Dodge Caliber Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Its one of those Electric "superchargers". Its just a intake with an eletric fan, may add 2 or 3 HP at the most, dont waste your money... I hope someone comes out with a real Supercharger Kit, for those of us with Calibers that bought them before the SRT4 came out. Im sure there will at least a few out within a years time, when the Caliber has moved more units. For a Real Supercharger kit, i would expect to pay between $2k-$3k.

Maybe if we get enough intrest from this forum, we could talk one of the big companys to put together a kit. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
I'd buy a real supercharger....not that phony junk. You are right around 2-3k sounds about right......plus install if you cant do it yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,707 Posts
Only problem with a supercharger on a 4cyl is the parasitic drag of having to turn the sc impeller will rob more hp than it's worth, which is why you always see 4cyl with turbos instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
377 Posts
HSKR said:
Only problem with a supercharger on a 4cyl is the parasitic drag of having to turn the sc impeller will rob more hp than it's worth, which is why you always see 4cyl with turbos instead.
If you have the right supercharger, that won't happen. The factory Eaton supercharger found on many applications from GM's 3800 Series II and III V6 engines to Ford's 4.6L and 5.4L modular engine family. When replaced with a twin screw lysholm design supercharger (Kenne Bell or Whipple) the power numbers jump quite high. Whipple has really redesigned and eliminated the "parasitic drag" excuse for not going twin-screw with their new series of superchargers.

They have units ranging anywhere from 75 cubic inches to 305 cubic inches, for the 1.8L probably a W75AX, 2.0L W100AX, 2.4L W140AX.

I have seen quite a few VW's with a lysholm compressor and those things hauled ass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
HSKR said:
Only problem with a supercharger on a 4cyl is the parasitic drag of having to turn the sc impeller will rob more hp than it's worth, which is why you always see 4cyl with turbos instead.
^^ i know that a supercharger is not as effecient as a turbo, but to say that it's not worth it is far from the truth. if that were the case companies like jackson racing would not be in business. also look at the cobalt ss/saturn redline. all supercharged and make good hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,734 Posts
boostdog said:
^^ i know that a supercharger is not as effecient as a turbo, but to say that it's not worth it is far from the truth. if that were the case companies like jackson racing would not be in business. also look at the cobalt ss/saturn redline. all supercharged and make good hp.
They do make good HP and can get up around 270WHP with their stage kits, so there isn't near as much headroom compared to a Turbo setup like on the SRT4 but you do get a lag free/bigger engine feel with the SC so it can be an attractive option for smaller displacement cars that badly need torque.

For track use (roadcourse/auto-x etc.) a good linear powerband with torque available across the RPM range a supercharger is a good choice... for a dyno queen a turbo is the way to go although some of the improvements on newer turbos is helping take lag out of the equation, factored with a good tune and the added efficency it is the best setup IMO when done properly.

Edit:
On the point of the post/thread... that electric supercharger is useless. a CAI/SR intake and ground wires (on some cars) are your best bet
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
i agree..personally if i have a choice i will always pick a turbo over a s/c, but to say that they are not a good choice is not correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
^^ you know i don't know why people keep saying this. there have been many companies such as audi that have done this. only way to find out is to try it. when and if this car ever gets paid for i may try it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
I would rather have a Supercharger over a Turbo. Then again im not planing to race my Caliber or anything like that, otherwise i would for sure get a Turbo because there is more power to be had. But with that more power comes the cost of maintaining a Turbo, and depending on the PSI level you run, it can be costly. Not only that but the engine life on a Turbo is shorter then that of a Supercharger.

The Scion XB has a supercharger kit for its N/A 1.5 liter engine. It gains 30 HP. I bet with a similar kit on our 1.8 or 2.0 we could gain at least that if not more. Another example is a Mercedes C230. In 1998 they were still N/A 4 cylinder engines (1.8 liter i believe), making 148 hp. In 1999 they introduced the Kompressor (supercharged) and that same engine went up to 185 hp and 200 lbs. torque. That is a nice increase, and would help out the underpowered Caliber, w/o some of the draw backs of having a turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Correction, just looked it up, the C230 has a 2.3, but you get my point. Good thing the Caliber is selling so well, that means more after market products like Supers and Turbos. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Most superghargers typically will give an increase of about 50% horsepower at around 8 pounds of boost............That would give my R/T about 258HP............I'd take that. And since superghargers give their power at all times, I would prefer it more than turbo lag + CVT lag. OMG I dont think it would get out of its own way if i punch it with a turbo for the first few seconds, but then................You get the idea!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
boostdog said:
^^ i know that a supercharger is not as effecient as a turbo, but to say that it's not worth it is far from the truth. if that were the case companies like jackson racing would not be in business. also look at the cobalt ss/saturn redline. all supercharged and make good hp.
Actually, the only advantage turbo's have is less cost. Superchargers produce way more power, and without the lag of turbo's. Think about it, when have you ever seen a Top Fuel Funnycar or Dragster making 8,000 hp with a turbo?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,707 Posts
Old_Dude said:
Actually, the only advantage turbo's have is less cost. Superchargers produce way more power, and without the lag of turbo's. Think about it, when have you ever seen a Top Fuel Funnycar or Dragster making 8,000 hp with a turbo?
Turbo lag is a thing of the past anymore. And for most street applications, you can build a lot more boost from a turbo. Or at least the turbo cars I know build more boost than the SC cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
There are only two things to remember when it comes to Super Turbo charging and turbo charging................Drumroll Please; What I just said. turbos are passive in the fact that they are drive via something that was once a wasted byproduct of combustion. Super charging or rather the correct term, super turbo charing uses the motor to actively turn the screws or with the case of a centrifugal type, the compressor. this take HP to make HP is really a misnomer. Mox Nix. Doesn't matter. When you really think about it, you aren't takign away horsepower at all, youare only adding it. the only reason you would be takign horsepower away was if you were only running it in vacuum; which I will add would be r-tarded and a total waste of money and time and yada yada we know, we know. Turbo charging is infinitly cheaper than it's counterpart in the simple fact that it can almost always be integrated into the car anywhere between the exhaust manifold and the shiney little tip at the back of the car. In fact, some may not know this but a turbo placed behind the catylytic converter is considered a muffler! Now superchargers on the other hand must be placed in line with the crackshaft. That means it must fit in the engine compartment AND be somewhere on the front of the engine. This leaves you with not alot of options. So besides space, superchargers aren't a bad deal. The centrifugal ones that is. Roots type units on the other hand and have a whole new set of problems. With them, you need pretty much need a intake and then space and now you are back to dealing with heat again like a turbo. If i could have one or the other, I would take a s/c any day of the week. I will be putting in a turbo on the cali sometime this winter. It will be a unit that goes under the car to keep the engin compartment nice and neat and not hot either. Anyone in MNwant to help, let me know. I need to find a pipe bender, pronto.:D

[EDIT: WOO HOO, 100th Post!!! Senior member, here I come!!!]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
Old_Dude said:
Actually, the only advantage turbo's have is less cost. Superchargers produce way more power, and without the lag of turbo's. Think about it, when have you ever seen a Top Fuel Funnycar or Dragster making 8,000 hp with a turbo?
i have seen plenty of turbocharged dragsters making alot of hp. but you are correct most do use a supercharger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,985 Posts
I believe the worlds fastest street car is running turbos. I think it was under 7 sec 1/4 mile too. I personally will look into a turbo kit for my R/T just due to the fact that they will more than likely start popping up first due to the SRT-4. As long as its a newer variable displacement turbo lag wont be noticable.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top