Just had a question for all of you smart peeps out there. Was reading the thread about Ripps new supercharger and another about what people were getting, mpg wise, with their turbos. Since are car is known as a "daily driver" I was wondering if anyone knows guestimation of what is better for gas mileage? Supercharger or Turbo. Obviously if you are a lead foot its gonna go down but average for me here peeps. Need to save just a little more money and then either RRM turbo or Ripps supercharger is a comin my way. Yeehaw This might help my decision. Thanks again for any responses.

 

It's really base on a lot things like how the car behaves on and off of boost, how much boost you're going to be running, the rate of the injectors and any fuel map changes etc.

 

I saw on a post a few days ago...It may have been the RIPP one...that because of the sc design, you can run a leaner fule mixture through the car at comparable psi.

 

Ok well I dont want exact numbers on mpg then but wat gets better gas mileage?

 

Suppose they are both running same boost and everything else.

 

Bump, bump, bump, bump bump.........BUMP BUMP!!!

 

Off boost I would imagine the turbo would get better mpg because it's not running off the crank like the supercharger. On boost I don't think there would be a difference. Take this with a grain of salt as it is only my theory. (In other words, I'm guessing.)

 

You may want to get that balanced.

 

you cant really compare that yet, quite a few people have turbos but not enough people have SC's.

 

I think what everyone's saying about it being too early to tell is probably right... but my understanding of turbos vs blowers as a general rule is that turbos are more gas-efficient specifically because of turbo lag. The turbo isn't always spooled, so the air/fuel mixtures at idle and low speeds aren't any different than normal. Only during boost will more fuel need to be injected. Superchargers too will require more fuel when boosing, but they are always boosting once the engine is on.

What ChrisOaty said above regarding the leaner mixtures with blowers may have an effect, but I'm really not too sure about that from a logical standpoint and not sure it would counter the always on part of blowers.
-N

 

my friend has the first supercharged lancer in long island he is having a ton of problems with the engine since it was installed stay turbo

 

yeah but problems occur quite often with prototypes, thats just how the world works... im sure when ripp finally releases their sds it will for the most part be problem free.. back on topic tho i think i would have to agree with link that there isnt sufficient info out yet to show which will be more gas efficient....

 

This is my theory:

Since I have experience both 1) RIPP GTZ V6 Galant: SDS and 2) EVO VIII

My galant kicks the **** out of my EVO as far as mpg. On highway there is no comparison, so stating the fact that off boost that a turbo car gets better mpg is false. Think of it this way. When a turbo car is off boost, that means the engine has to work to suck in air. When a supercharged car is off boost, the pulley is still moving the blower at a rate equal to the need of the engine. Although the engine is still under vacuum while the car is off boost, because the blower is still pushing ALOT OF CFM (not boost) into the engine, the engine doesnt have to work as hard.

With my galant on the highway I have gotten over 200 miles on a half tank of gas, which prior when I wasnt boosted I would get MAYBE 150. Now on regular stop and go, forget it.

I would say that both have the ups and downs, but just FROM my experience I would say the blower gets better mpg. (IF TUNED PROPERLY)

Now, this is just my opinion and I very well maybe be wrong. Again this is just from my experience.

 

You really can't compare mpg of an EVO and a Galant, no matter what the Galant is running for boost.

The GTZ weighs in at 3300 lbs, with the RIPP mods it probably weighs in around 3500 give or take some weight. There you have a lot more displacement (3.0 liters), plus some boost, pushing a car weighing in at 3500 lbs, and only driving two wheels.

The EVO weighs in at 3300lbs as well, so the Galant with the modifications will weigh a bit more. With the EVO, however, you are running at 19.5 psi, with only 2.0 liters of displacement, and all wheel drive. All those factors force the engine to work a lot harder, and therefore, eat up a lot of fuel.

Poor comparison in my opinion. I feel the turbo setup for the Lancer will yield better gas mileage, especially if the RRM turbo ECU is used along with the RRM turbo. Of course all this is heresay, and if you're still unsure, wait until more people install the SC and post results.

 

I can phone someone who will have the answer to this turbo vs supercharger mpg thing with certainty. Hang on, I'll bbl.