# VR6 Supercharged Power?



## FalmouthMK5 (Jun 26, 2008)

I have a 12v VR6, OBD2 ... for some reason I have a fascination with supercharging vs turbocharging. What kinda of numbers might I be able to put out with different kits?


----------



## vanilla gorilla (Jul 7, 2004)

paging Noah from verdict....he can attest to some numbers.
there are some people making upwards of 300 on chargers


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (FalmouthMK5)*

300Whp is about max


----------



## vanilla gorilla (Jul 7, 2004)

not if you go with a v1,2,or 3 charger. from a v9, 300 is about max.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (vanilla gorilla)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vanilla gorilla* »_not if you go with a v1,2,or 3 charger. from a v9, 300 is about max.

k, then post up some bigger numbers. 
lets say 350whp


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (FalmouthMK5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *FalmouthMK5* »_I have a 12v VR6, OBD2 ... for some reason I have a fascination with supercharging vs turbocharging. What kinda of numbers might I be able to put out with different kits?

Drive both on a VR and you're fascination will be with turbo's. I've had both and the power, fun factor, etc. is not even close. If you don't believe me ask guys that have had both or check the FI classifieds for all the SC kits for sale.
V8 = NA, SC, or Turbo
4 and 6 cyl.= Turbo
Also, don't just compare peak numbers. A 300whp VRT is going to have ALOT more power from 3-6k than a 300whp SCVR.
If you're set on SC then go w/ a V1 or V2. Just please try and drive both a VRT and a VRSC before you spend thousands. I don't want to see you in the classifieds like most selling their $4k SC kit a year later for $2k.


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (slc92)*

300whp on a 12v with cams is no problem with a V1 or V2 without going too crazy. 300whp is just as easy, but the charger is operating near or over 100% capabilities. 
350whp=V1 or V2 only
400whp is not that far off.


----------



## FalmouthMK5 (Jun 26, 2008)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? ([email protected])*

I dont know anyone with a SCVR, as I'm sure that would help my decision. I've driven a VRT, and obviously liked it.
If I could atleast do 350whp I think I'd go SC .... 400 is really more where I was thinking though.


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (FalmouthMK5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *FalmouthMK5* »_400 is really more where I was thinking though.

there you go
i had a nice SC set up & got ready to $pend to top 400
i've had vrSC for 5 yrs
belt issues are the primary concern @400
i had an oversized procharger but getting that bitch off the crank was like taking the flywheel off all together
it was lots of power @ 7000 but i haven't got a CVT
i got a worse case scenario gt40 1.19ar 
now i've got throttle response, cause that's not strapped to the crank
now i've got more torque @ 4000 
& more power everywhere w .9 bar WG


----------



## FalmouthMK5 (Jun 26, 2008)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_300whp on a 12v with cams is no problem with a V1 or V2 without going too crazy. 300whp is just as easy, but the charger is operating near or over 100% capabilities. 
350whp=V1 or V2 only
400whp is not that far off. 

Whos offering software, etc for a 350+whp setup? What injectors? 
Pardon my ignorance but what else do I need?


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (FalmouthMK5)*

for 400whp, standalone is a must. No available chipping options out there. 60# injectors @ 4.0 bar should do it.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_for 400whp, standalone is a must. No available chipping options out there. 60# injectors @ 4.0 bar should do it. 

60lb injectors at 4bar is enough for over 600Whp. lol
there is absolutely no reason to go to standalone for 400whp on a obd2 car.
both the regular c2 42lb, and the 60lb software (pro maf) would work for 400Whp. Although i'd suggest the pro maf, as it works substantially better. Plus the pro maf is probably better at handlng the turbulence from the chargers intake.


_Modified by TBT-Syncro at 3:06 PM 1-9-2010_


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (TBT-Syncro)*

Standalone allows MAP based tunes. Chip based tunes suffer from MAF issues, restrictive inlets, water issues and currently no one offers a real "Supercharger" tune. 
Eurodyne would also work very well on the OBD2 applications.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Chip based tunes suffer from MAF issues, restrictive inlets, water issues and currently no one offers a real "Supercharger" tune. 


i'd be curious to try a C2 pro maf tune on a SC car. the sensor is incredibly accurate, and way less prone to turbulence issues.
hmmm 600hp chip tuned turbo, or 350whp stand alone supercharger. no wonder no one wants superchargers on VRs.


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (TBT-Syncro)*

i'd personally run an NA chip for the most timing
E85
Rising Rate Fuel Pressure Regulator
should be good to 350
but you'd have to get a wideband, tune or fuel pres gauge


----------



## MIKEJETTAVR6 (May 5, 2004)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (EL DRIFTO)*

I have a VF stage2 kit. with Turn2 crank pulley, schrick 248/260 camset and schrick intake manifold. I have a head spacer in.
making 240whp


----------



## dreadlocks (May 24, 2006)

Having driven both VR6SC and VR6T's each have there charm.. 
in an older/lighter platform a SC VR6 near 300hp is a bunch of fun and no where near has hard on the drive-train as a VRT.. Very easy and cost-effective to make a fun and reliable daily driver. 
In newer cars, they get heavier and the fun factor of a SC starts to diminish greatly, you end up appreciating the low end torque, even through it greatly strains drive-train, from a turbo setup at roughly same power levels... It really comes down to individual preference and future plans.. 
If your going for big numbers/high boost (even eventually) your going to have to address the drivetrain regardless, with the turbo's efficiency its just so much easier to go big, its pretty much a no-brainer.. You can slap on many bolt-on turbo kits that get you alot bang for the buck.. Most find that much more attractive than a giant sc robbing the motor of power while it struggles to produce the boost you want w/out slipping. 
in summary.. 
up to 300hp its kinda moot though I personally favor SC on lighter cars and turbos on heavier cars.. 
Between 300-400, Turbo's win outright but if ur bent on SC by all means do it, its more work/effort but its a place not many have gone before and that alone might make it attractive to you.
400+, just forget about SC completely, you dont have a V8








-R


----------



## Boost112 (May 8, 2002)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (dreadlocks)*

...isn't the biggest problem the fact that we are basically stuck with one supercharger company? i mean all we have is vf and their garbage.... what about different charger manufacturers like rotrex or procharger like el drifto has/had... the v1, v2, and v9 are only so good and they are being squeezed just to make 300whp... i have seen rotrex make over 400whp with a head spacer over in Europe... but no one will put together one here... i would love a blower setup making +400whp... but i think people/ companies have lost interest in blowers all together and are working on more turbo stuff then anything else...


----------



## MaxVW (Nov 4, 2004)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_
60lb injectors at 4bar is enough for over 600Whp. lol
there is absolutely no reason to go to standalone for 400whp on a obd2 car.
both the regular c2 42lb, and the 60lb software (pro maf) would work for 400Whp. Although i'd suggest the pro maf, as it works substantially better. Plus the pro maf is probably better at handlng the turbulence from the chargers intake.

_Modified by TBT-Syncro at 3:06 PM 1-9-2010_

dont forget the horsepower drain of the supercharger.... you still have to fuel that lost power


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (dreadlocks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dreadlocks* »_
in summary.. 
up to 300hp its kinda moot though I personally favor SC on lighter cars and turbos on heavier cars.. 
Between 300-400, Turbo's win outright but if ur bent on SC by all means do it, its more work/effort but its a place not many have gone before and that alone might make it attractive to you.
400+, just forget about SC completely, you dont have a V8








-R

Some really good advice. The only thing I would add is that people speak in terms of peak power ie. a 300whp VRT vs. a 300whp VRSC. That peak # is only what the engine makes for a split second. Look at the entire power curve when comparing setups. 
Here's a comparison of my SC vs. turbo both at 11psi. Same setup(psi, inj., exhaust, cams, chip). I used the lower of my two turbo dynos to get peak hp as close to each other as possible, 274whp SC, 300whp turbo. Peak is only 26whp off, but look closer. +'s are how much more the VRT made.
3000 rpm + 0whp +15wtq
3500 rpm +30whp +55wtq
4000 rpm +65whp +90wtq
4500 rpm +70whp +50wtq
5000 rpm +60whp +50wtq
5500 rpm +45whp +50wtq
6000 rpm +30whp +20wtq
6500 rpm +10whp +15wtq
6900 rpm + 0whp + 0wtq
Forget the fact that you can easily make more power/turn up booost w/the turbo. I'm just comparing similar peak # setups. The power differences under the curve are astounding. From 3500-6000rpm it's not even close and that's w/ my lower VRT dyno. Add 20whp/20wtq to all of those #'s for my 12psi run.
I'm not trying to start a debate here. I'm just illustrating the difference between the two from 3-6k. 300whp VRT and a 300whp SCVR are ~ similar from 6-7k. Everywhere else they aren't even close.


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_
Some really good advice. The only thing I would add is that people speak in terms of peak power ie. a 300whp VRT vs. a 300whp VRSC. That peak # is only what the engine makes for a split second. Look at the entire power curve when comparing setups. 
Here's a comparison of my SC vs. turbo both at 11psi. Same setup(psi, inj., exhaust, cams, chip). I used the lower of my two turbo dynos to get peak hp as close to each other as possible, 274whp SC, 300whp turbo. Peak is only 26whp off, but look closer. +'s are how much more the VRT made.
3000 rpm + 0whp +15wtq
3500 rpm +30whp +55wtq
4000 rpm +65whp +90wtq
4500 rpm +70whp +50wtq
5000 rpm +60whp +50wtq
5500 rpm +45whp +50wtq
6000 rpm +30whp +20wtq
6500 rpm +10whp +15wtq
6900 rpm + 0whp + 0wtq
Forget the fact that you can easily make more power/turn up booost w/the turbo. I'm just comparing similar peak # setups. The power differences under the curve are astounding. From 3500-6000rpm it's not even close and that's w/ my lower VRT dyno. Add 20whp/20wtq to all of those #'s for my 12psi run.
I'm not trying to start a debate here. I'm just illustrating the difference between the two from 3-6k. 300whp VRT and a 300whp SCVR are ~ similar from 6-7k. Everywhere else they aren't even close. 



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


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (mk4vrjtta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4vrjtta* »_
well put http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Thank you sir. Peak power seems to be the only thing anyone ever talks about, but really not all that important. It's the power the engine makes at one specific rpm. That's great, but there are 7000rpm. Look at the whole powerband and know what you are paying for.
I must admit that I didn't realize this either when I decided to go SC over turbo initially. The first time I drove the turbo I realized it pretty quickly








More stress on the drivetrain? Absolutely b/c you are simply making alot more power/torque. For someone that wants to run a stock clutch or never have to deal w/ the possibility of pulling a trans then SC is a good option IMO, but man are you giving up alot of fun from ~3-6k.


_Modified by slc92 at 7:54 AM 1-25-2010_


----------



## SlantSix (Apr 16, 2003)

I would love to see comparison Rotrex C30-94 vs Turbo vs V9 (or similar).


----------



## .LSinLV. (Nov 13, 2009)

*Re: VR6 Supercharged Power? (slc92)*

power UNDER the curve..... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (SlantSix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SlantSix* »_I would love to see comparison Rotrex C30-94 vs Turbo vs V9 (or similar).

it would look similar to what slc92 said as they are all both centrifugal SC


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*

That's the other misconception held by many in this never ending debate. You still read posts like this all the time.
"I'm going SC for the low end grunt"
There is no low end grunt from a centrifugal SC. There is barely any mid-range grunt. My 11psi SC kit made ~2-3psi at 3k and gradually rose to ~5-6psi by 5k. It's virtually all top end. Think really big cam.
Build what you like, but at least understand what it is you are spending thousands on


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

I have to agree with the turbo fans on this one.
If you have, or previously had one of the VF Engineering V9 kits, then turbos are very different in their power delivery!
What I disliked most about that kit was the feeling of having to wring the motor's neck to get any meaningful acceleration out of it. Rather like a VTEC motor with tall gearing, which isn't what 'torquey' VR6 motoring is all about.
Tried as hard as I did, I could not get any more than 322 to the crank out of a stock motor (10:1) running 12psi. The torque peak was a fairly unimpressive 260lb-ft at something beyond 5000rpm.
I didn't want to spin the V9 any faster than 12psi because the bearings couldn't take it and the load on the accessories was already excessive. I lost a PAS pump and 2 water pumps during my stay at Centrifugal S/C hotel....and enough was enough.
It's easy to criticise the S/C as the cause of the problems but they were only doing what they were designed to do. I.e. increase boost pressure / flow with revs.
If VF Engineering had investigated positive displacement S/Cs instead, the results would have been a lot more impressive and better suited to the VR6's character.
Centrifugal S/Cs work reasonably well on the 24V engine as it has a lot more flow and likes to rev more freely too. For 12V, stick to turbos!!
If you want a more progressive boost delivery in an S/C fashion, but with more clout, go with a GT35 with 1.06 AR hot side.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (kevhayward)*

Well said. 
I actually cannot believe how many threads there still are in this forum asking about SC's on a VR. The lack of support, the V9 issues, the belt slip, the WP and PS pulley issues, the oil on the MAF's, the lack of torque or psi in the mids, the limitations on upgrading/options, the amt. of kits for sale in the classifieds, etc.
It seems like ~2/3 of the guys that go SC will be in the classifieds selling the kit within 2 yrs. Why do you think that is?
The main reason is that having to rev a street car to 7k to enjoy the thousands you spent simply sucks.
Don't screw yourself for the sake of being different http://****************.com/smile/emgift.gif


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (SlantSix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SlantSix* »_I would love to see comparison Rotrex C30-94 vs Turbo vs V9 (or similar).

The C30-94 has a much stronger kick than a V9, MUCH stronger.
It can feel similarly flat through the range like a V9 when 'off boost', but at 4500rpm ish, the Rotrex really ramps up quite aggressively with a really noticable kick in acceleration. 
The V9 just stays flat all the way through by comparison.
A GT3076R or GT3582R turbo punches in way sooner and far harder than any Rotrex. A the top end, the Rotrex feels about the same, but it needs more boost pressure to achieve the same result.
The other benefits of a Rotrex over a V9 are:-
Massively quieter running.
Much smaller unit with it's own autonomous oil / traction fluid supply.
It uses the stock belt tensioner, regardless of boost pressure.
It doesn't drop anything like as much boost through an IC as a V9 does.
Makes a lot more power than the V9.
Given a Rotrex setup isn't much cheaper, or the same price as a turbo setup, I'd always take the turbo.
S/Cs are good for folk who may want to reverse it at a later date but if you're running much beyond 10psi, you'll still need to drop the compression like you would with a turbo.


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_I actually cannot believe how many threads there still are in this forum asking about SC's on a VR. The lack of support, the V9 issues, the belt slip, the WP and PS pulley issues, the oil on the MAF's, the lack of torque or psi in the mids, the limitations on upgrading/options, the amt. of kits for sale in the classifieds, etc.
It seems like ~2/3 of the guys that go SC will be in the classifieds selling the kit within 2 yrs. Why do you think that is?
The main reason is that having to rev a street car to 7k to enjoy the thousands you spent simply sucks.

It is quite handy that there are a growing number of people 'upgrading' to turbos after S/Cs to offer 'real world' comparisons and advice though http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
The S/C kits were even worse for us in the UK because the supplied GIAC software simply did not work at all. So as well as the hardware issues to solve, we also have to develop our own software. After many months on the dyno we were putting down the numbers VF-E quoted, but beyond that, it was all the issues you listed, plus quite a few other headaches!
To be fair, VF did make some nice products and were very keen on an OE look and feel. I really do praise them for that because some of the turbo 'kits' I've seen out there are truly horrendous quality wise.
It's just a shame the hub of the VF kit - the V9 charger itself - was a poorly chosen unit for the job, in my opinion. As others have said, the bigger units (V1, V2 etc) actually did a half decent job on the 12V http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by kevhayward at 8:58 AM 1-25-2010_


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_Well said. 
I actually cannot believe how many threads there still are in this forum asking about SC's on a VR. 

You even changed your tune to 'go turbo' just as everyone told you that you would.


----------



## gtiguy12 (May 22, 2006)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*

Turbo vr's are more fun to drive, and it's a hell of a bigger lego set when you get used to the power, snap on a few extra pieces and you have a whole new animal.
On the non technical side of things, my v9'd mk3 gti is fun to drive, hardly any broken engine pieces and the attention you get when you pull into a parking lot can be addicting. this means you don't have to drive like a jack-ass to let people know there is a little something something going on under the hood.
My bt 1.8t mk2 on the other hand draws no attention, I don't think anybody would piss on the car if it were on fire.
Superchargers are great if you have realistic power goals, and don't get butt hurt when a near stock 350z walks your ass from time to time.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
You even changed your tune to 'go turbo' just as everyone told you that you would.

Absolutely. Live and learn. You really don't "know" a setup until you own it. For me it was a combination of factors that led to me ditching SC which I've divulged many times. 
The important thing is to get it right and not worry about who thinks they're proved wrong or right. That applies to alot more than SC vs. Turbo as well.


----------



## need4spd (May 20, 2007)

Are you kidding?! there is simply no point in discussing what is better between a supercharger and a turbo charger. 
A turbo wins in essentailly all comparisons besides price!
Turbos have a better powerband for the same HP potential.
Turbos have better gas mileage compared to superchargers
Turbos don't have a winey supercharger sound.
Turbos make more peak power 
Turbos you can break boost more affectively
Poor people buy superchargers. Ballers buy turbo's. nuff said.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (need4spd)*

"Baller" get's my vote for the most played out and annoying term of Generation Y http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
As for "poor". VF's kits were always more pricey than turbo kits mainly due to the cost of the charger ~$2k vs. journal bearing turbo ~$600.
I think Kinetics stage 1 was initially $2500 vs. VF's stage 1 at $3500.


----------



## snobum (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_"Baller" get's my vote for the most played out and annoying term of Generation Y http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
As for "poor". VF's kits were always more pricey than turbo kits mainly due to the cost of the charger ~$2k vs. journal bearing turbo ~$600.
I think Kinetics stage 1 was initially $2500 vs. VF's stage 1 at $3500. 

TURBO ALL THE WAY.
$2500 turbo multiple power settings vs $3500 supercharged one power setting
the wastegate can be set at 4-14psi. depending on spring and you never have to increase boost if you dont want to. if you want to you can always no matter what make more power. with a supercharger you have two choices WHAT THEY OFFER XYZ-psi- or diff pulley and then again retune again more money.. 
lets just compare two things. vf e46 m3 stage 1 vs hpf e46 m3 stage 1 cost vs realistic horsepower and torque. i know it is not vw but good example. AND reliability over time, and if something happens to your engine who is to blame and will vf warranty i bet not! and hpf will and has . 
superchargers never give exact hp numbers ever heat soak is a prime candidate, they run soooo hot. so say you on dyno and your first pull gives you good numbers . i promise if you do pull after pull you will significantly lose power due to heat soak.
also superchargers cause drag and less longetivity on your motor. as a turbo does not .. its using the wasted gases from your already running engine. with absolutely no drag on stock components ,(ac/pwr steering etc)

_Modified by snobum at 6:14 PM 1-25-2010_

_Modified by snobum at 6:15 PM 1-25-2010_


_Modified by snobum at 6:17 PM 1-25-2010_


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (snobum)*

i dont believe superchargers make more heat than a turbo. and about them having dif dyno #'s, its probably because of belt slip


_Modified by mk4vrjtta at 6:21 PM 1-25-2010_


----------



## snobum (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*

ok in relations to when it enters the intake. depending on size of intercooler. if you are or are not running methanol. 
i agree turbo's do get hot yet by the time air propelled by turbo reaches the intake it is considerably cooler . compared to supercharger. here is a link with an example it is not vw, but bmw but an absolutely wonderful example. video is 40 min long and gives a complete run down super vs turbo

http://www.vimeo.com/7891010


----------



## need4spd (May 20, 2007)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4vrjtta* »_i dont believe superchargers make more heat than a turbo. and about them having dif dyno #'s, its probably because of belt slip

_Modified by mk4vrjtta at 6:21 PM 1-25-2010_

Of course you don't want to believe superchargers make more heat. As i can see in your tag you already were the sucker who bought a supercharger so you dont' want to believe you got the shaft on your purchase. It's like having a new gf who is a porn star. You don't want to believe she's loose. 



















_Modified by need4spd at 6:44 PM 1-25-2010_


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (need4spd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need4spd* »_
Of course you don't want to believe superchargers make more heat. As i can see in your tag you already were the sucker who bought a supercharger so you dont' want to believe you got the shaft on your purchase. It's like having a new gf who is a porn star. You don't want to believe she's loose. 
















_Modified by need4spd at 6:44 PM 1-25-2010_

yes i am a sucker even though i have no regrets to the decision i made.







... but please do explain how supercharger are more prone to heat soak


----------



## .LSinLV. (Nov 13, 2009)

*Re: (snobum)*

wow....a lot of miss-information here....all other things being equal, a turbo is more efficient than a S/C, but an S/C will not induce as much heat to the intake charge as a turbo. fact.


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (.LSinLV.)*


_Quote, originally posted by *.LSinLV.* »_wow....a lot of miss-information here....all other things being equal, a turbo is more efficient than a S/C, but an S/C will not induce as much heat to the intake charge as a turbo. fact.

thank you


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: (.LSinLV.)*

i've laid my hand on a self contained pc after a 15 psi pull & room temp http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
sc can use more compression
a properly setup centrifugal powerband is a blast
too bad we haven't seen 25 or 30+ psi scvr


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (EL DRIFTO)*


_Quote, originally posted by *EL DRIFTO* »_i've laid my hand on a self contained pc after a 15 psi pull & room temp http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
sc can use more compression
a properly setup centrifugal powerband is a blast
too bad we haven't seen 25 or 30+ psi scvr

thats something that would be to see after having all this sc hate


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*

when i first got on here i assumed it wouldn't take much to redline my procharger
prochargers way outdo everyone else on mustangs & i was confident going into a vortec world i could win !
besides, it only took me an hour to fab the same sc (rev rot) up on my 8v for sc redline 
.
.
.
.
i gave up
the other procharged vr's SC maps to 25psi @ it's redline
& it would be cool if he got it to do that, but i'm not that patient
growing up with sc, that would always hand a chipped 1.8 @ 20 psi it's ass @ 7psi, i always thought of the turbo as a cork in the ex that drove up the compression, heat & glowing red
not all turbos are k03 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (EL DRIFTO)*

man, i kinda lost you there


----------



## snobum (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*

this is only my opinion.. dont mean to hurt feelings

why would would you ever want to think about belt slip? i understand it happens on supercharged cars. but just what if there was epic failure. and belt slips and breaks and your sol. throwing timing etc.
ok so another example. i drive my friends zo6 with a vortech supercharger i do a few pulls. i have to pull over and let the car cool because there has been so much heat soak that it is hurting performance. and this intercooler dwarfs any of the vf engineering intercoolers. then i jump into my other friends z06 twin turbo and i perform the exact same thing a few runs and then a few more and the car performs flawless. the diffrence both have same motor the supercharged has 600whp @ 8psi and the turbo 750whp @ 12psi. now there is a 30k$ jump between the two kits but still
so this 12v vr6 turbo that another buddy has and he does multiple runs and see which one runs better over and over , yes there is heat soak but it performs much better than that of any supercharged vr around. this car probably is the fastes vr in the nw proven.. getting all this data logged through a vbox. since none of my friend see it economical in price or performance.to run a supercharged vr6 we have not yet been able to data log these. or knowone on here is man enough to show up and let us take a stab at it. regardless if its slower or not. 
you will never achieve higher horsepower or torque numbers with a supercharger on a VR6 vs a turbo vr6. 
i understand that if you want to keep your vr6 stock like and dont want to go to any extreme then supercharge your car. IM ALL FOR THAT . 
but for pure power . never a supercharger on a vr6. there is no fun in it.
PLUS VR6'S DESERVE larger TURBOS.. say T67 and up 
_Modified by snobum at 9:55 PM 1-25-2010_

_Modified by snobum at 9:57 PM 1-25-2010_

_Modified by snobum at 10:37 PM 1-25-2010_ 


_Modified by snobum at 10:44 PM 1-25-2010_


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (need4spd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need4spd* »_Turbos don't have a winey supercharger sound.


Some ported shrouds can 'whine' quite loudly off boost








The high pitched shrieking of the V9 didn't bother me so much, it was more the "*what's that coffee grinder noise coming from your engine?*" when friends looked under the hood that bothered me.


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (kevhayward)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kevhayward* »_
Some ported shrouds can 'whine' quite loudly off boost








The high pitched shrieking of the V9 didn't bother me so much, it was more the "*what's that coffee grinder noise coming from your engine?*" when friends looked under the hood that bothered me.


the v9's are nearly silent. you sure your bearings were ok?


----------



## need4spd (May 20, 2007)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4vrjtta* »_
yes i am a sucker even though i have no regrets to the decision i made.







... but please do explain how supercharger are more prone to heat soak

Hey you went forced induction over NA of course your situation is going to be better.
Just look at turbo efficiency maps versus superchargers in equal horsepower applications and you will see superchargers create more heat. That said and the fact that the supercharger sits right on top of the motor creates more heat soaking tendencies. Most supercharger kits come with smaller intercoolers which don't help them out either. 
As for the guy who complained about pricing saying superchargers are more expensive. Lookat all the components in a turbocharger application versus turbo application. there is more to a forced inductio kit than the spinning wheel alone.
I could of went a supercharger on my civic but i wanted more power.


----------



## .LSinLV. (Nov 13, 2009)

*Re: (need4spd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need4spd* »_Just look at turbo efficiency maps versus superchargers in equal horsepower applications and you will see superchargers create more heat. *That said and the fact that the supercharger sits right on top of the motor creates more heat soaking tendencies.* Most supercharger kits come with smaller intercoolers which don't help them out either. 
As for the guy who complained about pricing saying superchargers are more expensive. Look At all the components in a turbocharger application versus turbo application. there is more to a forced induction kit than the spinning wheel alone.
I could of went a supercharger on my civic but i wanted more power.

I strongly disagree with this statement and I have years worth of back-to-back dynos to prove it. the set up is critical, and having an oil cooler as well as an IC will help prevent/minimize heat soak. I can show you 9 runs (3 at a time) over a single day, and never did my S/C heat soak. never. every turbo I Dyno's with on any day would heat soak by the 3rd run, and the dyno would back this up.
it's all in how well the kit is thought out/built....


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: (.LSinLV.)*

my sc setup was all free & definitely worth it http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (need4spd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need4spd* »_
Hey you went forced induction over NA of course your situation is going to be better.
Just look at turbo efficiency maps versus superchargers in equal horsepower applications and you will see superchargers create more heat. That said and the fact that the supercharger sits right on top of the motor creates more heat soaking tendencies. Most supercharger kits come with smaller intercoolers which don't help them out either. 
As for the guy who complained about pricing saying superchargers are more expensive. Lookat all the components in a turbocharger application versus turbo application. there is more to a forced inductio kit than the spinning wheel alone.
I could of went a supercharger on my civic but i wanted more power.
 so because a turbo is connected to the exhaust mani it keeps it from heatsaoking?.... even though it sometimes glows bright orange when driven hard?....and centrifugal superchargers do not sit on top of the engine...roots style do, which are less efficient than the centrifugal style.
although many companies are/have been coming out with some nice efficient roots blowers

_Modified by mk4vrjtta at 6:11 PM 1-26-2010_


_Modified by mk4vrjtta at 6:13 PM 1-26-2010_


----------



## snobum (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*

did anyone take the time and watch that video i posted?????? its speaks for itself full on testing. id like to see vf do a comparison with kinetics and see what happens!! nuff said. 
lets take some simple science here no mater how you compress air it will always conduct heat when compressing air, laws of physics . if you watched that video you will see the diff between air intake temps !
ok so we have battled our way for almost a page. really what it comes down to is personal preference. you want stock like performance and driveability you buy supercharger not for raw power.. unless you have a muscle car and it has a big block V8 with nitro meth


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (snobum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *snobum* »_ t

why would would you ever want to think about belt slip? i understand it happens on supercharged cars. but just what if there was epic failure. and belt slips and breaks and your sol. throwing timing etc.


wtf are you talking about.


----------



## lavaheadache (May 16, 2006)

v9 stage 2 owner chiming in. Keep in mind that i've also been a turbo rx7 owner, turbo shelby dodge owner, current b6 1.8t daily and a few other projects less noteworthy. 
When i first put the v9 on my mk4 I was a little underwhelmed with the power as i was shifting in the 5.5k range because i was used to the engine never making power up high. 
Having never owned a centrifugal charger i didn't know how they worked and was expecting power like my previous turbo cars. 
I actually like the charger now because i don't feel like I'm beating on my car until I'm actually trying to beat on my car, lol. 
It was only a matter of a few days that i started to realise if i wanted to go fast, down shift and let her rip. 
As far as heat soak, there is no way that my supercharger setup even comes close to the same kind of temps that my glowing hot audi turbo reaches. Same as with my wankel and shelby. 
I will say though that i notice as temps drop down to about 50f the car definatley has a third nut and really scoots. As of now the car is in the garage being fitted with a custom fmic setup. Can't wait to hit the streets again. 

Hoestly, get what you get the best deal on. which would probably be a used sc setup in the forums. 
**** I just wanted to correct what some clown said in this thread about a supercharger belt breaking and f'ing up the timing and what not, as a con to a sc setup.







The timing belt and the serpentine belt are different










_Modified by lavaheadache at 9:10 PM 1-26-2010_


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (snobum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *snobum* »_ 

why would would you ever want to think about belt slip? i understand it happens on supercharged cars. but just what if there was epic failure. and belt slips and breaks and your sol. throwing timing etc.


so it sounds like you really know what youre talking about...


----------



## snobum (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4vrjtta* »_
so it sounds like you really know what youre talking about...









ya my bad. i was so heated and on a rant. i just think that if the belt is slipping and losing power, what happens if it breaks what kind of damage can be done if your at full throttle and you lose your belt. things cant be good. as me saying timing obviously that is not related hence different belt. ha ha.


----------



## snobum (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: (.LSinLV.)*


_Quote, originally posted by *.LSinLV.* »_
I strongly disagree with this statement and I have years worth of back-to-back dynos to prove it. the set up is critical, and having an oil cooler as well as an IC will help prevent/minimize heat soak. I can show you 9 runs (3 at a time) over a single day, and never did my S/C heat soak. never. every turbo I Dyno's with on any day would heat soak by the 3rd run, and the dyno would back this up.
it's all in how well the kit is thought out/built....

dynos and real world driving are two completely different scenario's . so heres one thing why do so many supercharged guys ice there intakes and superchargers before races?


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4vrjtta* »_
the v9's are nearly silent. you sure your bearings were ok?

Yeah, we did a group buy on 10 kits a few years ago and they all made the same noise. A Vortech representative confirmed it was normal / acceptable too. 
The guys wanting 15psi had to send their V9s off to Vortech for stronger bearings (expensive from the UK), which was the straw that broke the camel's back and many went turbo after that









On the subject of heat, by christ does the turbo get a LOT hotter than an S/C. I've burned through quite a few parts hanging around the turbo area, oil lines, water lines etc etc. It took me a few attempts to get the heat management sussed, but it's all good now








Having said that, my V9 was also far too hot to touch (not that I touched a hot turbo back housing, LOL!) after a few dyno runs and we confirmed the air temp coming out of the scroll at idle speeds was 70 deg C. I suspect it was significantly hotter under boost.
I haven't measured pre-intercooler turbo temps yet. Anyone got any numbers to throw into the mix?


_Modified by kevhayward at 4:41 AM 1-27-2010_


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (snobum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *snobum* »_
dynos and real world driving are two completely different scenario's . so heres one thing why do so many supercharged guys ice there intakes and superchargers before races?

people do that with every kind of set up. whether its turbo,sc,nitrous or just na. colder is always better


----------



## .LSinLV. (Nov 13, 2009)

*Re: (snobum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *snobum* »_
dynos and real world driving are two completely different scenario's . so heres one thing why do so many supercharged guys ice there intakes and superchargers before races?


because those guys have a completely different set up than a daily driven designed kit.
I can show you log after log of nearly static intake temps with my car, vs. the wife's 02 AWP 1.8T where that car's intake temps would creep up after each run, and you'd get to heat saturation after 3 runs. also, on a street driven car, you have substantially MORE airflow than a static dyno with fans....so generally you see MORE heatsoak on a dyno than driving around.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Stussy NJ (Jun 28, 2008)

*Re: (.LSinLV.)*

not picking sides here or trying to start anything but
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2890396
thats pretty damn impressive if you ask me


_Modified by Stussy NJ at 12:28 AM 2-28-2010_


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (snobum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *snobum* »_ this is only my opinion.. dont mean to hurt feelings

why would would you ever want to think about belt slip? i understand it happens on supercharged cars. but just what if there was epic failure. and belt slips and breaks and your sol. throwing timing etc.


Are you sayinig it would jump time if the belt broke??


----------



## yohimbe (Jun 13, 2005)

*Re: (KubotaPowered)*

question to the supercharger experts, would the tiptronic tranny last ? in my special case it would be a VR5 20V Rotrex combination.but I think the tranny is compareable to the 2WD VR6, any experiences with vr6 supercharged tiptronic MK4?


----------



## Uberhare (Jul 30, 2003)

So, why hasn't anyone developed a positive displacement or even a screw type blower set up instead of the VF centrifugal blower? I realize packaging and cost is a big issue but companies like HPA could easily develop a intake manifold system designed around a screw compressor. The positive displacement blowers like a Eaton superchargers would be fun as hell on a VR6 but not sure how you'd get it to work.


----------



## .LSinLV. (Nov 13, 2009)

*Re: (Uberhare)*



Uberhare said:


> So, why hasn't anyone developed a positive displacement or even a screw type blower set up instead of the VF centrifugal blower? I realize packaging and cost is a big issue but companies like HPA could easily develop a intake manifold system designed around a screw compressor. The positive displacement blowers like a Eaton superchargers would be fun as hell on a VR6 but not sure how you'd get it to work.[/QUOTE
> 
> because the market available is so small


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *yohimbe* »_question to the supercharger experts, would the tiptronic tranny last ? in my special case it would be a VR5 20V Rotrex combination.but I think the tranny is compareable to the 2WD VR6, any experiences with vr6 supercharged tiptronic MK4?

I personally know of a guy running a 24v Jetta with an auto trans here in town and from what I have seen it runs great.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (mk4vrjtta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4vrjtta* »_
thats something that would be to see after having all this sc hate

Don't confuse hate w/ fact. There are objective drawbacks to supercharging a VR vs. a turbo.
Some guys pick sides for whatever reason, bury their head in the sand, and anything you say no matter how factual is "hating".
-Lack of support
-Unimpressive in the mid range
-Power limited
-Difficult to upgrade
-Expensive head unit ~$2k
-Belt slip
-V9 is junk
There is a reason most people go turbo. That list is 90% of it. Don't wave a flag for the sake of waving it. Look at the facts and make the best choice for you.
I'm still getting IM's from guys asking me about SC's b/c they are "more reliable" and have "low end/mid range grunt". Oh and turbo's "need standalone". Too many make a decision w/out knowing what they're buying.


_Modified by slc92 at 12:15 AM 3-3-2010_


----------

