the car. If you want it to last, and its going to be a daily driven vehicle, by all means you will have a hard time beating a well produced supercharger kit. Remember now, you have 2 sets of runners for your intake, so a turbo will call for a lot more pipe. And when you have more of anything, its ultimately going to be more maintenance. More parts, more moving parts, more material costs = less efficiency, and thats the bottom line, and why most superchargers will be the preference of choice.
As for the I4, 1 less intake manifold. Thats the bottom line, and does make it a fair argument to go either way on a I4 for the common F/I modder.And as for the RWD truck with a lot of room under the hood(F150,) its a fair option as well. But again, more pipe and thats a bit of one individuals preference.

Forced induction technology has become versatile as far as the preference. But the target remains the same; more air, more power.
Hopefully the tuner side of the Fusion will come out and about in the coming years. We will get to see many applications and custom rides to better judge the moot issue with a new generation.

[/quote]


How can you say having more parts = more maintenance?

a turbo is comprised up of a turbo... oil line tap... intake.... exhaust manifold(s)... and intercooler.

how many of those will actually need more "maintenance?"

im pretty sure the only actual moving part there is the turbo it self.

also, both need "piping." It's just that most super chargers have the intercooler attached on top of the engine or directly on the super charger. most super chargers cant be "retro fitted" per say, and have to be specifically made. (im pretty sure at least)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
i will say one thing from my experience Superchargers have better reliability when it comes to the aftermarket. When putting a turbo on a car that did not come with one or even upgrading to a larger turbo in those that had them seem to fail a ton more than a supercharger kit. i have done tons of work on turbos and have had to replace more that i want to think about. as for supercharging i had only 1 car with one and that was my 90 S/C T-Bird. Never an issue with that car. Plus being a mustang guy i have helped install superchargers on about 5 to 6 mustangs and all of them worked without issue for years. None of my friends ever had to replace a part on them. 1 friend has even had is Paxon on there for 7 years with 5 plus trips to the 1/8 track a year. As for myself i had turbo daytona's and even a 79 mustang turbo (what a pile of crap that was). For me i want a supercharger for the reliability and the extra HP of course. Looking at Steeda's kit for the Focus i would think the Fusion would not have an issue with making 220HP plus with a kit like that. Another problem is heat. Turbos make the underhood temp go so much higher. You would need to vent the hell out of the car to make sure it did not get to hot under there with a twin turbo set up. Just my .02 cents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
584 Posts
a turbo is comprised up of a turbo... oil line tap... intake.... exhaust manifold(s)... and intercooler
-The oil feed line could fail at the T fitting you put in with the oil-pressure switch (common). Blows oil out the engine.
-Engine oil could also blow out the PCV and oil dipstick.
-Turbo's can blow off the charge piping from time to time (common). While it's an easy fix, it doesn't happen at the most convenient time.
-If not setup properly, or well maintained, over-boost is an issue.
-Requires good gas. One bad tank can cause engine failure. While this is true for superchargers also, you can cut out the super by removing it from the drive belt for a time, then reattach it later. You cannot do the same with turbo's without major changes.
-Turbo's open up a whole can-o-worms when it comes to manifold vacuum levels.
-Generally, there are no problems with the intercooler, unless you get a rock through a pass, then see above.
-Exhaust manifold gets glowing-red hot, potentially causing adjacent parts to melt or fail, of paint to chip off the hood.
-Exhaust flex joint under more pressure when turbo spools, causing increased stress & when coupled with increased heat of exhaust, could fail faster.

There are probably a few more, but my point is to illustrate that a turbo system is complex, and has a few points of failure.
A sealed-bearing supercharger has: a belt, charge piping, air filter, and a bypass valve. That is more simple than what goes into a turbo.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top