# 1/4 mile s/c vr6 vs kinetic turbo kits



## dr_dirtg (Oct 7, 2003)

Im looking to boost my vr6 corrado and trying to weigh the differences between a vortech kit stage 1 or 2 and a kinetic kit stage 1 or 2.

Where are all the dynos for these setups? This new vortex forum style is messed up. 
The websites don't post them anymore?


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

A good SC setup will hand a VR turbo its *** up till about 80 mph. I've built two FI MK3 VR's, one is 285whp on a Vortech V1 and the other is 577whp VR turbo and the turbo cars struggle with traction and turbo spool. That being said, for all out power and faster top end car, go with the turbo set up.  If you want a fun daily driver that you have to rev out to make full power, go with a supercharger. I love the power of the Vortech cars, no real traction problems but you will be limited to about 300whp, with a turbo, you have more control over the boost and power levels are almost endless.


----------



## dr_dirtg (Oct 7, 2003)

I heard that comparing a equal hp sc to turbo vr the sc car is faster. I can't find dyno sheets anymore on the web sites, but I think this is because until the turbo spools up (~3000rpm) the sc vr already spent upto 3000 rpm with more power.


----------



## 976-RADD (May 29, 2003)

The OP is considering a stage 1 or 2 car, therefore it's irrelvant to consider 577whp turbo cars, much less comparing them to a SC car with much less HP. This is one of the most talked about topics on Vortex, but the new seach sucks so good luck finding threads. 

There is no "right" answer, just personal preference. In a nutshell, the main thing to consider is each setup's relative power bands. End of story.


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

976-RADD said:


> The OP is considering a stage 1 or 2 car, therefore it's irrelvant to consider 577whp turbo cars, much less comparing them to a SC car with much less HP. This is one of the most talked about topics on Vortex, but the new seach sucks so good luck finding threads.
> 
> There is no "right" answer, just personal preference. In a nutshell, the main thing to consider is each setup's relative power bands. End of story.


I don't remember directly comparing the two. I posted both for reference, showing that I have done both and prefer the supercharger. Area under the curve equals a faster car provided you have traction, period.


----------



## Juiced6 (Feb 1, 2004)

well this is better suited to the drag forum

both will get you into the 12s with proper mods and driver ability 

however both will net you 14s for the same reasons


you have your supercharger fans and turbo fans on this board


i guess for ease of installation - id go with the supercharger


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

Steve is running mid 11's with a turbo'd Corrado 2450lbs.


----------



## luckyvr6 (Jan 6, 2009)

i went [email protected] 106 with a vortech v1 with ams chip.would hit 10psi at 6500rpm and up.
i now have kinetic stg1 running 10 psi and went [email protected] issues and belt slippage are 2 other
downfalls to superchargers.either setup is money well spent in my opinion.


----------



## dr_dirtg (Oct 7, 2003)

yes the new search, infact the new forum style overall, the IMs especially, suck. 

Anyway, I did find some info decpite that.

The area under the curve - thats a good way to put it.

The stage 2 VF kit - only that, what would that get you in 1/4 mile?

And the stage 2 kinetic kit, what woudl that get you in 1/4 mile?

Roughly.


I think driveability will be more fun with a supercharger anyway, cause you dont drop your clutch at 5500 every day. But you do see 2000-3000 rpm every day. 
Are the current VF kits belt- slipage problematic? Or was that just the older ones?


----------



## 976-RADD (May 29, 2003)

luckyvr6 said:


> i now have kinetic stg1 running 10 psi and went [email protected]


Was this on street tires?




dr_dirtg said:


> I think driveability will be more fun with a supercharger anyway, cause you dont drop your clutch at 5500 every day. But you do see 2000-3000 rpm every day.


What do you mean by "dropping your clutch at 5500?" My Kinetic stage 3 car reaches full boost below 4k rpm.


----------



## Juiced6 (Feb 1, 2004)

my c2 schimmel vrt drives like its stock up to about 2800rpm when it starts making boost and blows the tires off at 4500ish in the first 2 gears

also superchargers have lag as well


----------



## dr_dirtg (Oct 7, 2003)

This is a daily driver, atleast until winter comes. My goal is to have a 13 or less second corrado. I will end up putting exhaust system on once this one starts going. And I may end up getting the
For the most part, I'll be in the 2000-3000-4000 rpm area. 
So depending on the turbo, usually atleast 3000rpm is where the boost would kick in, I would need to drive in the 3000-4000 area more to make use of it.
Where as with the blower, I would have it earlier. 
So thats the pro about the SC.

What do you mean superchargers have lag? 

The con about the SC, which is a pro in the turbo is that at 3000rpm i'd have 10 psi with the turbo and with the sc i'd have maybe 4 or 5 psi. 

So what matters most is the area under the curve, and depends on the peak psi of the sc that area could be greater... right?


----------



## dr_dirtg (Oct 7, 2003)

KubotaPowered said:


> I don't remember directly comparing the two. I posted both for reference, showing that I have done both and prefer the supercharger. Area under the curve equals a faster car provided you have traction, period.


What makes you prefer the supercharger?
Was it quicker in quarter mile?
driveability?


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

KubotaPowered said:


> Area under the curve equals a faster car provided you have traction, period.


exactly, and the turbo cars always have way more power under the curve. you just set up your boost controller to keep your boost at traction threshold.


----------



## luckyvr6 (Jan 6, 2009)

976-RADD said:


> Was this on street tires?
> 
> No.22x8 slicks.


----------



## 976-RADD (May 29, 2003)

dr_dirtg said:


> This is a daily driver, atleast until winter comes. My goal is to have a 13 or less second corrado. I will end up putting exhaust system on once this one starts going. And I may end up getting the
> For the most part, I'll be in the 2000-3000-4000 rpm area.
> So depending on the turbo, usually atleast 3000rpm is where the boost would kick in, I would need to drive in the 3000-4000 area more to make use of it.
> Where as with the blower, I would have it earlier.
> ...


You're putting way too much thought into this. Don't believe the hype regarding turbo cars and lag. Unless you're using a HUGE turbo, which you wouldn't be, the lag isn't as bad as you'd think. You need to drive both cars to put your mind at ease before sinking money into your car.


----------



## BlownGinster (Jun 23, 2002)

I had an AMS supercharger kit with 12psi pulley on my car before I went turbo. Both are fun..............but I enjoy the turbo more.


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

dr_dirtg said:


> What makes you prefer the supercharger?
> Was it quicker in quarter mile?
> driveability?


Power vs traction. Linear application of power, no quick surge of power, drawback is you ned to rev it out to get it. I like the driveabilty of the supercharger, more bottom end power for city driving, no reduction in compression. From a reliability standpoint, both cars have been relatively low maintenance since FI. As long as you don't run a V9 charger, everything will be ok.


----------



## 976-RADD (May 29, 2003)

KubotaPowered said:


> Power vs traction. Linear application of power, no quick surge of power, drawback is you ned to rev it out to get it. I like the driveabilty of the supercharger, more bottom end power for city driving, no reduction in compression.


I agree. However, the VR6 application differs from your typical "hot hatch" in that it's highly torquey down low. With a VRT, you get the best of both words, low-end power and pure  up top. Besides, without even considering the turbo, the car's supporting mods give the car more power long before the turbo gets the party started.


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

976-RADD said:


> I agree. However, the VR6 application differs from your typical "hot hatch" in that it's highly torquey down low. With a VRT, you get the best of both words, low-end power and pure  up top. Besides, without even considering the turbo, the car's supporting mods give the car more power long before the turbo gets the party started.


It is very torquey down low given that you do not reduce the compression ratio to add more boost.


----------



## dr_dirtg (Oct 7, 2003)

Oh... I was planning to drop it to 9:1 and boost upto 10 max. But maybe I don't need to drop the compression if I don't redline it all the time.


----------



## turboit (Oct 4, 2001)

if 10psi is all your gonna run you wouldn't need to drop compression. Although power is addicting. I doubt you wanna stay at 10psi for long


----------

