Because you can't throw around "always" that easily, there are too many exceptions.
First of all, explain how things can be that equal between a turbo and a supercharger. Equal how? Boost level? A small turbo can make less power at a given boost level than a supercharger, if the turbo can't flow enough or heats the intake air too much.
So now you start having to make big assumptions so that your statement actually holds true.
What size is the turbo, what size is the supercharger, which is more efficient, how have you defined what the best turbo/SC for your intended power target is, what type of exhaust, what's the VE (vol eff) of the engine, what type of supercharger is it, what type of drive system does it have, what's it's drive ratio, is there an intercooler, is one setup intercooled but not the other, how efficient is the intercooler, etc.
How can you make all these things be equal?
How do you define more power? More peak power, more power over the whole RPM band, more power at a certain RPM?

 

Really? Then I guess top fuel should stop using 4-71's then. Listen to me, look at the adiabatic flow charts. You're ignoring this little fact that 'x' turbo isn't always 'y' efficient. Why do you think there are so many variables on purchasing a turbo (veins, sizing, A.R.) (Please realize I'm using extremes in these next two examples to get my point across, but in actuality, its a lot closer of margins) Thats why you can't put a tiny turbo on a massive motor. It will throw it way out of its efficieny range and do nothing but choke your engine. Thats also why you can't put a massive turbo on a low flowing motor. You'll never spin it, doing nothing but choke your engine for no gain. You're having difficulty understanding that a little air resistance can choke a motor more than an actual tangable torque number/hp number.

I find it so funny you contradict yourself before you make such a black and white statement.

You said it yourself right there, there are other variables, but lets ignore those..


See my sig.

 

ok, example A. 92 mustang.heads,cam,intake, vortec s-trim 12psi with a power cooler. 60deg air outside @ 900ft elevation made 432hp.... same exact car/motor 60mm turbo with the same power cooler @12psi on a 80deg day @ 1700ft elevation (worse air) on the exact same dyno made 503hp.. thats about as close as is it get to all things being =. except the air was worse for the turbo and that was a 71hp increase.

example b. 03 cobra/stock engine. pro charger f1 rufley 30-31 psi/air-water cooler put down 886hp with a 70deg inlet temp....same car/same dyno/ the air favoring only 100ft off in elavation... with 88mm turbo making 33psi put down 997 with a 73deg inlet temp... all things being = again except the air favord the blower just a tad and 2-3 psi more on the turbo made 111 more hp.

these are just a few that i have done and the closest i could come up with to all things being =. im not going to get into low end tq or rpm band power number. i dont have all day. but as i stated before all things being = a turbo will make more power.

 

ok, take your numbers with you when you come to the track/dyno and lets see how far it gets you. the comparison i just gave is the closest thing i could find to the amount of cfm flow witch really dosent mean that much. i could argue with you about it all day and get no were... do you build cars for other people? have you ever tested and tuned both combo's on the dyno/track in the real world? i dought it. when you do state your FACTS then.

 

My whole point is that you're saying "always" and then giving specific examples. If you have to have specific examples, that doesn't mean it's true "always", only for those examples.
I understand what you're trying to say; that if everything is correctly sized and well thought out, there should be better power to be had with a turbo. This doesn't always hold true though, and it's reckless to think it does.

 

Yes, i've seen both combo's tested. Lemme know when you wanna come by and see my whipple charged 3800 Fiero (that I built). I'm out of this thread.

 

true, but most people don't want to just run 6-8 PSI and it really just depends on the car. But yeah most motors will be much happier with a beefier fuel system if your going to run anything higher than like 9PSI. Especially if you go turbo, your motor is going to be happier and safer when running rich.

 

that was just the closest thing to being = i could come up with. once you bring custom grind cams and a bunch of other things into it turbo's stomp the guts out of blower cars... the more the hp level goes up the more diferance it makes.. im not trying to be one sided either. i own a turbo and a blower car. im not saying there isnt a big diferance in the 2 and not saying that they are not completly diferant power curves. but as far as all things being =, turbos will have the bigest power number.

 

fuel pump would be part of the fuel system

Edit: with a supercharger, you might not want an intercooler, you will probably just want like a vortech procharger kit with the after-cooler setup, which is much more efficient (and not to mention stealth). heres a pic of one on an S2K. Plus you will hear it spool and blow off just like a turbo, that is if you're into that type of ricer shit lolz

 

Yeah i was told reason top fuel doesnt use turbos, is they would be to fucking fast. But i know what you saying comparing the s/c turbo and all that.


But doesnt a turbo make hp faster than a s/c if they are both at the same boost....and thats what will make a turbo car outrun the s/c....just like in the video i have up there with two exact same cars and engines, same psi, one turbo, one s/c..... turbo is gonna outrun him cause hes making full boost from 2 or 3,000rpms all the way out....peak HP really aint shit. and im talking a turbo made for that engine, and a s/c made for that engine, neither one smaller than the other or anything to restrict one more than the other. I mean isnt that kind of a fact???? pppeaacce out...this is a cool thread.