Stage 5 (original) turbo Vs Natural Aspiration Vs Supercharging, tested!

F

Fade to Black

75
The mission... to find out once and for all which is the best engine upgrade for a car based on similiar HP output...

The car of choice, a NISSAN 350Z GRAN TURISMO 4 LTD EDITION.

The tests...

Test 1. A top speed test.
Test 2. 0-400 metres.

What happened..? Read on... the results are... surprising!
 
350Z after tuning with all 3 systems.

1. Stage 5 turbo. 457 bhp.
2. Natural asp. - 460 bhp.
3. Supercharger - 462 bhp.

As I'd hoped, very little difference in total power output, allowing for a good accurate judging of performance differences. At there was a 5 HP difference, I allowed for about + or - 2 mph in the top end, and up to 2/10ths in the 0-400.

Test 1. Top speed.

Turbo - 202MPH.

This was the least powerful of the tune ups, so was first tested. Without NOS, it put in a creditable 202mph, using manual gears to run it into the redline, at just over 7,000 RPM.

NA - 202 MPH.

Despite the slight horsepower increase the NA couldn't do any more than the turbo, which was slightly surprising. Interestingly the gear shift was needed slightly later on the redline, at closer to 7,500.

Supercharger - 208MPH.

Although only 2HP more than the NA, it comprehensively trashed it at the top end by some margin... in fact it was going faster through the first corner of the test circuit than the NA and turbo could manage on the 2nd straight! Gearing in manual was again around the 7,000 rpm marker.

Winner - supercharger. An impressive 6mph faster at the top end.
 
Test 2:- 0-400 metres.

For this test I selected auto gearing, so that each car would shift at the exact same point, to allow greater fairness in the final result.

Each power system was give TWO runs, and the slowest one dropped. The ONLY thing to be changed was the power system in the car. Tyres and gears were untouched.

1. Turbo 0-400 time = 11.962 seconds.

The turbo did seem to suffer some lag in first gear, which didn't help it's time any.

2. Natural asp. time = 11.697 seconds.

A much more fluid pickup in 1st gear, as there was no turbo to "lag".

3. Supercharger time = 10.896 seconds.

Simply ripped through first gear, and kept going like a rocket... astonishing difference in performance (over a second faster than a stage 5 turbo?!) and what makes it even more remarkable, is it's by far the cheapest upgrade of the 3!

So there you have it. Doubtless endless gear tuning would improve all 3 times, but as a general rule of thumb with quite normal gear settings, the supercharger seems to be the best to go for. :)

Hope folks found this test interesting... feedback will be greatly welcomed too! :)
 
*nodding* I'd like to run a stage 4 turbo V NA V supercharger test too, but the 350Z in question didn't allow a stage 4 turbo...

The problem is finding cars that run all 3 systems, and have similiar power outputs... if anyone knows of one, I'd be interested to see what it'd be like to test it...

BTW thanks for the positive feedback :)
 
Hmmm... interesting, but there are very few cars that have the supercharger option.

I've noticed that in cars with NA and Turbo options whose top tunes are less than 10% apart, the NA options will rip through a track faster (no lag, easier drive, etc.). I suppose the supercharger gives you the same linearity as NA, but with a better torque curve.

But I'm puzzled... shouldn't NA give you a better top speed, as it increases the rev limit? That's assuming you didn't change the gearing... or is this a case of stratospherically long stock gearing?
 
Well I used the same gearing setups for all 3 cars, just put on full customizable gearing and geared it so that there was no danger of any car hitting the redline before top speed was reached.

Truthfully, at 202 the NA had nothing more to give... even though there was a fair amount of revs left from the redline in 6th.

Odds are if you fiddled bravely with the gearing, you might get a little more out of each car, but as the gearing was identical in all 3 cases, each car had the same setup to play with...

As for 0-1000 odds are it'll be the same result as 0-400, as the car ahead at that point is unlikely to be caught in 600 metres, with the same (or better) top end... :)
 
True the TVR does do them, but there's a MASSIVE differnce in total HP out of those 3 choices... I think over 100 HP, as I recall... I was trying to get all 3 as close as possible...

I think I'll look at skylines, RX7-s and so on to see if I can find something with a stage 4 turbo that also does NA & supercharger...
 
each car will be differnt, and powerbands also will be differnt too for each car and engine... plus you have to factor in differnt tunes for each car.. i can tune a cars tranny to be better than one of the parts you suggest is better.

so by a pure stock setup above using that car those are the results... keep that in mind... there are many factors to factor in and its not the end all answer to whats better or not.

just keeping you on your toes.
 
I think most cars that are NA from the factory have a beter chance of having all 3 options. Most factory turbo cars cannot be equipped with a supercharger, so NA or supercharged cars are probably your best bet.
 
all im sayin is that with a stage 5 turbo you lose boost when you are on a bumpy road or goin though hills, where a stage 4 it doesnt happen, it may cost more, but i think that its more stable
 
Try the Australian cars ie. FPV GT and F6 Typhoon this is just off the top off my head but is our V8 Supercars championship we use Holden (i think SS's might be Monareos) against Ford XR8's both supercharged but they don't come factory fited so you've got your Supercharger and NA kits there and im guessing that you will take turbos aswell i have know idea about power diffences though sorry it's just a suggestion
DJ
 
Heh. Before I restarted GT4 I had a 575hp N/A tuned Z06 which ran 10.5
Now I have a 575hp Supercharged Z06 which runs 10.3
I also have a Shelby Series 1 which whooped ass in every horsepower class I ran it in (300, 400, and 500).
 
niky
Hmmm... interesting, but there are very few cars that have the supercharger option.
Click to expand...

There are a bunch that have the supercharger available but all three options is much rarer.

Cars that I am aware of that have all three options (NA, Turbo, Super):
Alfa Romeo 156
Alfa Romeo 166
Chevy Camaro LM Race Car
Chevy Corvette C5R
Citroen C3 (now that should be a fun test)
Any of the Mazda Miatas (Eunos Roadsters)

More, but I'm only halfway through the list of vehicles in the game. The miatas might be a good test.
 
Indeed interesting that the cheapest of the 3 is the most effective. I wonder if there are any other factors that might effect the worthwhile nature of the upgrades? There's GOT to be something that would justify an expenditure of 3x as much money.

Maybe fuel economy? Since an NA tune up actually makes an engine run smoother and tighter, and a Supercharger merely hotrods an un-tuned engine perhaps the latter ends up eating more gas in the long run? If I get bored tonight I might look into the question myself.

I'm still trying to figure out how a Zonda ran 30 laps without once having to pit, my gas ran out LONG before that so there's got to be some kind of factor that effects fuel economy in there.
 
DeadlyFred
I'm still trying to figure out how a Zonda ran 30 laps without once having to pit, my gas ran out LONG before that so there's got to be some kind of factor that effects fuel economy in there.
Click to expand...

That's eazy. Just draft behind the 2nd place car. I ran 42 laps in my fully tuned Honda NSX '90 w/ 429 HP, and 110000+ miles on it. The car ran out of gas a little before the pit entrance.
 
UnlimitedZero
That's eazy. Just draft behind the 2nd place car. I ran 42 laps in my fully tuned Honda NSX '90 w/ 429 HP, and 110000+ miles on it. The car ran out of gas a little before the pit entrance.
Click to expand...

The Zonda was the lead car. ::boggled:
 
Fade to Black
*nodding* I'd like to run a stage 4 turbo V NA V supercharger test too, but the 350Z in question didn't allow a stage 4 turbo...

The problem is finding cars that run all 3 systems, and have similiar power outputs... if anyone knows of one, I'd be interested to see what it'd be like to test it...

BTW thanks for the positive feedback :)
Click to expand...

The Ford Falcon Racer allows for stage 4 N/A and turbo, as well as S charger I think...
 
i think the 350Z worked so well despite the minimal HP difference because the supercharger made the japanese engine's bad low-end torque good.

which means the supercharged car had a vastly superior powerband to the other two options.

the other two only had good high-end torque while the supercharged had good low-end AND high-end.
 
There are some cars that can be spoiled completely by the supercharger, though. I tried a Cuda '71 with both a NA tune and a supercharger. Although the supercharger put out over 700 BHP and massive torque, it was difficult to get the revs to the redline due to the extremely low power on high revs. On this car the NA tune would be the winner with a big margin.
 
Greycap
There are some cars that can be spoiled completely by the supercharger, though. I tried a Cuda '71 with both a NA tune and a supercharger. Although the supercharger put out over 700 BHP and massive torque, it was difficult to get the revs to the redline due to the extremely low power on high revs. On this car the NA tune would be the winner with a big margin.
Click to expand...

well, the cuda already has a low-end bias to begin with. if you want to widen the powerband then yes a NA tune is the way to go.

or you can keep the supercharger and shift earlier. that's what i did in GT2 and it worked wonderfully for muscle cars such as this one.
 

Latest Posts

Back