Which would you prefer for your G? Turbo- or Super Charging

The G-Series Tuning Forum is the place to discuss G35/G37 performance modifications and mechanical repair.
User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 18382
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

Which would memebrs prefer?

A turbocharger or supercharger for teir G?

Advantages for Supercharger: more immdiate response even at lower revs.turbocharger: more gains for a given installation weight, may be less expensive as well, adapt better to altitude changes.

Both types of kits are finiching the development process as we speak, with several vendors.

Any preferences?

Vote in our poll!

Fred...:)Supercharger, turbo charger or?


User avatar
rydwhite
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 3:43 am
Car: 2003 G35 Coupe

Post

Fred, Good question. I have been thinking the same. I would probably go with the turbo because it will probably be less expensive and the gains you mentioned. I wouldn't make a real decision until I have seen some numbers for both set-ups. NOS would be ok, but I would really prefer a turbo or supercharger. Didn't Aries install NOS on his wife's G35 sedan?Ryan

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 18382
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

Well I think the hp gains would be generally the same, most tuners seem to shoot for 330-350 hp out of the VQ35de with forced induction, wether turbo or s/charger.

I expect most turbos to be less complex and a bit lighter at the same hp as superchargers.Of course superchargers offer more immediate response at lower revs.

You can make a turbo as responsive as a supercharger by making it a twin turbo, but as result complexity will match that of a super charger.

Both technologies are very mature at this point, and it is probably best to look at the individual kit offered by a given vendor, rather than make a generalization as I have attempted above.

Having said all that, I have always been partial to s/c's.

Fred...:)

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 18382
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

Ye sAries NOS system seems to work very well.

As a "purist" I prefer forced induction over NOS, even tho my current car has a <very> professional and well sorted NOS set-up done by previous owner.Actuates a 100 shot on "kick-down" pressure plate.

Fred...:)

User avatar
Onizuka
Posts: 8907
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 5:24 pm
Car: 91 coupe w/s13 SR20DET 89 hatch w/s14 SR20DE

Post

if i actually owned a G35 (any body want me to kill somebody in exchange for a G35?) i would do the supercharger.

dougs98Q45
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 3:57 pm
Car: Golf

Post

Do superchargers have the longevity problems that turbos have (due to the heat)? If not, that could mean that superchargers are better pricewise, over time... I know a turbo's high heat can (besides shortening it's life) also negatively affect other things under the bood.... The studs for the exhaust manifold were on their last legs on my last car. If I had to do the exhaust manifold gasket on my old car one more time I would have been up the creek.....

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 18382
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

dougs98Q45 wrote:Do superchargers have the longevity problems that turbos have (due to the heat)? ..


Both superchargers and turnbochargers generally don't last the lifetime of the engine they are feeding.

Fred...:)

User avatar
rydwhite
Posts: 3271
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 3:43 am
Car: 2003 G35 Coupe

Post

How long do you suppose a supercharger or turbocharger lasts? Generally speaking of course.

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 18382
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

it very much depends.A turbocharger that is well treated (idle a couple minutes before take off and before shut -down, <plus> using good synthetic oil that's not too thin) can last the life of the car.But an abused turbo can last as little as 30,000 miles.

SC wear is more constant and seems to vary less.For example Eaton SC's on the factory sc'ed Jags last about 80,000 to 100,000 miles.

Fred...:)

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 18382
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

Remember folks, the above is talking abut the actual <chargers>, not the engines to which they are attached.

Fred..:)

Aztek72
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:06 pm

Post

palmerwmd wrote:Remember folks, the above is talking abut the actual <chargers>, not the engines to which they are attached.

Fred..:)


For a moderate application I would prefer a centrifugal supercharger (big fan of ATI and Vortech) over a turbo. For higher boost applications I would take a turbocharger anyday.

Aries
Posts: 2887
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:23 am
Car: LT1 240SS
Contact:

Post

my baby is bottle fed and fully grown ;)175 shot wet on stock internals no problem :)

User avatar
PalmerWMD
Posts: 18382
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 3:14 pm
Car: 2004 350Z

Post

Aries wrote:175 shot wet on stock internals no problem :)


your G takes a 175 shot?:eek:

Wow!

Fred..:)

Aries
Posts: 2887
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:23 am
Car: LT1 240SS
Contact:

Post

What'd you think I'd do to it?Some pansy 50 shot?nah.double valve springs from GReddy for the 350TT apligaions work really nicely to eliminate valve float that would cause problems in the higher RPMs.And soon I'll have my new system in to tune the G35 computers more easily. Right now I'm having to pull them out of the car and hook them up to a massive harness.

User avatar
Onizuka
Posts: 8907
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 5:24 pm
Car: 91 coupe w/s13 SR20DET 89 hatch w/s14 SR20DE

Post

you got pictures of your G35 aries? or is it a sleeper like the SS?

nlzmo400r
Posts: 4906
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:23 pm
Car: cars

Post

palmerwmd wrote:Ye sAries NOS system seems to work very well.

As a "purist" I prefer forced induction over NOS, even tho my current car has a <very> professional and well sorted NOS set-up done by previous owner.Actuates a 100 shot on "kick-down" pressure plate.

Fred...:)
u have NOS on teh Q??!!

pcbootleger
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:42 am
Car: Cars, music, bootlegging
Contact:

Post

I'd have to go with a turbo setup. bothe chargers are nice but you just cant get that sexy sound of a turbo on a supercharger. Gotta love the blow off valve sound! ...vroooom swoosh

G35 PIMP
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 10:35 am

Post

I agree, the sound is like nothing else.

Also, the turbos seem to give you more potential for big HP gains.

User avatar
DenverG35c
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:40 pm
Car: Motor sports, computer solitaire...

Post

I've owned 2 cars with Turbos and had no mechanical troubles. Living in Colorado also would influence that choice.

But the big question is: What happens to my warranty? I doubt that Infiniti would look kindly on this type of modification.

nlzmo400r
Posts: 4906
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:23 pm
Car: cars

Post

as soonas you put on that turbo, yhour warranty is as good as done, im sure

User avatar
Stu Segal
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 4:32 pm
Car: G35 Coupe, Silver, Aero / '06 C6 6.0L
Contact:

Post

I've put blowers (superchargers) on vehicles - they provide both awesome performance and are very cool. (There's nothing quite like the sound of a blower when you crank it up).

The last one I did was on a Harley. OK, it sounds odd, but I can tell you it turned my 2-wheel Milwaukee Tractor into a sportbike killer. With the kind of results I got on the H-D (dyno'd at 40% increase in hp), just think what a blower would do for a G35.

My vote - supercharger.

theslik1
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:11 am

Post

It's my experience that turbo installations are more complex than superchargers on V-type engines. The exhaust routing for a single turbo is fairly complicated; the routing for a twin turbo setup maybe a bit less so. The intake routing is no picnic, either. Having said that, I'm seeing more turbo setups on V configurations, especially the F-body LS1 Camaros and Firebirds. The "old school" supercharger guys have finally figured out that the top end HP potential of turbochargers is much higher (turbos are basically an efficiency gain).

The lag concern can always be addressed with a 75-shot of nitrous, but realistically it shouldn't take a very large turbo(s) to hit 350+ whp in the VQ, with full boost coming on around 2500-2800 RPM.

Any thoughts?

nlzmo400r
Posts: 4906
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:23 pm
Car: cars

Post

well hell, Greddys TT set up was putting 334rwhp very low in the rev band and that was at 5.4 lbs of boost, so another 3lbs of boost and you're easily at 36orwph or so

theslik1
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:11 am

Post

nlzmo400r wrote:well hell, Greddys TT set up was putting 334rwhp very low in the rev band and that was at 5.4 lbs of boost, so another 3lbs of boost and you're easily at 36orwph or so
Sounds realistic to me...lag wouldn't be an issue at that low a boost level.

Go turbo!

nlzmo400r
Posts: 4906
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:23 pm
Car: cars

Post

they said it was almost no lag, and it boosted at around 24oorpm or so

vq35de
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 4:20 pm
Car: G35 Sedan Leather 6MT

Post

I want the alpine S/C (supposedly being made by dreamworkes)

They say it should come with a 3yr/36,000 mile motor and blower warranty.

Still torn between N/A and S/C, leaning towards N/A

theslik1
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:11 am

Post

If choosing between forced induction and NA I'd always go forced, although NA would be more reliable just by probabilty (fewer parts + lower intake pressure= less likely to break). Turbo and SC setups can be very reliable, however. It all depends on how far you're willing to push the envelope.

The beauty of forced induction is the amplification effect it provides to intake and exhaust enhancements. The 5 HP you would gain with an intake mod on an NA car becomes a 10-15 HP gain with forced induction. Particularly with turbos, because you never have to worry about a lack of exhaust backpressure reducing your torque (the turbine provides enough even with an open pipe). This isn't much of an issue with modern engines controls anyway.

gsxtasee
Posts: 322
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 3:18 am
Car: racing anything and everything

Post

I don't see how a SC is more complex than a TC... I have worked on both and SC's are pretty simple. a nice centrifugal SC whould be a peic of cake to install compared to a turbo, ESPECIALLY on teh V-type engine. I was, however, under the impression that the SC's needed bearing refurbishment at ~60-75k miles... unsure about that though.

The real question is for what application do you want the power? circuit racing? SC , drag racing (low boost)--> SC, drag racing (high boost)--> turbo, cheap go fast to fu*k with the muscle car guys--> N2O... all around driving, probably SC because thye are easier to drive for people who aren't accustomed to dealing with turbo lag and the ensuing rush of power...

Personally, I seem attracted to turbo cars.. just can't get enough.. I would run a turbo system.. but I wouldn't buy the G35 b/c it didn't come turbo'd though... personally speaking.

User avatar
booger
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:37 pm
Car: modding the G

Post

I would go SC...with turbos you have alot more install time...more mods...more heat....you can get more power with them.....but with this engine....you can take it only so far on a stock bottom end...and the Sc can get there with less mods and less heat

User avatar
Cold_Zero
Posts: 7913
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 4:15 pm
Car: 2003 (3.5) Altima SE & 2005 Pathfinder

Post

Looking at the engine bay of the G-35 Coupe I am not sure how you would get a Twin Turbo setup in there with out moving a lot of crap around. I would also think with a supercharger attached to it, you would need a bigger hood to clear the unit itself. I am sure that a twin turbo setup for the G-35 will be pretty costly.


Return to “G35 and G37 Engine, Drivetrain & Tuning”