# VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

Which one of these kits would you rather have price *not* being a factor. This would be for an OBD1 distributor Corrado. Both should put down similar power w/ full exhaust and cams ~230-240 whp. Reliability and longevity are big factors. I won't be running an intercooler so turning up boost isn't a factor either. Interested in opinions, pros, cons etc


----------



## KIEZERJOSE (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

Kinetic kit all the way http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Why, because you will want more boost. 
But if you want a Blower i have a C2 kit for sale, all you will need is to change the software for a distributor car


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (KIEZERJOSE)*

Good point. I agree that Kinetic wins for upgradability. However, I'm trying to compare complete bolt on kits. Turbos will always win the highest horsepower battle over a supercharger. If that was my goal I would not have chosen a 14yr old FWD car with 205mm wide tires as my platform. I think the Supercharger wins the heatsoak, ease of install/removal, simplicity, less drivetrain shock, reliability battle. I think Kinetic is a great kit, but not nearly as time tested on Corrados as the VF w/ Giac software.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

Suggestion:
Get a ride in BOTH set-ups before you buy.
On paper the peak numbers are quite similar.
On the road the torque curves are COMPLETELY different.
Re: long term reliability/longevity are roughly equal, at this power level. The key (as with any VR6) is proper maintanence.
-Jeff


----------



## JETTSET (Oct 16, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

If you are looking for proven reliable power with good manners and drivability then VF is definitely the way go. You won't be disappointed. 
Remember the one major difference in the two options is tuning. Talk to people who own both kits before making a decision. PM t101 and ask him about the tune on his Kenetic kit and how it performs day to day.


_Modified by JETTSET at 12:40 PM 12-14-2006_


----------



## Action Jackson (Nov 20, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (JETTSET)*

I've been thinking about a supercharger kit for my newly acquired VR myself. Why? Because I love torque, now! I really feel that the motor needs ompf from 1000 - 3000 rev band and I would hope that the super would help fill the torque need in that area, and continue to contribute as I climb to redline. I love diesels, and so I always look for a gasser that will provide the same torquey feel as a diesel.


----------



## Norwegian-VR6 (Feb 6, 2002)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Action Jackson)*

I have been using a Z-Engineering ZR2 charger for 1o months. No issues at all. Just plug and play. Around 230-240whp.
No, here comes the thing that I have seen the last 6 years off owning a VR6:
You will always have a little more power. Its easy to say no, when u have never had a turbo/supercharger on a VR6.
But belive me, you WILL want more








Ive just sold my ZR2 kit, and are going for a Kinetic kit. I REALLY regret not buying a Stage 1 Kinetic kit from the beggining!
But now im going stage 3 all the way.
But a Z-Engineering kit that are pretty new, is very good.
My opinion after 6 years driving a VR6? Kinetic all the way. And iff you want to, you can upgrade ALOT off stuff.
Best upgrade I have ever got on the car, is the Peloquin Diff. Superb


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Norwegian-VR6)*

Good advice from everyone http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif You are right about wanting more power. I probably will but I almost want a kit that will prevent me from upgrading easily. More power means more $$, breaking things, constantly tinkering,etc. I work on cars all day and find it getting harder and harder to get motivated to touch the Corrado. Manual boost controllers are too easily turned up







230-240whp puts you roughly in the same weight to horsepower ratio as the following.
BMW E46 M3
Mitsubishi EVO
Subaru STI
Toyota Supra
I understand all those cars are AWD or RWD hence better traction. Either kit would be enough for me.


----------



## websaabn (May 23, 2003)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

I would go sc if you want to be fast on a track, turbo if you want to brag about hp


----------



## J.Q. Public (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

I've had both and personally at that power level I prefer a supercharger. Both should be plenty reliable and longevity really shouldn't be that much of an issue.
That being said I like the off boost/boost transition characteristics of the SC better. The transition is much smoother, and at that power level as long as you aren't in 1st gear you should never have a traction issue. You will find that traction will be more difficult to get with the turbo in 1st and 2nd.
Only drawback to an SC for me is the noise out of a non SQ vortech charger. They do whine a bit at idle due to the straight cut gear design. Something to keep in mind as some love it, others do not. This can be remedied by buying an SQ version of the blower.
Similar comments can be made about turbo wastegate dumps, again, re-routing or an internal gate will resolve this, but it's something to keep in mind.
Anyway you go I'm sure you will more than happy with either setup.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (J.Q. Public)*

Pretty sure the VF kit for Corrado uses the V9 Vortech w/ helical cut gears. For my power goals I'm leaning toward a charger for some of the reasons you mentioned. Traction, linear power, less drivetrain shock etc. Thanks for the input http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

Turbo. Otherwise you'll get blown away by a certain purple car still.


----------



## 93SLCyasee (Jul 22, 2004)

While we are on the subject, anyone out there want to comment on items to upgrade/service before installing a SC kit? Should you have your engine rebuilt (forged internals) etc? I have a '93 SLC. Everything in the engine has been replaced (chains/tensioners/gaskets/coolant system/headwork/valve guides/clutch/flywheel). 
Do any of you recommend having your lower end rebuilt before going SC if money is not an issue?
I guess since I am an everyday driver and reliability is a large issue I deal with on a daily basis, I am just curious as to what you would replace maintenence-wise before a big install like that. Of course a car will be reliable if it is cautiously driven and well maintained. Just curious for future purposes


_Modified by 93SLCyasee at 4:01 PM 12-15-2006_


----------



## KIEZERJOSE (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: (93SLCyasee)*

With what you did already _(chains/tensioners/gaskets/coolant system/headwork/valve guides/clutch/flywheel). _ all i would do after that is get a LSD and some good tires. 
I recomend cams but im not sure if the VF software lets you run them. if im wrong all i can say is 268's and a SC is a very fun car to drive








oooh and it sound's like a beast at idle


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Action Jackson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Action Jackson* »_I've been thinking about a supercharger kit for my newly acquired VR myself. Why? Because I love torque, now! I really feel that the motor needs ompf from 1000 - 3000 rev band and I would hope that the super would help fill the torque need in that area, and continue to contribute as I climb to redline. I love diesels, and so I always look for a gasser that will provide the same torquey feel as a diesel.

Lol...the SC will actually lose bottom end.


----------



## LSinLV (Nov 25, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Jefnes3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jefnes3* »_Suggestion:
Get a ride in BOTH set-ups before you buy.
On paper the peak numbers are quite similar.
On the road the torque curves are COMPLETELY different.
Re: long term reliability/longevity are roughly equal, at this power level. The key (as with any VR6) is proper maintanence.
-Jeff


X2 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif excellent advice. drive both, see which meets your needs and wants. you can't go wrong with either.


----------



## Pow3r Hour (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_Good point. I agree that Kinetic wins for upgradability. However, I'm trying to compare complete bolt on kits. Turbos will always win the highest horsepower battle over a supercharger. If that was my goal I would not have chosen a 14yr old FWD car with 205mm wide tires as my platform. I think the Supercharger wins the heatsoak, ease of install/removal, simplicity, less drivetrain shock, reliability battle. I think Kinetic is a great kit, but not nearly as time tested on Corrados as the VF w/ Giac software.

the heatsoak issue is a huge lie, i have no problems what so ever. Also the reliablity issue, we arent talking abotu turbos 10 years ago. These days a turbo is just as if not more reliable than any sc. Only plus in my mind for an sc if install is easier, but benefits of a turbo far outweigh an sc imo

_Quote, originally posted by *Action Jackson* »_I've been thinking about a supercharger kit for my newly acquired VR myself. Why? Because I love torque, now! I really feel that the motor needs ompf from 1000 - 3000 rev band and I would hope that the super would help fill the torque need in that area, and continue to contribute as I climb to redline. I love diesels, and so I always look for a gasser that will provide the same torquey feel as a diesel.

the vr has plenty of low end torque, up top is where it needs help, which is why i would rather go turbo. My turbo is fully spooled before 3k anyways


_Modified by Pow3r Hour at 6:35 PM 12-15-2006_


----------



## spooln6 (May 27, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (LSinLV)*

I had put down 254 whp 292.1 chp 228 trq on my c2 stage one Just under 300 hp not bad for a bolt on. I love my sc that was at 8 psi now i am at 14 also have other goodies on. Getting a fmic after winter and get her on the dyno


----------



## LSinLV (Nov 25, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (spooln6)*

I dunno. S/C'd Vr's can and do make nearly the power of a turbo...it's getting close!!!!! 







power wars!!! everybody wins!!!


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

Given the mods in your sig (mk4 hg, dsr 256 cams, 2.5" exhaust) I would recommend a s/c as it will compliment them well. While it would be possible to run the Kinetic kit with the mk4hg you will have to keep boost low and keep an eye on knock activity. Plenty of people have run the mk4hg with a s/c without any real isssues as it is more tolerant of the higher compression. Also the 2.5" exhaust you have is more than enough for a s/c while a turbo really needs a 3" to perform as it should. Since you have fairly modest power goals I think you will be more than happy with a s/c. For a daily driven car they are hard to beat. You won't have traction issues, don't have to worry about boost creep, etc. With a turbo the temptation is always there to turn the boost up








My honest recommendation is to pick up one of the used kits in the classifieds and sort your own fueling. You will save a ton of money and make more power than either the VF or Kinetic kit. Oh and to clear up some myths in this thread: A centrifugal s/c (which any kit offered for the VR6 has always utilized a centrifugal of one brand or another) does not add torque down low. On the other hand it doesn't really take torque away either. Granted there are some losses from spinning the charger and what not but given proper software the car should behave as a bolt-on NA vr6 below 4k or so. Above 4k is where the fun really starts to happen. Hell even a well setup turbo car with a reasonable compression ratio shouldnt be that far off a stock vr before the turbo spools. They only feel weak down low because of how strong they come on up top.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (LSinLV)*

Concerning Heatsoak: Wouldn't the intake temps be higher on a non intercooled turbo car at ~8psi say during a track day mid summer than a supercharged car non intercooled at 8psi? Both units are compressing the air and raising it's temps but the turbo is bolted to the exhaust manifold.
Also my concerns with reliability have little to do with the units themselves. I'm driving a Volvo 850 w/155k-original turbo http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
It's more the software (Corrado) and the powertrain shock that a turbo has vs. more linear power of the charger. I have heard great things about Jeff's software for distributor Corrado's,def. have nothing negative to say about him or C2. However, it's very new and only a handfull of cars are running it to my knowledge. VF has been supercharging Corrados for 10yrs.
Driving both kits is something I need to do before I buy. I'm in the Philly area. Any offers


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Turbo. Otherwise you'll get blown away by a certain purple car still.
















Supercharged Corrado~8psi vs. NA Gti VR6 w/ weight reduction
Sounds interesting. See you in April


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

I have a '94 Corrado OBD1 w/coilpack, V2SQ Vortech Supercharger, 30# injectors, ABT 268 cams, and C2 software with C2 CAI and I absolutely love it. If you love the way the stock VR6 feels you'll love it with a supercharger. I can't comment on a turbo VR but if it feels anything like my wifes 1.8t with all that lag I think I would hate it. I like the supercharger because it has power from the start and the power is very linear like a stock VR6. Turbo VR's are capable of a ton of hp but I've never cared about the numbers, I just want the car to feel good and have good power delivery and I get that from the supercharger. 


_Modified by VR62NV at 5:16 PM 12-16-2006_


----------



## brilliantyellowg60 (Aug 30, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (VR62NV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR62NV* »_I can't comment on a turbo VR but if it feels anything like my wifes 1.8t with all that lag I think I would hate it. I like the supercharger because it has power from the start and the power is very linear like a stock VR6. Turbo VR's are capable of a ton of hp but I've never cared about the numbers, I just want the car to feel good and have good power delivery and I get that from the supercharger. 

No real lag here








12.6 on a junkyard motor 
1 year with a Kinetic kit and no problems or regrets.
I bought stage 1 and made my own IC setup.
$/hp you get a better deal with a turbo










_Modified by brilliantyellowg60 at 9:44 AM 12-17-2006_


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (brilliantyellowg60)*

I've had both...
The kits are both equally difficult / easy to install. Both make nice power. But I prefer the turbo over the sc. The sc idle gets annoying to me after a while. I like the stealthness of the turbo. I also enjoy hitting peak boost at ~3500 rpm and it holds till redline. 
I'd recommend what Jeff said. Try to take both for a drive.


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (brilliantyellowg60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *brilliantyellowg60* »_
No real lag here








12.6 on a junkyard motor 
1 year with a Kinetic kit and no problems or regrets.
I bought stage 1 and made my own IC setup.
$/hp you get a better deal with a turbo










I gotta go for a ride in one of those bad boys one of these days. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








With my 268 cams the power from the SC starts low and doesn't let up. I don't feel any drop off in power it just keeps building. I'm very pleased with my setup.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_







Supercharged Corrado~8psi vs. NA Gti VR6 w/ weight reduction
Sounds interesting. See you in April









Let me put the real head/cams in and I'll throw the back seat in to even it up a little bit.








I've driven a lot of SC cars over the years from the original AMS kit, to the Z's and the VF's. The Kinetic car I drove pulled lower, harder, and better then any of those, belt slip isn't an issue, and there's a knob for horsepower. What's more to want


----------



## JETTSET (Oct 16, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
Let me put the real head/cams in and I'll throw the back seat in to even it up a little bit.








I've driven a lot of SC cars over the years from the original AMS kit, to the Z's and the VF's. The Kinetic car I drove pulled lower, harder, and better then any of those, belt slip isn't an issue, and there's a knob for horsepower. What's more to want









Just to clarify something belt slip is NOT i repeat NOT an issue if it is installed correctly, the pulleys are aligned and you don't use belt dressing crap. I ran stage 2 for 7 months and only adjusted the belt once even though it didn't need it. I always showed a consistent 8 psi.


----------



## 6cylVWguy (Jun 14, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (JETTSET)*

I'm a little confused what blower setup the s/c people are using where they get linear power? Because with a centrifugal blower you really do have a belt driven turbo. I have a blown VR6, with a Z-engineering ZR3 (gear driven like a vortech) charger and that car makes NO boost until over 3k rpms. In taller gears you can noticeably feel when the boost kicks in. This might be a little different in people running a high boost blower, but I'm running 10 psi max, and this is how mine works. So, I think the excuses that s/c people use to justify their choices are usually incorrect. They aren't more reliable and they don't make the type of power down low that people think. I bought mine simply because of the price and ease of installation. I'm also not power hungry as I would rather have a balanced car than one that has a built to the hilt motor but has a hard time putting it down. 260whp is fine for my purposes. 
I suppose this isn't a complete apples to apples comparison, but I also have a 2.0t FSI car as well, and it boosts down low far better than my VR. In fact, both cars feel completely different. GTI is a kick in the pants down low, and the rado is a kick in the pants up high. The Rado is great during HPDE events, as I'm always in boost, so the car feel very quick at all times. But on the street there are plenty of times when I'm out of boost and the car feels only slightly more responsive than stock. 



_Modified by 6cylVWguy at 4:43 PM 12-19-2006_


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (6cylVWguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *6cylVWguy* »_I'm a little confused what blower setup the s/c people are using where they get linear power? Because with a centrifugal blower you really do have a belt driven turbo. I have a blown VR6, with a Z-engineering ZR3 (gear driven like a vortech) charger and that car makes NO boost until over 3k rpms. In taller gears you can noticeably feel when the boost kicks in. This might be a little different in people running a high boost blower, but I'm running 10 psi max, and this is how mine works. So, I think the excuses that s/c people use to justify their choices are usually incorrect. They aren't more reliable and they don't make the type of power down low that people think. I bought mine simply because of the price and ease of installation. I'm also not power hungry as I would rather have a balanced car than one that has a built to the hilt motor but has a hard time putting it down. 260whp is fine for my purposes. 
I suppose this isn't a complete apples to apples comparison, but I also have a 2.0t FSI car as well, and it boosts down low far better than my VR. In fact, both cars feel completely different. GTI is a kick in the pants down low, and the rado is a kick in the pants up high. The Rado is great during HPDE events, as I'm always in boost, so the car feel very quick at all times. But on the street there are plenty of times when I'm out of boost and the car feels only slightly more responsive than stock. 

_Modified by 6cylVWguy at 4:43 PM 12-19-2006_

My situation may be different then others since I am running 268 cams. My car does not have massive power down low but it does have good power and that power just builds and builds until redline. I'm not power hungry either so to me the car feels great. I'm running a Vortech V2SQ charger.


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (VR62NV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR62NV* »_
My situation may be different then others since I am running 268 cams. My car does not have massive power down low but it does have good power and that power just builds and builds until redline. I'm not power hungry either so to me the car feels great. I'm running a Vortech V2SQ charger.

Rich...I need a ride in your car. I want to see how the cams feel in the top end...since I'm putting the Schrick 264/260 in. I know they are not the same...but I want to get an idea on how aftermarket cams feel.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (abt cup)*

I spoke to VF about cams and they said there is plenty of fueling for them w/ stage 2. They strongly rec. DSR 256's b/c they have worked well but they also stated some are running 268's. I'll be running my DSR's http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## V-dubbulyuh (Nov 13, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (VR62NV)*

This thread is great... cuz I am having the same choice dilema between VF and Kinetic. Unfortunately I don't have the option of test driving either, nobody here has either of these kits.


----------



## tashistation (Sep 6, 2003)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (V-dubbulyuh)*

It seems to me that the kinetic kit is more economical to upgrade. 
Isn't all that is required is a FMIC?


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (abt cup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abt cup* »_Rich...I need a ride in your car. I want to see how the cams feel in the top end...since I'm putting the Schrick 264/260 in. I know they are not the same...but I want to get an idea on how aftermarket cams feel.









Any time Lee.


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (tashistation)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tashistation* »_It seems to me that the kinetic kit is more economical to upgrade. Isn't all that is required is a FMIC?

Nope. Water Injection is however.


----------



## Feanor (Apr 29, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (JETTSET)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JETTSET* »_
Just to clarify something *belt slip is NOT i repeat NOT an issue if it is installed correctly*, the pulleys are aligned and you don't use belt dressing crap. I ran stage 2 for 7 months and only adjusted the belt once even though it didn't need it. I always showed a consistent 8 psi.


Yes, belt slip is an issue unless you have a cogged set-up.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Feanor)*

When does your belt slip? Tightening it doesn't stop it from slipping?


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

My old VF-E stage 1 didn't have belt slip at all. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Feanor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Feanor* »_
Yes, belt slip is an issue unless you have a cogged set-up.

He said it CAN be an issue if not installed correctly not that it never happens. My belt had a little slip above 5000 rpm after installing the kit but I tightened it up and no belt slip.


----------



## VR6DAMEN (Feb 17, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (VR62NV)*

good thread, i have also been trying to compare the two lately.


----------



## LSinLV (Nov 25, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Feanor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Feanor* »_
Yes, belt slip is an issue unless you have a cogged set-up.

completly incorrect.
the new design drive from VF runs 15psi with ZERO slip....look at the dyno in my thread about STGIV.
belt slip happens to higher boost setups, but is not/should not be an issue under 10spi...IF you have correctly installed and tensioned the belt. they do stretch slightly.


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (LSinLV)*

Yeah, but its only for the mk4...not the mk3 or the Corrado in which the OP has.


----------



## Feanor (Apr 29, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (LSinLV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LSinLV* »_
completly incorrect.
the new design drive from VF runs 15psi with ZERO slip....look at the dyno in my thread about STGIV.
belt slip happens to higher boost setups, but is not/should not be an issue under 10spi...IF you have correctly installed and tensioned the belt. they do stretch slightly.


Who said I was talking about the new design.







You're the only guy with that set-up.


----------



## Feanor (Apr 29, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (VR62NV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR62NV* »_
He said it CAN be an issue if not installed correctly not that it never happens. My belt had a little slip above 5000 rpm after installing the kit but I tightened it up and no belt slip.

I know what he said. I installed my kit myself and I was very careful and made sure everything was alligned properly, but I still have issues like you above 5000 rpm.


----------



## Feanor (Apr 29, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (VR6OOM)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR6OOM* »_My old VF-E stage 1 didn't have belt slip at all. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

That's total BS. If there was no belt slip then you had a turbo, not a SC.


----------



## LSinLV (Nov 25, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Feanor)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Feanor* »_
Who said I was talking about the new design.







You're the only guy with that set-up.

I had almost zero belt slip with my 11psi stg III....just tighten the belt more than spec (30deg deflection)....works, but shorts the WP life....
in most cases slip is not a big issue, as most kits are designed for this...and are rated at the max boost WITH slip.....it's what seperates the turbo from the S/C.....
but I wouldn't say it's a reason NOT to get an S/C.....


----------



## Feanor (Apr 29, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_When does your belt slip? Tightening it doesn't stop it from slipping?

If the kit is installed properly, belt slip will occurs when the serpintine belt stretches, which is *roughly* every 500-1000 km. The VF kit I have doesn't come with a tensioner, so one has to tighten it manually everytime the belt stretches. Tightening will limit belt slip for a time, but eventually the belt will just have to be replaced.


----------



## Feanor (Apr 29, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (LSinLV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LSinLV* »_
I had almost zero belt slip with my 11psi stg III....just tighten the belt more than spec (30deg deflection)....works, but shorts the WP life....
in most cases slip is not a big issue, as most kits are designed for this...and are rated at the max boost WITH slip.....it's what seperates the turbo from the S/C.....
but I wouldn't say it's a reason NOT to get an S/C.....

I totally agree Larry. Its not a reason not to get a S/C.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Feanor)*

Good info fellas. It is very much appreciated.Had a chance to drive a 10 psi Z-engineering supercharged Corrado last night. Thanks again Tom (6cylvwguy). Not a VF kit but 8psi w/cams and full exhaust/no cat should be~ similar to his car. Anyway, the car was a blast







Not crazy, scary fast but alot faster than a bolt on car. We were getting some belt slip ~6000 rpm. Feels stock until 3500 rpm then pulls increasingly harder to redline, very linear. I would feel I got my moneys worth with that kind of power in a reliable package. Still want to drive a Kinetic car though to compare. My biggest issue is software. I want to bolt it on and drive it







I work on cars ~10-12 hrs a day, that's enough.


----------



## Lanceevox (Mar 21, 2006)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

So do you think the 0-60 time was greatly increased with the blower?


----------



## Feanor (Apr 29, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Lanceevox)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Lanceevox* »_So do you think the 0-60 time was greatly increased with the blower?

Yeah, your 0-60 time will improve. I can't say how much because that depends which kit you decide to buy etc.


----------



## mikemcnair (Mar 28, 2003)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (Lanceevox)*

steve, call me tomorrow. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
i have too many opinions on this topic to type







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (mikemcnair)*

Will do http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I gotta drive that thing Mike. I know you have been pleased with the Kinetic Kit.


----------



## VR6DAMEN (Feb 17, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif sounds like fun


----------



## 6cylVWguy (Jun 14, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_Good info fellas. It is very much appreciated.Had a chance to drive a 10 psi Z-engineering supercharged Corrado last night. Thanks again Tom (6cylvwguy). Not a VF kit but 8psi w/cams and full exhaust/no cat should be~ similar to his car. Anyway, the car was a blast







Not crazy, scary fast but alot faster than a bolt on car. We were getting some belt slip ~6000 rpm. Feels stock until 3500 rpm then pulls increasingly harder to redline, very linear. I would feel I got my moneys worth with that kind of power in a reliable package. Still want to drive a Kinetic car though to compare. My biggest issue is software. I want to bolt it on and drive it







I work on cars ~10-12 hrs a day, that's enough.

Glad I could help out. You know my thoughts on the subject. I don't really think you can go wrong with either kit in theory, especially if you aren't terribly power hungry. Based on your situation though it seems like reliability and decent tech support in the case of a problem are important issues. This is when the decision comes down to company vs company and not blower vs turbo. If you end up going the turbo route though, I would be interested in going for a ride just to see how the two compare. 
A note on the belt slip issue. Yes, the belt in my car does have a tendency to slip at about 6k rpms. However, the belt that originally came with the kit never slipped at all. I suspect that like Larry said before, you may need to overtighten the belt a little to prevent that from happening. Which will put you at risk for waterpump issues. I suspect that this may have played a part in why the rubber seal for the waterpump went bad and later why the entire waterpump pulley came apart when driving. So this could be considered a negative with the blower. It's kind of hard to judge how tight to make the belt to prevent slip, yet is easy on the accessory drives. 



_Modified by 6cylVWguy at 9:11 AM 12-22-2006_


----------



## MarcoVR6SC (May 3, 2003)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (6cylVWguy)*

I would say, if your goal is a max power of say 220-250WHP, go SC, if you want more then go Turbo.
Sure you can have more WHP with the blower, but it will cost you more then a Turbo setup.
A Turbo setup is a little more complex then the sc setup, make's it more prone for errors (Maintenance is very important to avoid problems). It's also more difficult to map, so again, more prone for errors.
Cause the sc has the characteristics more like an NA engine, make's mapping easier, less space for error.
The rather flat linear engine torque the SC setup produces, will not break things as fast a Turbo setup, so in many cases with a Turbo, you will need to upgrade the drive train.
So until 250WHP, it will cost you, beyond that, it will cost a lot. 
I went from SC to Turbo, cause there’s no replacement for almost instant (high)boost.


_Modified by MarcoVR6SC at 2:58 PM 12-22-2006_


----------



## 6cylVWguy (Jun 14, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (MarcoVR6SC)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MarcoVR6SC* »_A Turbo setup is a little more complex then the sc setup, make's it more prone for errors (Maintenance is very important to avoid problems). It's also more difficult to map, so again, more prone for errors.
Cause the sc has the characteristics more like an NA engine, make's mapping easier, less space for error.
The rather flat linear engine torque the SC setup produces, will not break things as fast a Turbo setup, so in many cases with a Turbo, you will need to upgrade the drive train.
So until 250WHP, it will cost you, beyond that, it will cost a lot. 
I went from SC to Turbo, cause there’s no replacement for almost instant (high)boost.


None of this is true. Positive manifold pressure is positive manifold pressure. Regardless of whether it's a turbo or a blower. I'm running EIP turbo software on my blown VR6. I also spoke to Chris from C2 a couple of years ago, and he also stated the same thing. Also, maintenance wise, if you have a well tuned and constructed setup, it shouldn't be any different than a blower. I mean plenty of cars come with turbo's from the factory and the maintenance schedule isn't much different than n/a cars. If I bought a Kinetic kit, and it worked perfectly on my car from the start, what would i have to do differently than a perfectly running VF kit that also worked well from the start? To be honest, I would think the s/c setup is might be a bit more prone to problems since it's entire function relies on the drive belt, and it also puts stress on the other accessory componants. 
If you are running a high boost setup, things get complicated for both a blower and turbo as well. I'm sure you can ask Larry about the trials and tribulations involved with the stg IV VF kit he just got installed in his mkIV.
I mean companies like EIP and HPA sell turbo kits that are supposed to resemble stock reliability on the cars they are put on. HPA charges quite a bit of money for this to happen. EIP, when the system is tuned right for the car also runs VERY well. I don't have their turbo, but I do have their fueling, and it's been very, very reliable for me. Not a single hickup in 3+ years of track pounding. I would have no problem using their turbo system if I had to. 
To me the single biggest negative to the centrifugal blower, which is a BIG positive for the turbo is torque. You almost never get the same or more torque as hp in a cent. blower (ie- 260 whp and 260 wtq). With turbo's the tq is more even with the hp level. And for this reason, I think you get the feel of far more power with the turbo. I mean in my 2.0t fsi, that car feels like a total monster down low due to the turbo. It feels much faster than the numbers indicate. With the blower, the feel of power is a bit more deceptive.


----------



## 6cylVWguy (Jun 14, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (MarcoVR6SC)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MarcoVR6SC* »_A Turbo setup is a little more complex then the sc setup, make's it more prone for errors (Maintenance is very important to avoid problems). It's also more difficult to map, so again, more prone for errors.
Cause the sc has the characteristics more like an NA engine, make's mapping easier, less space for error.
The rather flat linear engine torque the SC setup produces, will not break things as fast a Turbo setup, so in many cases with a Turbo, you will need to upgrade the drive train.
So until 250WHP, it will cost you, beyond that, it will cost a lot. 
I went from SC to Turbo, cause there’s no replacement for almost instant (high)boost.


None of this is true. Positive manifold pressure is positive manifold pressure. Regardless of whether it's a turbo or a blower. I'm running EIP turbo software on my blown VR6. I also spoke to Chris from C2 a could of years ago, and he also stated the same thing. Also, maintenance wise, if you have a well tuned and constructed setup, it shouldn't be any different than a blower. I mean plenty of cars come with turbo's from the factory and the maintenance schedule isn't much different than n/a cars. If I bought a Kinetic kit, and it worked perfectly on my car from the start, what would i have to do differently than a perfectly running VF kit that also worked well from the start? To be honest, I would think the s/c setup is might be a bit more prone to problems since it's entire function relies on the drive belt, and it also puts stress on the other accessory componants. 
If you are running a high boost setup, things get complicated for both a blower and turbo as well. I'm sure you can ask Larry about the trials and tribulations involved with the stg IV VF kit he just got installed in his mkIV.
I mean companies like EIP and HPA sell turbo kits that are supposed to resemble stock reliability on the cars they are put on. HPA charges quite a bit of money for this to happen. EIP, when the system is tuned right for the car also runs VERY well. I don't have their turbo, but I do have their fueling, and it's been very, very reliable for me. Not a single hickup in 3+ years of track pounding. I would have no problem using their turbo system if I had to. 
To me the single biggest negative to the centrifugal blower, which is a BIG positive for the turbo is torque. You almost never get the same or more torque as hp in a cent. blower (ie- 260 whp and 260 wtq). With turbo's the tq is more even with the hp level. And for this reason, I think you get the feel of far more power with the turbo. I mean in my 2.0t fsi, that car feels like a total monster down low due to the turbo. It feels much faster than the numbers indicate. With the blower, the feel of power is a bit more deceptive.


----------



## brilliantyellowg60 (Aug 30, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (VR6OOM)*

turbo is faster








I can consistantly beat a Stage 2 VF R32








He just went Stage 4 in the last couple days so we'll see what happens now








I love the torque cuve of the turbo








Stage 1 Kinetic 36lb OBD1 Coilpack with a custom IC
13,14, 15psi runs


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (VR6OOM)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR6OOM* »_My old VF-E stage 1 didn't have belt slip at all. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

If I remember correctly, it made no power, either.


----------



## J.Q. Public (Jan 30, 2004)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (brilliantyellowg60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *brilliantyellowg60* »_turbo is faster











hahah not always. Ask VR6Mole about a certain supercharged mk3 in the tristate area!


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (J.Q. Public)*

I think ultimately turbo will be faster as well. Power is not the only factor here, at least not for me. I think 240-260whp is a good level for my car. Above that I'm dealing with an intercooler, traction issues, more drivetrain stress, modifiying my older style MAF etc. I can get the power level I want from a supercharger as well as a turbo. The question is what torque curve do I want and the software/customer service of the companies that offer kits for my car. If I ever really get the bug for a big power 1/4 mile monster I honestly think I would buy another car for that. Either RWD or AWD.


----------



## mikemcnair (Mar 28, 2003)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_ The question is what torque curve do I want

here, this might help...... this is NA, with 2.5" TT catback, and a GIAC chip. 
then it's 9 psi, without methanol. see ya tonight


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (mikemcnair)*

A little tough to read Mike, but I get the jist from the curve. Yeah, looking forward to talking with you tonight about it. Just wish I could drive the C up. It's in about 1,000 pieces


----------



## KIEZERJOSE (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (brilliantyellowg60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *brilliantyellowg60* »_turbo is faster








I can consistantly beat a Stage 2 VF R32











The R32 owner must not know how to drive, i walked on a few cars with the kinetic stage 1 kit when i had my blower on. 
and i dont care what any one sais, with the SC MK3's belt slip will always be a problem.


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (KIEZERJOSE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KIEZERJOSE* »_
and i dont care what any one sais, with the SC MK3's belt slip will always be a problem.


It's why I sold my SC.


----------



## brilliantyellowg60 (Aug 30, 2001)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (KIEZERJOSE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KIEZERJOSE* »_

The R32 owner must not know how to drive, i walked on a few cars with the kinetic stage 1 kit when i had my blower on. 


he has ran a 12.7 before








he has like 70K on it i think he knows what he is doing


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (brilliantyellowg60)*

Kinetic stage 1 6psi non-intercooled is a little different than 15psi intercooled. My friends R32 VF stage 2 has gotten beat by a MK3 gti VF stage 2 from a roll so I'm sure a 15 psi intercooled turbo would treat it badly. Pretty sure VF stage 2 R32 is only 6psi intercooled.


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_
If I remember correctly, it made no power, either. 

Either?







Yeah...199whp on stock tuning / fueling. The shop screwed up and never put the software in. I never went back nor redyno'd once I got the software in. Once I did it ran flawless until I got back from basic training. After basic there was a problem with the car. It sat in a shop for 3 months...got fixed...and I sold it because I was in Japan. You have a good memory...that was well over 3.5 years ago.


----------



## MarcoVR6SC (May 3, 2003)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (6cylVWguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *6cylVWguy* »_None of this is true. Positive manifold pressure is positive manifold pressure. Regardless of whether it's a turbo or a blower. 

Yes, but when does boost come in? With a turbo you can have full boost as soon as 3500rpm, whereas with the blower it will be liniary with rpm. That’s a whole different story.

_Quote, originally posted by *6cylVWguy* »_I'm running EIP turbo software on my blown VR6. I also spoke to Chris from C2 a could of years ago, and he also stated the same thing. Also, maintenance wise, if you have a well tuned and constructed setup, it shouldn't be any different than a blower. I mean plenty of cars come with turbo's from the factory and the maintenance schedule isn't much different than n/a cars. If I bought a Kinetic kit, and it worked perfectly on my car from the start, what would i have to do differently than a perfectly running VF kit that also worked well from the start? To be honest, I would think the s/c setup is might be a bit more prone to problems since it's entire function relies on the drive belt, and it also puts stress on the other accessory componants. 

What I meant was that, with a NA or SC boosted car, it’s not that dangerous when you ‘forget’ or wait a little longer before changing oil and filters, do not try that with Turbo boosted engine. Don’t forget, turbo engines run richer and hotter.
What will happen when the belt snaps? You won’t have boost and no PS, water pump, ect. But you will notice it immediately and have plenty of time to switch off the engine. What will happen when the waste gate get’s stuck or the vacuum line pop’s off on a Turbo engine? At full throttle you won’t have the time to switch off the engine soon enough. 

_Quote, originally posted by *6cylVWguy* »_To me the single biggest negative to the centrifugal blower, which is a BIG positive for the turbo is torque. You almost never get the same or more torque as hp in a cent. blower (ie- 260 whp and 260 wtq). With turbo's the tq is more even with the hp level. And for this reason, I think you get the feel of far more power with the turbo. I mean in my 2.0t fsi, that car feels like a total monster down low due to the turbo. It feels much faster than the numbers indicate. With the blower, the feel of power is a bit more deceptive.

If you make more torque at a specific rpm, then you are also making more hp, max wtq means nothing without referencing the rpm range. And that’s the big difference between SC and Turbo, the Turbo will give you more power at a broader rpm range, hence more power available, and breaking things more easily. 
An SC(centrifugal) will always make max power at max RPM.
A Turbo not only feels faster, it is faster (as long you can put the power to the ground).
Yes I know, non of this is true.










_Modified by MarcoVR6SC at 2:19 PM 12-24-2006_


----------



## windsor96vr6 (Aug 3, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (KIEZERJOSE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KIEZERJOSE* »_
and i don't care what any one says, with the SC MK3's belt slip will *always * be a problem.


Hopefully not the case. I may have been sitting here quietly, waiting to get the syncro titled.... But I have faith that making 8 rib pulleys, (Which I will do) and increasing the crankshaft and other pulleys diameter, will allow us 12v vr6 guys to limit the slip. Combine this with autotech valve train (or similar) which will allow higher revs, and we may see that "magical" 400whp number. 
Of course this is OT. 
If I didn't get my Vortec V2 C2 kit with both chips, three pulleys, 9:1 spacer, and a walbro fuel pump for 1500 bucks, I would have chosen the turbo kit. Even though common sense says the torque from a turbo is hell on a syncro ( kevin can attest to that) torque is what gets you movin'.
Disregard that the V9 was a poor choice to base the VF kit off of. The key to a vortec is spinning it to it's max. The diameter of the pulley required for the V9 to max out is so small that slip will prevent it from happening. The V1 or V2 Vortec are much more suitable for VR 6 motors. Of course they are too big to fit in an MK4, so the decision to use the V9 was implemented.
Nik asked me if he could use my Windsor as the original mk3 fab car. At the time I did not have anything else to drive, and couldn't scrape up the $1500.00 to pay for the charger. The rest of the development he was going to cover. 
At the time I thought I missed a golden opportunity to get boost for $1500.00 bucks.
After seeing the results, I am glad I got the bigger Vortec kit for the same price. The odds of getting to 400 + whp s/ced on a 12v vr 6 are better with the V1/V2 kits.
But again I am rambling. Late night (morning at the studio)
A kinetic stage one is more bang for the buck than a VF stage 2 s/c kit.
And rest assured that if my attempt at hitting 400 whp on a s/c fails, I will sell my C2 stage one, keep the Stage 2 fueling chip and injectors, and use the cash to get a turbo exhaust mani and a turbo.
The torque of the turbo crushes the s/c.
but man, do I love the sound of a vorteched VR6








HTH http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
edited for spelling


_Modified by windsor96vr6 at 2:03 AM 12-24-2006_


----------



## nater (Apr 10, 2000)

Buy the supercharger first...then buy the turbo (if you feel so inclined)







.
The s/c is nice...but it became a personal preference for me to get the power down low verses linear.
You have to think about what kind of power you'll want...hard to predict.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (nater)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nater* »_
You have to think about what kind of power you'll want...hard to predict.


This is what I'm dealing with now. I drove a 10 psi supercharged corrado and hopefully I'll be able to drive mikemcnairs Kinetic corrado @9psi to compare. The supercharged car was a blast but you are just starting to see/feel boost at 3500-4000rpm. Kinetic kit sees full boost @~3500 rpm . It seems the Kinetic powered car would have a much more usable power band for the street. At this point I think both of these kits at 8-9psi will be reliable. I'll go with the one that put's the biggest







on my face.


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*

I wouldn't hesitate to daily drive either kit. Properly installed, either kit should be virtually maintenance free. The chicken littles that cry about "turbo maintenance" couldn't find their asses with a map and both hands. I have had an ATP turbo kit (which is hardly the definition of well-designed) since 2002, and I have yet to have a single mechanical problem with it. Not one slipped-off silicone hose, not one backed-out bolt. The turbo itself now has over 80,000 miles on the original seals and is going strong. Any "excessive" maintenance or mechanical issues are almost certainly related to unquailified installers. Do I check everything once a month? Of course. Aside from belt slip / wear, the same could be said for the SC kits on the market. 
It's amusing to me to read the fearful posts of people who have been sitting on the fence for YEARS, waiting for their "time to strike". The time is now. Doubling (or more) the output of your car will inevitably expose a weakness. If you have to take out a loan to afford $5000 worth of parts, find a new hobby. 
Just a forewarning to people attempting an inexpensive 400whp supercharged vr- there is a reason it isn't a common sight. Yes, you might have a "deal" in your $1500 kit, but one you factor in drivetrain parts, motor parts, plumbing, intercooler parts, machine work and , most of all, time, you're on the bad end of the deal. You're rolling the dice to reinvent the wheel and make a system based on one-off parts that will be physically limited to less power than a readily available, basically turn-key turbo kit. You'll be lucky to pull it off for twice the cost of a 400whp-capable turbo kit, and will have to contend with custom parts and belt slip. You're not going to escape it, if 7 ribs slip @ 10psi, 8 will at the 20+ psi needed to break 400whp, especially at the micro-pulley size needed to spin the blower up there. The slip is at the SC pulley, playing with the other pullies isn't going to do it. Don't even get me started on how many waterpumps you're going to have to drive around with at that kind of belt tension. 
Cliff's Notes: People with more knowledge, experience, time and money than you have abandoned the idea, you would be wise to follow suit, unless you're a masochist or just have $$$ to burn.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (cabzilla)*

Thanks for the input. Not sure how much of your post was referring to me but just in case. My goals are a reliable, fun, usable power band FI kit 6-9psi( 230-250whp). No 400whp in this car. There will always be a faster car and if I wanted in that competition I wouldn't do it in this car(FWD, 205mm tires). More than enough time, money, experience and knowledge here to bolt on a well designed kit. Volvo and ASE master Tech, I think I can handle it http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I'll leave the engineering of the kits to the companies that produce them. If you weren't referring to me then my mistake, but I just wanted to be clear on what my goals were LOL


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_Thanks for the input. Not sure how much of your post was referring to me but just in case. My goals are a reliable, fun, usable power band FI kit 6-9psi( 230-250whp). No 400whp in this car. There will always be a faster car and if I wanted in that competition I wouldn't do it in this car(FWD, 205mm tires). More than enough time, money, experience and knowledge here to bolt on a well designed kit. Volvo and ASE master Tech, I think I can handle it http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I'll leave the engineering of the kits to the companies that produce them. If you weren't referring to me then my mistake, but I just wanted to be clear on what my goals were LOL









Not directed at you at all, actually.


----------



## silverG60 (Oct 19, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*

Wow, just read through this whole thread. Great stuff. slc92 I’m actually been sitting on the sidelines contemplating your same concerns. I’m driving a 93 slc and I’ve been preparing myself for the VF kit. The thing that really put me on hold was that I recently bought 1.8T Golf as my daily. Hands down the car feels quicker than my slc. I mean quicker not faster. It does loose its steam the higher the revs where the Corrado keeps pulling hard. It seems logical that with the VR6 application that more boost sooner helps make that VR6 weak spot (pre 4000 rpm) a bit more responsive. Believe it or not, I actually enjoy my car the way it is now. I think I’m the only guy left here on the Vortex that can get in a stock VR6 have a spirited drive and come back with an ear-to-ear grin. Yes I want more power but I love the VR6. So the SC compliment's what I like. My concerns may seem frivol to some hear but I like things as untouched as possible. I want my engine bay neat and orderly. What ever set up I do, I want it to look as if VW put it there. Yes these are unimportant to many here for the max power is the joy that they get. So.. even though I feel the turbo will feel quicker than the SC, I’m still leaning towards the SC. Keep in mind like slc92 I am not looking to build a 350z eater, just a car that can still hang with and or pass the majority of the cars on the road. 
The only negative I have with the SC thus far, is the sound at idle.
I’ve heard some sound clips of the SC at idle and immediately I didn’t like it.







Will the sound change with time?







Can anyone comment on that. 
Thanks,
Nick


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: (silverG60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silverG60* »_
The only negative I have with the SC thus far, is the sound at idle.
I’ve heard some sound clips of the SC at idle and immediately I didn’t like it.







Will the sound change with time?







Can anyone comment on that. 
Thanks,
Nick 

Order your kit from C2 and get it with a Vortech V2 SQ (Super Quiet). It isn't loud at all. I'm gonna try to get a short vid of mine soon.


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: (silverG60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silverG60* »_
The only negative I have with the SC thus far, is the sound at idle.
I’ve heard some sound clips of the SC at idle and immediately I didn’t like it.







Will the sound change with time?







Can anyone comment on that. 
Thanks,
Nick 

Order your kit from C2 and get it with a Vortech V2 SQ (Super Quiet). It isn't loud at all. I'm gonna try to get a short vid of mine soon.


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

*Re: (VR62NV)*

I don't know why didn't think of this earlier. I used to own the VF-E kit a couple years ago and here are my 1/4 mile times to compare.
*MK4 Jetta 12v VR6 VF-E Stage 1 @ Waterfest 12 (I think it was 12): 14.4 @ 99 mph in blistering heat. This is the one and only time I put her on the track.
MK3 GTi VR6 Kinetic Stage 1 @ 7 psi: 14.6 @ 98 mph*
Comparison: VF-E trapped higher but I am having a fueling issue with my Kinetic car which is causing some serious mid rpm "lag" after boost spikes...for just a couple seconds. Also...at WF 12 I think that was before I figured the company who installed my SC kit forgot to put in the GIAC software. I didn't figure this out until 3+ months after they installed the kit. They thought because they had to mail the mk4 ecu to VF to have something saudered / soldered...that VF would install the chip. They never even thought to check to make sure they did. In fact once this other shop figured out I was on stock programing...we drove over to that other shop and the owner said hey Adam I still have your factory chip in the "GIAC" box to prove the correct chip is in there. "Oh really?" I replied. He handed me the GIAC chip box...and low and behold the GIAC chip was in there. Once we put the chip in the car screamed.
Overall: Currently my T feels a lot faster...especially with the methanol. Plus you can't compare the price difference. Also I think the T looks wonderful sitting the engine bay. Most people can't believe it's aftermarket! Hell even the dealership guys like it. They tell me how it looks like it was meant to be there.


----------



## spooln6 (May 27, 2005)

*Re: (VR62NV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR62NV* »_
Order your kit from C2 and get it with a Vortech V2 SQ (Super Quiet). It isn't loud at all. I'm gonna try to get a short vid of mine soon.

i have a little vid of my v1 on myspace if you want it http://www.myspace.com/112891242


----------



## 6cylVWguy (Jun 14, 2000)

*Re: (silverG60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silverG60* »_Wow, just read through this whole thread. Great stuff. slc92 I’m actually been sitting on the sidelines contemplating your same concerns. I’m driving a 93 slc and I’ve been preparing myself for the VF kit. The thing that really put me on hold was that I recently bought 1.8T Golf as my daily. Hands down the car feels quicker than my slc. I mean quicker not faster. It does loose its steam the higher the revs where the Corrado keeps pulling hard. It seems logical that with the VR6 application that more boost sooner helps make that VR6 weak spot (pre 4000 rpm) a bit more responsive. Believe it or not, I actually enjoy my car the way it is now. I think I’m the only guy left here on the Vortex that can get in a stock VR6 have a spirited drive and come back with an ear-to-ear grin. Yes I want more power but I love the VR6. So the SC compliment's what I like. My concerns may seem frivol to some hear but I like things as untouched as possible. I want my engine bay neat and orderly. What ever set up I do, I want it to look as if VW put it there. Yes these are unimportant to many here for the max power is the joy that they get. So.. even though I feel the turbo will feel quicker than the SC, I’m still leaning towards the SC. Keep in mind like slc92 I am not looking to build a 350z eater, just a car that can still hang with and or pass the majority of the cars on the road. 
The only negative I have with the SC thus far, is the sound at idle.
I’ve heard some sound clips of the SC at idle and immediately I didn’t like it.







Will the sound change with time?







Can anyone comment on that. 
Thanks,
Nick 


You definitely sound like a sc guy to me. I sort of have the same way of looking at thing. However, I also track my car and felt that the car and my driving abilities at the time were just very suboptimal. Nothing a bit of power can't change! I also have a 2.0t for my daily and I know exactly what you are saying. At normal driving rpms, the car puts me in my seat! I mean the car boosts early and there is quite a bit of torque as well. The VR is a different animal. It's slightly more linear, so you don't feel th kick in the pants like on a turbo car. Though, even the VR is a little peaky. I used to notice that above 4k rpms in my stock VR, the car would be MUCH more potent than anywhere else. It seemed very much like a vtec. The car certainly doesn't have near the low end as my 2.0t. Even now, with the blower, the VR hasn't much down low either. It very much keeps the stock powerband and characteristics, it's just raised a bit. I mean if you want the kick in the pants, fast and furious movie-style power band, then turbo is a great choice. If you want the car to build more power similar to the way the na motor does, the sc is the way to go.


----------



## brilliantyellowg60 (Aug 30, 2001)

*Re: (6cylVWguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *6cylVWguy* »_
If you want the car to build more power similar to the way the na motor does, the sc is the way to go. 

Exactly http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (silverG60)*

*silverg60* I totally understand your concerns. Have you driven both kits? I have driven a supercharged 10psi Corrado and hopefully a kinetic Corrado this week. On top of researching it def. try and drive cars with the kits installed before you buy. Both kits seem to be quality with good software. Both will be reliable when installed properly, maintained and run at the psi they were designed for. The 2 main differences I see are price, upgradability, and power band. Kinetic turbo wins all three of those. It's cheaper than a stage 1 or 2 Charger kit from VF or C2 by a decent amount. Mainly due to the cost of the charger ~$1500-2000 vs. turbo~$800. Think about those numbers when your warranty runs out. You are getting a broader power band for your money with the turbo. Full boost @ 3500-redline w/turbo vs. full boost @ redline w/ supercharger. The turbo is easier to upgrade should you want more power. A supercharged VR6 is alot of fun and I would be happy with it. However, if I can have more fun with the turbo, keep $1100 more of my money and be just as reliable then I would be a fool to at least not give it a good hard look







You have to make the right decision for you but keep in mind just because some people with turbos turn the boost way up, hack bumper covers to fit intercoolers, destroy drivetrains etc. doesn't mean you have to. Stay mild and I am confident a Kinetic stage 1 will look and run just as stock in your engine bay as a charger. Good Luck.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (6cylVWguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *6cylVWguy* »_
If you want the car to build more power similar to the way the na motor does, the sc is the way to go. 

Agreed http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Just drive a turbo vr6 before you buy the charger to be sure you don't actually prefer the turbo vr6 power curve. That's my plan.


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: (spooln6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *spooln6* »_i have a little vid of my v1 on myspace if you want it http://www.myspace.com/112891242

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif The v2sq is much quieter but the v1 does sound great.


----------



## GONGTOULOW (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: (slc92)*

The only other added benifit of a supercharger not performance related.....
Is that you can sell the sc without taking that big of a hit.if you ever decied to sell the car.or wutnot.
This might not apply to most people, but for me it's a added bonus since i'm looking to move out of vw's for something rwd or awd in the near future.
just my .02 cents....
But you can't go wrong with either kits they are 100% solid reliable, just have to make sure you car/motor is in tip top shape before the FI install.


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: (6cylVWguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *6cylVWguy* »_If you want the car to build more power similar to the way the na motor does, the sc is the way to go. 

This is so true. That's what I love about it. It feels how the car should have felt from the factory. Kind of like the R32 I drove a month or so ago.


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

Heres a quick vid of my V9. I'm happy with my VF kit and have no desires to go turbo. To me there is no point funneling 300 whp through the front wheels...unless you like to drive in a straight line.
http://www.hostdub.com/albums/...4.mpg


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (abt cup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abt cup* »_Heres a quick vid of my V9. I'm happy with my VF kit and have no desires to go turbo. To me there is no point funneling 300 whp through the front wheels...unless you like to drive in a straight line.
http://www.hostdub.com/albums/...4.mpg 


300whp is fine, it's once you get near 400 that turning becomes difficult.


----------



## nater (Apr 10, 2000)

*Re: (GONGTOULOW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *GONGTOULOW* »_
The only other added benifit of a supercharger not performance related.....
Is that you can sell the sc without taking that big of a hit.if you ever decied to sell the car.or wutnot..

When I sold my VF kit to go turbo I took a HUGE hit. First of all, retail on those kits is not cheap and believe it or not...they aren't as easy to sell as you may think.
I guess it depends on exactly what kit you have and timing. But I'm not so sure where this idea comes from....


----------



## GONGTOULOW (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: (nater)*

Well i guess it depends on what the person would concider a big hit....
For myself, I would be happy selling the kit back out for 2500 or so and lose out about 1500, minus what the install and shipping and all that jazz or so.......
But i would get about 2yrs of use out of it, kinda like leasing or renting a car....








again it all depends on the person and the market at the time....
Don't forget i'm only talking about sellIing the sc if your looking to sell or part your car....
totally differenct story if you decide to switch from sc to turbo for more pwr........
In the end it really depends on what your long term goals are.
i'm looking for a quick thrill then move on.
_Modified by GONGTOULOW at 2:06 PM 12-26-2006_


_Modified by GONGTOULOW at 2:07 PM 12-26-2006_


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (GONGTOULOW)*

Buying car mods with the expectation of not losing a ton of money when reselling them is retarded.


----------



## spooln6 (May 27, 2005)

*Re: (abt cup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abt cup* »_Heres a quick vid of my V9. I'm happy with my VF kit and have no desires to go turbo. To me there is no point funneling 300 whp through the front wheels...unless you like to drive in a straight line.
http://www.hostdub.com/albums/...4.mpg 

what whp you hit whith your kit


----------



## KIEZERJOSE (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: (nater)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nater* »_
When I sold my VF kit to go turbo I took a HUGE hit. First of all, retail on those kits is not cheap and believe it or not...they aren't as easy to sell as you may think.
I guess it depends on exactly what kit you have and timing. But I'm not so sure where this idea comes from....


That is true, i have had mine up FS for months now. every one wants a turbo


----------



## mikebobelak (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

I've had both . 
Stage 2 C2 S/C ~18psi, ran great, it pulls harder the higher you rev it , looks awesome, and ohhhhhh that whine!!!!!!!!! Needs attention every 1k or so to check belt wear/tension. Any pully under ~2.75" amplifies this ........








Turbo Kinetic/C2 Stage 3+ish( I made some of my own parts)
Even at <10psi , it is far more fun to drive, TONS more TQ, but it does "hit" harder. I have not had to do anything other than check t-bolts( I blew a coupler off @ 18psi) Exhaust manny is a PITA !


----------



## VR6OOM (Nov 8, 2002)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (mikebobelak)*

^ Pretty!


----------



## spooln6 (May 27, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (mikebobelak)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikebobelak* »_I've had both . 
Stage 2 C2 S/C ~18psi, ran great, it pulls harder the higher you rev it , looks awesome, and ohhhhhh that whine!!!!!!!!! Needs attention every 1k or so to check belt wear/tension. Any pully under ~2.75" amplifies this ........








Turbo Kinetic/C2 Stage 3+ish( I made some of my own parts)
Even at <10psi , it is far more fun to drive, TONS more TQ, but it does "hit" harder. I have not had to do anything other than check t-bolts( I blew a coupler off @ 18psi) Exhaust manny is a PITA ! 









dahm she looks good what pulley and what whp did you hit


----------



## V-dubbulyuh (Nov 13, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (mikebobelak)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikebobelak* »_I've had both . 
Stage 2 C2 S/C ~18psi, ran great, it pulls harder the higher you rev it , looks awesome, and ohhhhhh that whine!!!!!!!!! Needs attention every 1k or so to check belt wear/tension. Any pully under ~2.75" amplifies this ........








Turbo Kinetic/C2 Stage 3+ish( I made some of my own parts)
Even at <10psi , it is far more fun to drive, TONS more TQ, but it does "hit" harder. I have not had to do anything other than check t-bolts( I blew a coupler off @ 18psi) Exhaust manny is a PITA ! 










Now I am usually completely against reposting images in a reply... BUT those are two of the sexiest pics I have ever seen in my life. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif $hit is unbelievable. Just well put together, period. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mikebobelak (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (V-dubbulyuh)*

Thanks, I picked alot of other peoples brains, when swapping over to the turbo. 
I think the best was JeffreyB's suggestion to pull all the fan controll B.S. off. I now have a two pin Fan switch(earily MK1) that turns on(relayed) the 2nd waterpump, and FAL dual slim "Scricco" fans. Works awesome ,even runs after shut down .........
Next was , Chris, Jeff, Billy, & Paul just telling me to buy a F$^&*^$ welder and do my own plumbing/exhaust...............


----------



## TheDeckMan (Sep 26, 2004)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (mikebobelak)*

Back 2 summers ago I too was on the sidelines trying to decide on either the kinetic stage 1 or the vf stage 1. I ended up goin with the vf stage 1 just for ease of install. 
Engine came out of junkyard 80k Distributor
Transmision - rebuilt w/lsd & 4.24 R&P (scored off a kid by chance)
Work I did befor it was perfect
Rebuilt cyl head, port matched
Chains
Solid motor mounts and transmision mount
New clutch
2.9 clone intake manifold
2.5" TT exhaust
I have about 20k on the setup and run 6psi without a problem no belt slip with the gator style belt. Pulls insane 3500-7000 without a problem. Its definetly quick on its feet, a lot of that I have to atrabute to the gearing. Average gas milage is 18 city / 22 highway. Over the winter replacing 5th gear with a tdi unit and going to stage 2. I love the reliability and the power, yes it may not be the biggest #'s on the block but it is a great preformer all around.
I went for a ride in a 300whp mk4 and was inpressed but I couldnt bring myself to do it. Mostly as I wanted the car to have the bang of lets say an E46 M3, but not needing to make crazy power that is unneeded. Not that I'm saying that 400whp VRT's arnt worth it, but for my needs the SC is a great setup.
Noah











_Modified by DeckManDubs at 9:56 PM 12-27-2006_


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (DeckManDubs)*

Good info http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I go back and forth. I've been thinking about the whole torque thing of the turbo. Seems most running 6-9psi turbo aren't running any better 1/4 mile times than mild s/c or all motor cars~ high 13's. At the same psi and peak power shouldn't the S/C car be almost more suited for 1/4 mile in a FWD car. No huge lump of torque around 3500-4000 rpm=spin city.


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_Good info http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I go back and forth. I've been thinking about the whole torque thing of the turbo. Seems most running 6-9psi turbo aren't running any better 1/4 mile times than mild s/c or all motor cars~ high 13's. At the same psi and peak power shouldn't the S/C car be almost more suited for 1/4 mile in a FWD car. No huge lump of torque around 3500-4000 rpm=spin city. 


What do you expect from 6-9 non-intercooled psi with soft timing?


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_

What do you expect from 6-9 non-intercooled psi with soft timing? 

They are getting the times that I would have expected. Just illustrating that while turbos can be faster (boost turned up, IC) both setups non intercooled ~8 psi seem to produce similar times mid to high 13's. I intend to run either w/ no intercooler @ low boost so I found it relevant for my situation.


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_They are getting the times that I would have expected. Just illustrating that while turbos can be faster (boost turned up, IC) both setups non intercooled ~8 psi seem to produce similar times mid to high 13's. I intend to run either w/ no intercooler @ low boost so I found it relevant for my situation. 

6psi is so mild it's hard to justify the cost of the kit, in all honesty. You could get within a few mph with some NA mods.


----------



## windsor96vr6 (Aug 3, 2005)

*Re: (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_
Just a forewarning to people attempting an inexpensive 400whp supercharged vr- there is a reason it isn't a common sight. Yes, you might have a "deal" in your $1500 kit, but one you factor in drivetrain parts, motor parts, plumbing, intercooler parts, machine work and , most of all, time, you're on the bad end of the deal. You're rolling the dice to reinvent the wheel and make a system based on one-off parts that will be physically limited to less power than a readily available, basically turn-key turbo kit. You'll be lucky to pull it off for twice the cost of a 400whp-capable turbo kit, and will have to contend with custom parts and belt slip. You're not going to escape it, if 7 ribs slip @ 10psi, 8 will at the 20+ psi needed to break 400whp, especially at the micro-pulley size needed to spin the blower up there. The slip is at the SC pulley, playing with the other pullies isn't going to do it. Don't even get me started on how many waterpumps you're going to have to drive around with at that kind of belt tension. 
Cliff's Notes: People with more knowledge, experience, time and money than you have abandoned the idea, you would be wise to follow suit, unless you're a masochist or just have $$$ to burn. 

Cabzilla,
I respect your opinion, and realize what you say usually holds true.
If you reread my post, you will see that the reason I bought my C2 kit was b/c it was a smoking deal. And having both stage 1 and 2 fueling, I can always sell the stage one fueling and charger, and go turbo.
Also, if you look at my project thread, you will see that I have peloquin diffs front and rear (syncro) and feel that the s/c will be less brutal on the drivetrain.
Your post about belt slip is spot on. I am hoping that going to an 8-rib pulley, and oversizing the crank, w/p, alt, and p/s will allow me to get higher boost from say a 2.75 s/c pulley. The combo of 8 ribs and bigger pulleys should make belt slip less of an issue. 
I also have a hook up to make the puleys, so cost is not a big deal. I plan on staying at 10:1 compression, and using wai to compensate for the boost levels. I have a feeling that lowering the comp. on s/c cars negates the added boost. Going stage 2 and dropping the comp. seems like a "wash". 
But maybe I am wrong. I still am going to try it though, b/c it is a challenge and I am hard headed.








No doubt the turbo is a better deal, and If I didn't get such a deal on my s/c I would have went turbo.
ANd I also realize people have been shooting for the 350-400 whp s/c for many years..... and only a few have hit it.
I have been f ing with dubs since 1990 ish, so despite people having been in the game longer than me, I still have a lot of experience/knowledge about this stuff.
Please understand I am not trying to argue with you or doubt your experience. In fact, I have read a lot of your posts, and consider you to be "in the know"


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (windsor96vr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *windsor96vr6* »_
Also, if you look at my project thread, you will see that I have peloquin diffs front and rear (syncro) and feel that the s/c will be less brutal on the drivetrain.


You are absolutely right. You will make less torque at the same power level than a turbo and it will come on linear. Superchargers are definitely easier on the drivetrain. This is the main reason I'm still considering a supercharger, that and traction.


----------



## 6cylVWguy (Jun 14, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_You are absolutely right. You will make less torque at the same power level than a turbo and it will come on linear. Superchargers are definitely easier on the drivetrain. This is the main reason I'm still considering a supercharger, that and traction.

So, time's ticking away! Hahaha! Any updates on which direction you are heading in? Did you drive the turbo car?


----------



## mikemcnair (Mar 28, 2003)

*Re: (6cylVWguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *6cylVWguy* »_
Did you drive the turbo car?

he came over last night, and we had some fun








i am interested in seeing his critique of my car at ~10-11 psi. (boost gauge disconnected due to VAC leak)
well steve.......... SPILL IT!!!


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (windsor96vr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *windsor96vr6* »_Cabzilla,

Your post about belt slip is spot on. I am hoping that going to an 8-rib pulley, and oversizing the crank, w/p, alt, and p/s will allow me to get higher boost from say a 2.75 s/c pulley. The combo of 8 ribs and bigger pulleys should make belt slip less of an issue. 



The main point I tried to make is that the slip is *at* the supercharger pulley. You could have wagon wheels bolted to the crank and they will not help. Why underdrive all of your pullies to still have slip?


----------



## windsor96vr6 (Aug 3, 2005)

*Re: (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_

The main point I tried to make is that the slip is *at* the supercharger pulley. You could have wagon wheels bolted to the crank and they will not help. Why underdrive all of your pullies to still have slip?

Well, I am going to overdrive my pulleys. And the reason the s/c pulley slips is due to the diameter, and the 6 or custom cut 7 rib belts. Larger diameter crank and acc. pulleys will keep me from having to use a 2.5 inch pulley.
And plenty of people have eliminated the slip on a 2.75 or 2.87 pulley. 
If you overdrive a 2.75 say 20%, you should get between 15-20 psi. And If this on a 3.0 with 10:1 compression, 264/260 cams, autotech valvetrain, wai injection, and a few other tricks won't get me to the 350- 400 mark, no biggie. I will sell the charger as a stage one kit. and use the cash to go turbo. 
oh, and going to 8 rib belt wil give you quite a boost in surface area.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## LSinLV (Nov 25, 2001)

*Re: (windsor96vr6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *windsor96vr6* »_oh, and going to 8 rib belt wil give you quite a boost in surface area.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


correct....this is one fo the things that the VF Stg IV kit has added. 8 rib belt, and a new pulley and tensioner. in stead of making a smaller pulley for the charger and lowering the amount of belt wrap on a smaller pulley. VF has gone to a LARGER s/c pulley, and a SMALLER crank pulley (in front of the stock crank pulley).
the advantage is 2-fold:
-increase overall belt area by chaning the ratio; overdrive the crank pulley and underdrive the charger pulley.
-replace stock accessory belt and take tension load off of water pump, alt, a/c comp, etc.
doing this has allowed the stg IV to run much higher boost levels with ZERO belt slip...my dyno in my "sneek peek" thread shows this. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (mikemcnair)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikemcnair* »_
he came over last night, and we had some fun








i am interested in seeing his critique of my car at ~10-11 psi. (boost gauge disconnected due to VAC leak)
well steve.......... SPILL IT!!! 

Thanks again for taking the time Mike.







The car was a blast







The power band was more linear than I thought it would be. From 3000 to 5000 rpm the car noticeably had more torque/power than the supercharged car I drove ~10psi. From 5000 to 7000 rpm I thought they were very similar. If you want a turbo and own a corrado this kit is a no-brainer. 
Some things I wasn't crazy about. Wheel spin. It was cold out and Mike is running an open diff but 1st gear was essentially useless and we were spinning partially in second and third. A/C lines have to be bent pretty good to fit everything in there. I'm really anal about my car and if I ever removed the kit it would bother me. That's about it really. Great power, quality components, easy install at a great price. 
Thanks again to Mike http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif and good luck on the new car!!!


----------



## V-dubbulyuh (Nov 13, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_
6psi is so mild it's hard to justify the cost of the kit, in all honesty. You could get within a few mph with some NA mods. 

[email protected] good thread.
For my target however (daily @ 300hp), that Kinetics kit is looking more and more like a reality. It seems that the improvements to eliminate s/c belt slip are seen only in the much higher stages (eg stage 4) even though that might be acceptable since lower stages hence lower boost levels don't suffer as much with belt slippage.
It has been stated in this thread that the belts tend to stretch significantly ever couple thousand miles, can anyone else attest to this? Most of the turbo negatives I have seen point to drivetrain stress but I am wonder how can we realy quantify the difference in stress levels between a turbo car vs an s/c producing similar torque levels on the drivetrain.
Chip in please guys!


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (V-dubbulyuh)*

@300 hp in a turbo car you will have roughly 300tq that will come in abruptly at 3000-3500rpm. 
@300hp on a supercharged car you will have roughly 240-250tq that will come on linear, similar to your NA vr6 now just more powerfull. 
The turbo car will stress the drivetrain/motor more at the same horsepower level.


----------



## V-dubbulyuh (Nov 13, 2005)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_@300 hp in a turbo car you will have roughly 300tq that will come in abruptly at 3000-3500rpm. 
@300hp on a supercharged car you will have roughly 240-250tq that will come on linear, similar to your NA vr6 now just more powerfull. 
The turbo car will stress the drivetrain/motor more at the same horsepower level. 

Thanks, point taken. However wasn't it said in this same thread (and others) that since most of the s/c kits now use centrifugal blowers anyway the hp/torque curves between the turbo kits and the s/c are actually comparable?? That having been said I do agree that typically the turbo kits seem to be doing better torque at the same hp when compared to a s/c. I am only saying that with a centrifugal s/c I wonder how "linear" the power curve is since it is essentially the same compressor as a turbo. Not claiming by any means to be an expert either so please elaborate.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (6cylVWguy)*


_Quote, originally posted by *6cylVWguy* »_
So, time's ticking away! Hahaha! Any updates on which direction you are heading in? Did you drive the turbo car?

After much research, test drives etc, I've decided to go:
VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger w/ polished option http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I'll be running this w/ DSR 256's, mild port and polished head, ported exhaust mani's and 42 DD test pipe(track only).
Some of my reasons:
1) The charger maintains the stock vr6 linear power curve. It still feels like a Corrado SLC just alot faster. The turbo feels like a different car.
2) Less issue with wheelspin. I like first gear and don't want to lose it







The power I should make is about as much as I want in this car.
3) Superchargers @ the same power level are easier on drive trains b/c they make less torque and it comes on smoother than a turbo.
4) No boost controller to turn up. Yes, for me this is a good thing. I want to bolt it on and drive it, not turn it up till I break it.
5) No chance of overboosting w/charger vs. turbo where a stuck wastegate or blown off vacuum line could cause problems.
6) No bending of A/C lines with the charger. It's not a big deal but I couldn't do it








Thanks to eveyone who has helped me through posts and IM's. If you have either of these kits I have pretty much read all your posts related to this topic







Thanks especially to Tom (6cylvwguy) and Mike (mikemcnair). I won't have the fastest car in the world, but then again I never will. I drive a FWD VW. This is also not a knock against turbos or Kinetic or C2. Honestly, any other car I would probably turbo but not the corrado.


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_After much research, test drives etc, I've decided to go:
VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger w/ polished option http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I'll be running this w/ DSR 256's, mild port and polished head, ported exhaust mani's and 42 DD test pipe(track only).
Some of my reasons:
1) The charger maintains the stock vr6 linear power curve. It still feels like a Corrado SLC just alot faster. The turbo feels like a different car.
2) Less issue with wheelspin. I like first gear and don't want to lose it







The power I should make is about as much as I want in this car.
3) Superchargers @ the same power level are easier on drive trains b/c they make less torque and it comes on smoother than a turbo.
4) No boost controller to turn up. Yes, for me this is a good thing. I want to bolt it on and drive it, not turn it up till I break it.
5) No chance of overboosting w/charger vs. turbo where a stuck wastegate or blown off vacuum line could cause problems.
6) No bending of A/C lines with the charger. It's not a big deal but I couldn't do it








Thanks to eveyone who has helped me through posts and IM's. If you have either of these kits I have pretty much read all your posts related to this topic







Thanks especially to Tom (6cylvwguy) and Mike (mikemcnair). I won't have the fastest car in the world, but then again I never will. I drive a FWD VW. This is also not a knock against turbos or Kinetic or C2. Honestly, any other car I would probably turbo but not the corrado.

I think you made the right decision for your driving style. I still think you should go with a V2SQ charger and 268 cams. We have the same car and the same frame of mind regarding power and mods and I can tell you I love that setup. I'm sure you'll be happy with this setup though. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif and keep us updated.


----------



## mikebobelak (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: (slc92)*

Any takers, he'll(slc92) last less than a year,before the boost bug gets him to swap to the dark side..........? $1








Not to pick on anyone , I loved my S/C , but when a turbo'd vr running 10psi, WALKED all over me with a extra 220lb guy in his car. (I had the ~16 psi pulley) It planted the seed.....
P.S 268's rock with both the S/C & the turbo!


_Modified by mikebobelak at 9:02 PM 12-29-2006_


----------



## puebla (Sep 9, 2003)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (slc92)*

Turbo all the way. I have owned both, the turbo is alot more fun and is a better long term investment.


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*

Good to see you've made up your mind.http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I would take out the mk4 HG before the blower though. VF did not recommed using the mk4 HG... also let them know of the headwork when you are ordering your kit.
I've had their kit for two years now and it has given me no issues. Their customer service has been good to me too.


----------



## windsor96vr6 (Aug 3, 2005)

*Re: (VR62NV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR62NV* »_
I think you made the right decision for your driving style. I still think you should go with a V2SQ charger and 268 cams. We have the same car and the same frame of mind regarding power and mods and I can tell you I love that setup. I'm sure you'll be happy with this setup though. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif and keep us updated.

Yeah, I would SERIOUSLY consider a V2SQ over the VF V9 based kit. They used the V9 so they could design a kit for the MK4 (a V2 would not fit). 
The V9 isn't the right choice for a VR6. 







(puts on shades so all of the VF d i c k riders flames don't burn my eyes)








But regardless, have fun with your s/c !!!!


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (mikebobelak)*



mikebobelak said:


> Any takers, he'll(slc92) last less than a year,before the boost bug gets him to swap to the dark side..........?
> QUOTE]
> You may end up being right http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
> Not to be a smart ass but I noticed you ran a 13.12 @116 on drag radials @14 psi with your turbo.
> ...


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (abt cup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abt cup* »_Good to see you've made up your mind.http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I would take out the mk4 HG before the blower though. VF did not recommed using the mk4 HG... also let them know of the headwork when you are ordering your kit.
I've had their kit for two years now and it has given me no issues. Their customer service has been good to me too.

Thanks man http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I'm currently rebuilding the motor and will be installing the stock gasket 10:1. Headwork will be very mild, Jeff said it should be fine. Customer service played a part. Calls, emails, IM's all returned within a couple hours.


----------



## VR62NV (Sep 28, 2001)

*Re: (mikebobelak)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikebobelak* »_when a turbo'd vr running 10psi, WALKED all over me with a extra 220lb guy in his car. (I had the ~16 psi pulley) It planted the seed.....
P.S 268's rock with both the S/C & the turbo!


I understand where you're coming from but this is only if you care about that kind of stuff. I enjoy my low insurance rates and my license so I don't do any street racing. A couple guys walking away from me in a turbo VR isn't gonna hurt my feelings. I just enjoy driving the car on curvy roads and the occasional blast up an onramp. As stated, we drive VW's and should just enjoy them for what they are. When I want more power and a true sports car I'll buy a Porsche.
Oh, and yes, 268 cams do rock.


----------



## JETTSET (Oct 16, 2001)

*Re: (slc92)*

Good choice slc92. I am sure you will be very happy with your choice. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for VF customer service!


----------



## nater (Apr 10, 2000)

*Re: (mikebobelak)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mikebobelak* »_Not to pick on anyone , I loved my S/C , but when a turbo'd vr running 10psi, WALKED all over me with a extra 220lb guy in his car. (I had the ~16 psi pulley) It planted the seed.....

Who was that? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Was that on a dark (late) night at midwest massiv?








It's 9psi by the way.









Edit: You also had Atwood in your car right? So we were even....errr, almost.


_Modified by nater at 10:04 AM 12-30-2006_


----------



## mikebobelak (Apr 9, 2002)

*Re: (slc92)*



slc92 said:


> mikebobelak said:
> 
> 
> > Any takers, he'll(slc92) last less than a year,before the boost bug gets him to swap to the dark side..........?
> ...


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (mikebobelak)*

12.8 @ 118 mph, getting there http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Wow 13.98 @ 102 with the charger. What psi was that at? Hopefully not at the 18. I've seen some pretty bad times with chargers and some decent ones as well. I'm hoping alot of the bad ones are driver and the car being stock other than the charger(full weight, no diff, no other mods, street tires etc.). I mean if NA vr6's w/ bolt ons, moderate weight reduction, good driving and good tires can get into the 13's then how come a similarly prepped car with a good driver and an 8psi supercharger go low 13's or even 12.99. I would never take that much weight out of my car so maybe 13.5 ish on my setup. Gotta be possible, right? I think alot of charger guys go once and never go again.


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*

13.6-13.7 with a v1 based kit is what most mk3s (or corrado in your case) should run with little to no other mods and an ok driver (full weight, stock trans, etc.) Unfortunately most vf kits are slower so I would not expect those times if thats the route you go. 
I still say get one of the used v1/2 based kits for sale in the classifieds (there are several right now) and sort your own fueling. You will spend less and make more power than buying a vf.


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_12.8 @ 118 mph, getting there http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Wow 13.98 @ 102 with the charger. What psi was that at? Hopefully not at the 18. I've seen some pretty bad times with chargers and some decent ones as well. I'm hoping alot of the bad ones are driver and the car being stock other than the charger(full weight, no diff, no other mods, street tires etc.). I mean if NA vr6's w/ bolt ons, moderate weight reduction, good driving and good tires can get into the 13's then how come a similarly prepped car with a good driver and an 8psi supercharger go low 13's or even 12.99. I would never take that much weight out of my car so maybe 13.5 ish on my setup. Gotta be possible, right? I think alot of charger guys go once and never go again. 


I wouldn't expect more than a 105 trap with a VF stage 2 kit in a street car with street tires. Keep in mind how small of a range the SC makes peak boost in. 


_Modified by cabzilla at 9:11 PM 12-30-2006_


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (cabzilla)*

Already ordered the VF stage 2 with the V9. I did look into some of the kits in the classifieds but I still would have had to buy a chip and injectors from C2. VF was running an end of the year sale so I got a great deal. The price difference between a used kit plus fueling vs. a brand new VF stg 2 was not big enough to justify buying used. I know the V1 and V2 are easier chargers to build higher boost on than a V9 but if I'm seeing 8psi on a boost gauge from both how would a v1 car be faster?


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_Already ordered the VF stage 2 with the V9. I did look into some of the kits in the classifieds but I still would have had to buy a chip and injectors from C2. VF was running an end of the year sale so I got a great deal. The price difference between a used kit plus fueling vs. a brand new VF stg 2 was not big enough to justify buying used. I know the V1 and V2 are easier chargers to build higher boost on than a V9 but if I'm seeing 8psi on a boost gauge from both how would a v1 car be faster?


Volume and pressure aren't the same thing. In addition to that, the cooler air from a larger compressor will reduce heat soak thus raising power.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (cabzilla)*

Ah, I see the V1 and V2 flow more CFM at the same psi than the V9. Their efficiency ratings are the same for V1,V2, and V9 at 72% with the V1 and V2 SC slightly better at 75% so not sure about the V9 increasing air temps over the others. According to Vortech this is what determines the increase intake temps, the compressors effiiciency. there may be other factors though as you have stated.


----------



## mikemcnair (Mar 28, 2003)

*Re: (slc92)*

congrats on the purchase!!! i agree with mike though: $1.00 says you will make it to the "dark side" soon, but you will have lots of fun with the SC!!!
GL with it, and let me know if i can help out in any way! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (mikemcnair)*

Thanks Mike. Hey, I gotta at least try the way that is harder to mod. Maybe it will keep me from tinkering with it.







Thanks again for the advice and drive http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif My decision in no way reflected on your car or the Kinetic kit. I was very impressed with both. I just want a charger for this car at this time.Mainly due to the put it on forget about it and less drivetrain shock factors. I blew up a trans w/~175 whp NA, imagine what damage I would inflict with a Turbo








I'm hoping to have the trans fixed, motor and head rebuilt, and charger on by spring. When do you think the new car will be ready?
Thanks for the offer on the help, let me know if you need help as well.


----------



## mikemcnair (Mar 28, 2003)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_ When do you think the new car will be ready?
.

ssshhhhhhhh. it's a secret









i may take you up on that offer to help at some point!! let me know when you need me. 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## 6cylVWguy (Jun 14, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*

Congratulations on the purchase. People are saying that you WILL enter the darkside suggesting you will want a turbo. I think anytime you purchase aftermarket FI, you have already entered the darkside. I think you will enjoy the blower and the piece of mind that comes from the VF kit. I'm curious to see how you like your car with the blower and other minor motor mods you have done. 
So when do you expect to get the car on the road? I am interested in checking out your car once you get everything together. I have had fleeting thoughts of cams in my car as well. I would love an extra 20-30 hp. Do you have plans of dynoing your car? 
If you need a hand with anything to expedite the process, let me know!


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (6cylVWguy)*

I'm shooting for early April. It's gonna be tough staring at the supercharger for 3 months before I can enjoy it







I still have a ton of work to do though. Hone the block, paint, rering, bearings etc. Have the head fully rebuilt. Swap ring and pinion and peloquin into a new used trans. I've also been advised to "break in" the motor first then install the kit. I will probably do this to make sure everything is sound before the install of the charger. Definitely gonna dyno after but I would like to before as well. Thanks for the offer. I may need to look at your corrado if I forget how to put mine back together








I'm anxious to see how the kit responds to a full exhaust, cams and mild port and polish as well. Maybe I'll surprise some people







Yeah, VF is definitely piece of mind. You pick up the phone or IM and they are there. Everytime. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (slc92)*

For lower boost I'd just stick with the v9.


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_
I'm anxious to see how the kit responds to a full exhaust, cams and mild port and polish as well. Maybe I'll surprise some people







Yeah, VF is definitely piece of mind. You pick up the phone or IM and they are there. Everytime. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I was under the impression that the VF software wasn't flexible enough to account for cams. I have an active interest now, I will have a VF stage 2 Cabriolet shortly.


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_
I was under the impression that the VF software wasn't flexible enough to account for cams. I have an active interest now, I will have a VF stage 2 Cabriolet shortly. 

VF will recommend cams if you ask them. I would assume that if it wasn't...they would tell you. I have a pair of Schrick 260/264's waiting to go in.


----------



## LSinLV (Nov 25, 2001)

*Re: (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_
I was under the impression that the VF software wasn't flexible enough to account for cams. I have an active interest now, I will have a VF stage 2 Cabriolet shortly. 

this used to be true...but with the recent and ongoing development of stg IV, VF has programing available for DSR 256's.


----------



## cabzilla (Jan 3, 2000)

*Re: (LSinLV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LSinLV* »_this used to be true...but with the recent and ongoing development of stg IV, VF has programing available for DSR 256's.

Will I need to specially request this software?


----------



## abt cup (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: (LSinLV)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LSinLV* »_
this used to be true...but with the recent and ongoing development of stg IV, VF has programing available for DSR 256's.

So does this mean that the non mk4 VF software will not support cams? Then why would Jeff make recommendations for cams?
Everything you mentioned in this thread applies to a mk4...which non of the posters here have...come on help me out here.


----------



## Malone (Oct 2, 2001)

*Re: (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_I have an active interest now, I will have a VF stage 2 Cabriolet shortly. 

I saw your 500whp VR6T feeler thread. You're selling it in favor of a solid cabriolet VR6SC? I can totally understand because we all don't want a science project or less-than-100%-reliable vehicle for a daily driver. I'm just curious.


----------



## V-dubbulyuh (Nov 13, 2005)

*Re: (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_
I was under the impression that the VF software wasn't flexible enough to account for cams. I have an active interest now, I will have a VF stage 2 Cabriolet shortly. 

You the Turbo Man... how comes the s/c interest? Just curious since most of your post seem to favor the Kinetic kit. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## LSinLV (Nov 25, 2001)

*Re: (abt cup)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abt cup* »_
So does this mean that the non mk4 VF software will not support cams? Then why would Jeff make recommendations for cams?
Everything you mentioned in this thread applies to a mk4...which non of the posters here have...come on help me out here.
















I don't want to give yuoany wrong answers, but I do believe this also applys to the older VR6's....but contact VF just to be sure.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (cabzilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabzilla* »_
I was under the impression that the VF software wasn't flexible enough to account for cams. I have an active interest now, I will have a VF stage 2 Cabriolet shortly. 

I was told by Jeff @ VF that the stage 2 (Corrado at least)has plenty of fueling for cams. The software was written for stock cams but we are talking about MAF management here, more air more fuel. I'm not aware of "cam software" for my app. I think the issues were with stage 1 w/ stock injectors. I've heard of cars running lean with cams due to inj. being maxed out w/ stage 1. 
They recommended DSR 256's as they have experience with them but also said some customers are running up to a 268 w/out issues. DSR's website shows a gain of 18hp and 16ftlbs to the wheels w/ 256's in a Z-engineering supercharged car







They make power from 3500 on which is good b/c it will balance the charger a little which adds alot of high end.
The only thing Jeff cautioned me on is the test pipe. One for emissions reasons, but also due to the fact that he said I may lose boost and/or go lean with too little back pressure. I'm gonna dyno w/ A/F to make sure everything is ok.


----------



## cliffhuxtable (Jun 30, 2004)

*Re: VF Engineering Stage 2 Supercharger vs. Kinetic Stage 1 Turbo (V-dubbulyuh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *V-dubbulyuh* »_This thread is great... cuz I am having the same choice dilema between VF and Kinetic. Unfortunately I don't have the option of test driving either, nobody here has either of these kits.









x2. Scuse th hijack, but does anyone have a p&p head w/ a sc or turbo? any issues w/ air/fuel? I'll have 256's as well. I'm also in the Philly area and would love to see a compairson.


----------

