Dodge Dart Forum banner

Turbo or Supercharger

87K views 107 replies 23 participants last post by  DART 2016 
#1 ·
Just a curious question, but does anyone know if anyone is working on a turbo or supercharger kit for the dart? I know I would potentially be interested in this ... should someone actually produce one :D
 
#4 ·
Thanks for the suggestion there, I tried the 1.4 our, didn't like it much ... same feeling with the 2.0. I'm not unhappy with the current 2.4l, just looking for some options which the 2.4l's are currently lacking.
 
#3 ·
$10k and it should be ready, our vendor didn't find THAT customer yet.... if you ready go ahead and contact @TorkMe he should help you
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pretty Boy Floyd
#6 ·
bla bla-ing



If i was making a kit i would grab the SRT4 kit from an 04 neon and slap it on as the engine are similar ..... similar ... only .. not same which causes problems. The new multiair technology by fiat makes the intake side of the engine a whole new thing.

Same 2.4l I4 SOHC Tigershark engine is available in dodge journey, jeep cherokee. however nowhere this model of engine is ever introduced with compressed air intake.

The way the engine is laid out the closest comparison to this would be a chevy cobolt 2.4l supercharged. Their stage 2 kit sells for abt 3000$usd. Now if someone experimented that on a tigershark engine ... i'd put one on yesterday
 
#7 ·
If i was making a kit i would grab the SRT4 kit from an 04 neon and slap it on as the engine are similar ..... similar ... only .. not same which causes problems. The new multiair technology by fiat makes the intake side of the engine a whole new thing.

Same 2.4l I4 SOHC Tigershark engine is available in dodge journey, jeep cherokee. however nowhere this model of engine is ever introduced with compressed air intake.

The way the engine is laid out the closest comparison to this would be a chevy cobolt 2.4l supercharged. Their stage 2 kit sells for abt 3000$usd. Now if someone experimented that on a tigershark engine ... i'd put one on yesterday
The neon 2.4 isn't similar at all to the new 2.4. They share a displacement and thats about it. Now the caliber srt4 2.4 could be considered similar......
 
#26 ·
GM had success with strapping an eaton supercharger to their 2.0 ecotech in the first generation Cobalt SS. I believe that engine was officially rated 200ish HP and 220ish ft-lbs torque. It was severely underrated, dyno tests were showing it to be closer to 240hp 240 ft-lbs stock...

not too shabby for 2006-2007 era engine.
 
#10 ·
#13 ·
While yes Superchargers are parasitic, they also deliver power in a more linear fashion similar to what the NA engine produces. The turbo vs supercharger debate is one that has advantage points on both sides of the line, I wouldn't say either is definitively better than the other, it really just depends on what you are looking for and how you want the power delivered.
 
#15 ·
Before I saw what they were doing with the BRZ/FRS platform I would have agreed with you. However, seeing the gains the supercharger(s) made on the 2.0 boxer engine there opened me up to the possibilities. The car dyno'd stock at 168 whp and 140 wtq, with the vortech supercharger (6psi of boost) that jumped to 230 whp and 180 wtq. Adding a bit more boost (3psi I think) with the smaller pully and they got it to 267 whp and 198 wtq.
 
#19 ·
Ok, well salesman "facts" or not here is what I was able to quickly find for superchargers on the BRZ/FRS:

Vortech Centrifugal Supercharger

Discussion thread with Vortech Rep
Posters install 270 whp 199 wtq with 9 PSI pully
Porster install 236 WHP 166.8 wtq with 8 PSI pully
Posters install 235 whp 184.65 wtq looks to be stock pully (from what I can tell ... so 7 PSI) and other mods (exhast)
RallySportDirect Install 230 whp 182 wtq with 9 PSI pully

For the last one, I am guessing the shitty gas they have in Utah (as well as the higher elevation) is what made the numbers lower here - would probably show higher with 93 octane and not 5k + elevation. In addition to this, I know that there is a 12 PSI pully available as well, but I couldn't find any dyno's running that pully.

Innovative Twin-Screw Supercharger

Carb Approved Info (Dyno included)
List of owners, low WHP and WTQ listed shows as 190 WHP 160 WTQ and the high shows 304 WHP 253 WTQ

Just for comparison to what is out there, there are also turbo kits for the BRZ/FRS which have made even higher gains, but depending on what you want the car for would kinda make the decision on which version of forced induction you would go with. Personally, if I had bought the BRZ (it was between that and the Dart ... I chose the dart because I have a kid that won't be able to fit in the back of a BRZ in the next year or so) I would have went with one of the superchargers over the turbos. Nothing against turbos mind you, it's just that I would want the smooth NA like hp and tq curves especially for a rear wheel drive car that I'd love to take through the canyons at speed. The turbo does end up making power but extreme power isn't always what is needed to make the car fun, fast, and enjoyable....a friend of mine is finishing up his 2011 STI, it will be around 900 WHP and I don't know what on the TQ side, but that doesn't really sound like a fun car to drive around town, would be fun as hell on a drag strip though...
 
#20 · (Edited)
IDK People on the site you mostly have up say it is vendor driven (I assume vendor moderated?) and I'm seeing "customers" who seem a lot like the vendors kid. Multiple people selling their new kits, someone repeatedly breaking their supercharger belt, people saying their kit doesn't fit well, high oil temps, software companies unable to correct problems (with legal troubles?), kits installed yesterday................not my idea of a proven setup. Some people just piss $5,000 to the wind though, so I'm not saying if you have the money that you shouldn't go for it.

Edit--With just the $500 Tork tune I think I can beat any supercharged FRZ/FDS. :p
 
#21 · (Edited)
Are you just looking for ways to further argue a moot point here? I only ask because you say "seem a lot like the vendors kid" but it isn't much different than this forum or any other forum for a specific car type. Further, next to the carb approved status of the Innovative kit and the one guy reporting 270 whp none of those posts started this month and many are from at least 6 months ago or longer. So the same kind of straw man argument could be made against the "$500 Tork tune" ... here is what I see from that forum and you are welcome to disagree however you would like to:

1. The BRZ/FRS started coming out in 2013 just like the Dart and just like the dart it is going on its second model year
2. There are currently 2 supercharger kits that I know for a fact are out and a listing of 6 total options for superchargers for the BRZ/FRS All SUPERCHARGER kits compilation thread
3. There are currently 3 turbo kits that I know for a fact are out and a listing of 19 total supercharger kits that are listed for the BRZ/FRS All TURBO kits compilation thread
4. The BRZ/FRS platform dwarfs the Dart platform in total modifications available (23 listed Exhaust options, and more options than I care to count for springs, coilovers, swaybars, brakes, ect ... not including throttle bodys, and cold air intakes)
5. There are many more companies working on the BRZ/FRS platform ... the sponsor list alone is extremely large Advertiser Data

I'm not saying I don't like the Dart (I absolutely love the car) but you are completely full of shit if you believe that a tune alone will put you beat a supercharged BRZ/FRS with just a tune on your dodge dart.

The bone stock BRZ does the following:

Subaru 0-60 Times & Subaru Quarter Mile Times | Subaru Crosstrek, BRZ, Tribeca, Outback, Forester, 2015 Subaru WRX Sti 0-60 and Subaru Legacy 0 to 60 stats!

2.0 Manual - 0-60: 6.1s - 1/4 mile: 14.6s
2.0 Automatic - 0-60: 7.3 - 1/4 mile: 15.6s

The bone stock Dart does the following:

Dodge 0-60 Times & Dodge Quarter Mile Times | 2013 SRT Viper GTS, Avenger RT, Challenger SRT8, Hemi Charger 0-60, Neon, Ram Trucks and Dodge Nitro 0 to 60 stats!

2.0 manual - 0-60: 9.8s - 1/4 mile: 17.1s
1.4l manual (limited) 0-60: 8.1 - 1/4 mile: 16.0s
Rallye (engine unknown, manual) 0-60: 7.8s - 1/4 mile: 15.8

So, please tell me how it is you think you would stand a chance against a 2.0 BRZ Supercharged (let alone bone stock) in your Dart with just a Torq tune? The Dart weighs 500 pounds more, and even with the best tune results listed here, you'd only have 206 WHP which is much lower than the 235 WHP the average Vortech Supercharged BRZ is spitting out or the 240/250 ish WHP the average Innovative Supercharger is putting down. I'm not dismissing the Torq tune or even shit talking it ... it's a simple physics equation to see that you would have no chance in hell.

Power to weight ratios for the Stock Version:

BRZ

BRZ Premium (2.0L)

Weight: 2762
HP: 200
TQ: 151

Lbs/hp: 13.81
Lbs/(ft/tq): 18.29

Dart

Dart SE (2.0L)

Weight: 3211
HP: 160
TQ: 148

Lbs/hp: 20.07
Lbs/(ft/tq): 21.70

Dart Rallye (1.4L)

Weight: 3211
HP: 160
TQ: 184

Lbs/hp: 20.01
Lbs/(ft/tq): 17.45

Dart GT (2.4L)

Weight: 3211
HP: 184
TQ: 171

Lbs/hp: 17.45
Lbs/(ft/tq): 18.78

Power to weight ratios for the Modded Version:

(Best Supercharger to Best Tune Result)

BRZ Premium (2.0L)

Weight: 2762
HP: 270
TQ: 199

Lbs/hp: 10.23
Lbs/(ft/tq): 13.88

Dart Rallye (1.4L)

Weight: 3211
HP: 206
TQ: 226

Lbs/hp: 15.59
Lbs/(ft/tq): 14.21

Pound for Pound the BRZ kicks the shit out of the Dart in terms of performance as well as in aftermarket support. I truly hope this changes, but for the time being, it is the case.

EDIT: I couldn't find accurate numbers for the actual curb weight of all the dart models, so I just used the weight listed for the 1.4L on Wikipedia
 
#22 · (Edited)
Minos are you sure you are not a vendor? :p

I kid, kid, I know you are just a big fan. I'm just glad Dodge only charged me $19,2XXX for my brand new "slow" Dart 1.4T DDCT whereas the BRZ comes in at $27,335 with similar equipment. Then again stock, my actual bhp is around 170-175 and my actual lbs btq is around 195-200. The BRZ is not going to seem fast in daily driving (or climbing hills) with only 151 lbs btq but it is pretty cool for what it is.

Edit--I'm sure the 2.4 Tigershark II compares nicely to the BRZ 2.0 but of course having a functional back seat does add a lot of weight when comparing power-to-weight ratios.
 
#23 ·
Minos are you sure you are not a vendor? :p

I kid, kid, I know you are just a big fan. I'm just glad Dodge only charged me $19,2XXX for my brand new "slow" Dart 1.4T DDCT whereas the BRZ comes in at $27,335 with similar equipment. Then again stock, my actual bhp is around 170-175 and my actual lbs btq is around 195-200. The BRZ is not going to seem fast in daily driving (or climbing hills) with only 151 lbs btq but it is pretty cool for what it is.
LOL I wish I was a vendor ... then I'd be playing with cars all the time ... as it stands, I'm just a humble software engineer. As for being a big fan, I am a big fan of both. And no, the stock BRZ doesn't seem all that fast with only 151 tq (driven several of them) but their handling is absolutely amazing. I ended up paying just about what I would have for a BRZ for my Dart GT, but I don't regret the decision.
 
#25 ·
It does handle a good amount better, from what I have found online, the BRZ gives the following for handling/breaking: 2013 Subaru BRZ Road Test 2

Stop from 60mph: 114 Feet
Slalom: 69.1 mph
Skidpad: 0.92g

The Dart on the other hand sports the following for the Limited with the 1.4 Turbo: 2013 Dodge Dart Road Test Specs

Stop from 60mph: 118 Feet
Slalom: 65.1 mph
Skidpad: 0.86g

SXT Rallye 1.4 Turbo 2013 Dodge Dart Track SXT Rallye Test on Edmunds.com

Stop from 60mph: 117 Feet
Slalom: 63.9 mph
Skidpad: 0.83g

I'm not quite sure I 100% trust one of these reviews for the Dart as I would expect the Rallye to handle better than the Limited (so unless the info is wrong for one of them ... I'm a bit confused). So, all around, the BRZ is the better handling car, but it isn't a huge amount of difference ... I think both cars handle brilliantly. Hell, the numbers are respectable even when compared to cars that are even higher up in the pricing scale, for example,

Hyundai Genesis Coupe (2013 3.8 Track)

Stop from 60mph: 114 Feet
Slalom: 68.5 mph
Skidpad: 0.88g

Ford Mustang GT (2012)

Stop from 60mph: 109 Feet
Slalom: 67.3 mph
Skidpad: 0.91g
 
#30 ·
BOT-I'll take the $8,000 I saved over the FRS and keep my Dart with the free turbo, since I prefer turbos over parasitic superchargers. Anyway, torque wins races.

BTW--Minos regardless of the size the actual tire make/model makes much more of a difference on a tire's grip but I'm sure you just misspoke. My Dart came with the worst single-ply sidewall tires! Going around corners fast they squealed and lost grip unpredictably but I now have tires that grip much better and are smaller too.
 
#33 ·
And there's no comparison until someone races one.
The boxer 2.0l with a cold air hits over 200 whp on a dyno
"Seen it for my own eyes"

And because RRM dyno the 2.0 and 1.4 at 145whp cool.
Yesterday I had a stock 1.4 dyno at 167whp
" being tested before a custom exhaust"

So ok.

But i dont want too say too much I believe he's joining or joined and wants to do a thread on it.
"You know use guys at Chrysler love are cars lol"
 
#41 ·
I'm thinking OrangeGT needs to come back to reality, again. And yes, it is easy for me to tell if one car pulls much harder than another with my butt (as in my stock 1.4T DDCT vs. the stock GT auto I tested thoroughly up to 67 mph). Every 1.4T you see out driving around is going to pass you unless you are always at 5,000 RPM. All of your low-ball dynos, bs from the rags and wishful thinking is not going to save you from that reality. Go bother someone else. Good day.

Edit--Oh that's right OJ, you are talking about the real performance Dart...............the TWO-POINT-O! Stop trying to start wars around here and go hang with your Honda buddies.
 
#42 · (Edited)
He's in a dream world, where what he buys is the best and everything eles is shit !!

So the 1.4 is under 160, the 2.0 is under 160 but the 2.4 hits that 184 on a dyno lol"

Everyone look out dodge lied about everything unless we're talking about the 2.4 lol

"Its funny the person always saying the 1.4 and 2.0 hit low bought a 2.4"

I know alot of people like this, I'm sure everyone works with one.

Where you go buy a car and a Co worker buys the same thing but gets a extra option and then boom, it starts

Co worker to me.


" yo I got the sunroof in mine all dust you cuz I have extra wind coming into the car"

Me to Co worker.

"Ok" lol
 
#43 ·
here ill make this post like this so you can read it.

nothing ihave posted so far has been bad info. so please tell me where that is? id like to see it because then i can contact the website and tell them they are wrong.

i honestly dont care where you work, if i ever see a 17 yo kid driving a expensive cars its most times daddy's car and they dont know how to drive.
everything i have said may not make sense to you, but it might just be that i havent dumbed it down for you to understand. your mixing three different posts together to try to reply too.

when you said his car has 167whp and i said run a 1/4 mile, how did that convey that i wanted you to run a 1/4 with your car? or a FRS?

nor have i stated that i wanted a dyno. if i did it would only be for comparisons just to see what the 2.4 is capable of. my dyno is the 1/4 mile. dyno numbers are what honda kids use to try to say why they should beat a V8 muscle car in the 1/4 mile.

then you try to state that im telling you that all three cars weigh 3300lbs? where did i say that? each trim has different weighs because they have different options. because if it was the engine size why does the SE have a lower weight then the rallye with the same engine. they would have just averaged the weights together. i stated that the weight as tested for the curb weight is the weight of the vehicle they are testing at the time with full tank of gas and all fluids and you try to tell me its not. how does one vehicle equal out to being an average? they weigh the cars they test. so when they say that a 2013 dart with all the options costs this amount and its curb weight is this, are they also averaging the cost of the three trim levels too?

just because i cant make you understand anything im trying to say dont make me the dumb one. it just means you lack communication skills.

what does you having 14 uncles have to do with the darts facts and proof? the dart motor is new and everything you could do to the NA would have to be fabricated. so there is no proof of the NA darts yet.

if you had so much money why dont you have a 13 second dart yet?

and this is a forum about turbo or super charging, how did this become a lets post pix that may or may not be me? i honestly just woke up and could care less about what you say now. because it dont make sense.
 
#45 · (Edited)
here ill make this post like this so you can read it.

nothing ihave posted so far has been bad info. so please tell me where that is? id like to see it because then i can contact the website and tell them they are wrong.

i honestly dont care where you work, if i ever see a 17 yo kid driving a expensive cars its most times daddy's car and they dont know how to drive.
everything i have said may not make sense to you, but it might just be that i havent dumbed it down for you to understand. your mixing three different posts together to try to reply too.

when you said his car has 167whp and i said run a 1/4 mile, how did that convey that i wanted you to run a 1/4 with your car? or a FRS?

nor have i stated that i wanted a dyno. if i did it would only be for comparisons just to see what the 2.4 is capable of. my dyno is the 1/4 mile. dyno numbers are what honda kids use to try to say why they should beat a V8 muscle car in the 1/4 mile.

then you try to state that im telling you that all three cars weigh 3300lbs? where did i say that? each trim has different weighs because they have different options. because if it was the engine size why does the SE have a lower weight then the rallye with the same engine. they would have just averaged the weights together. i stated that the weight as tested for the curb weight is the weight of the vehicle they are testing at the time with full tank of gas and all fluids and you try to tell me its not. how does one vehicle equal out to being an average? they weigh the cars they test. so when they say that a 2013 dart with all the options costs this amount and its curb weight is this, are they also averaging the cost of the three trim levels too?

just because i cant make you understand anything im trying to say dont make me the dumb one. it just means you lack communication skills.

what does you having 14 uncles have to do with the darts facts and proof? the dart motor is new and everything you could do to the NA would have to be fabricated. so there is no proof of the NA darts yet.

if you had so much money why dont you have a 13 second dart yet?

and this is a forum about turbo or super charging, how did this become a lets post pix that may or may not be me? i honestly just woke up and could care less about what you say now. because it dont make sense.
Lol k.

I think you should read mine again lol and I responded to u in one post from 3 threads.....yes its makes it "easy" to respond to a person like you.

I was 17 in In 2000 and yea you could say I know nothing then..
And yes like i said I'll prove to ur FACE lol

And what you don't believe my pics, would you like newspaper articles ? Or the family outing video of my bike races ?
What do you want lol you want me to do a u tube video of everything i have like cribs lol.
"I'd upset you"
Well the 400whp golf there there's pics on here of me doing the body work in the same house lol

Would you like to see more of my family in it lol want to come to my races lol...

to make me think
"I could talk sence to you"
Boy was i wrong.........I think special ed is calling you now to lean how to read.


Ps did i say how fast my dart was lol
Me
"I'm the one with the dart over the 200 mark"
Didn't think so.....



And about the curb weight all link the threads when i get home and go through your post of bad info unless you delete post before I get to them.
 
#60 ·
That is the first time you have explained anything about I, finally! I tried to explain myself so nobody would get overly offended. You on the other hand seem to like being offensive on the internet. Funny, in your pm's to me you don't come across like that. Why don't you chill and talk about something else besides how the 1.4T is not worthy? Why don't you go out and make a bunch of videos showing what you can do in your GT? That would be something positive.

Edit--Most people don't like the feeling of boosting. I'm in the minority and I'm glad! :p
 
#61 ·
well what you want me to do? bow down like waynes world and scream im not worthy to your car? not gonna happen.

i say if it wasnt for the car rags being completely... incompetent in their cash oriented opinions and halfassed tests? and they do a full explanation a real explanation on the full abilities of a car, not just be a bunch of biased jap car lovers. we'd not have these kinds of debates.

i do like boost. just not turbines. i like super chargers. i get full power from the start of my power band. and i dont have to wait for it. if i could get a small procharger for this car it be sexy.
 
#62 ·
I already can guess what the Tork 1.4T tune is like since I have been driving a faster modded 1.8T auto for the last 10 years (0-60 mph in about 5.5 seconds with 95 octane mix), but I think you would be surprised. Never have driven a supercharged car but the parasitic loss thing shows a measure of built-in inferiority imo (plus breaking belts). I forgot you have a fast supercharged vehicle but I don't think it and my Jetta are really in the same class (about $2,200 in mods here). I'm sure a big turbo kit would make your truck even faster for a higher price.
 
#63 · (Edited)
I really hate to sound crass, but your statement of never having driven a supercharged car really makes this whole debate a non-issue. Additionally, stating that the parasitic loss is a "measure of built-in inferiority" really shows ignorance on the subject. I've driven turbo cars and supercharged cars and there is a really big difference between the two types of cars as well as the experience they provide. With turbo's the power isn't linear, you can see this on any dyno of a turbo car, the car will have spike in power once the turbo is engaged whereas a supercharger will produce a similar to the normal stock dyno but with more power throughout the entirety of the RPM band. In addition to this, superchargers do not have the "turbo lag" that every turbo charged car will have. The supercharger power is always there and available like a NA car's power, but there is just more of it. Finally, a supercharger creates less heat and works with the existing exhaust system. This gives a supercharger an advantage when adding it to a car that didn't come turbo charged as you only need to add the supercharger rather than also figuring out piping options for the turbo's intercooler and a new header to run the pipes to and from the turbo.

In the same regard, more peak power is possible with a turbo because you aren't limited by the engine's RPM's, but more power isn't always what is desirable. Using the Dart as an example, for a daily driver I wouldn't want much more than 250ish horsepower and torque to the wheels, while a turbo can accomplish this, the power is still only available once the turbo spools thus lowering the usable powerband for the vehicle. Using the supercharger option, I can maintain the NA feeling of the car while also increasing the horsepower and torque to the levels I would be looking for.

Food for thought on superchargers though, the new Mustang GT500's all come with a supercharger as do the Cadillac CTS-V's, Corvette ZR11's, Lotus Exige S', many Mercedes models, and many AMG models ... if turbo's were the end all be all for every situation, why are these high end cars choosing to use a supercharger over a turbo?

I'm not a fanboy of any particular type of forced induction method, both have their place and both can be amazing if setup correctly. It really comes down to what you are looking for out of the vehicle. But I believe it is a sign of arrogance and ignorance to bash something you have no personal experience with.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top