Want this question answered?
"economical" has no comparative or superlative form. You would say "more economical" or "most economical."
This question doesn't make sense.
The movie Turbo made $75,121,074 in theaters. There is still more money for it to make on DVD sales though.
Economical
Yes. However, the GT35 may make more usable power and be more drivable, depending on the engine size.
no you can not the turbo motor use more air and at alot faster rate do to the forced air on the turbo motors, the o2 sensor will ether 1 make it really doggy or 2 make it run way to rish
They suck more oxygen into the engine to make it more explosive and powerful, this suction make a whiz sound.
lower activation energy, make the reaction more economical
Push on the accelerator. Turbo charge the engine for more power.
Yes, VW had a factory available car that had both. It isn't economical, especially with the newer designed turboes avail. today.
by using mods and engien parts
They both can make insane amounts of power, but I would say turbo because... 1. The boost on turbo systems can easily be adjusted 2. There are way more sizes avail. to best match the motor 3. Are more economical MPG due to the fact they are load based and don't cause a parasitic load on the motor when not in use/needed. 4. Can be easier to fit in the engine bay vs. screw/roots superchargers. 5. more durable, belt need replacing/break (more of with higher boost), while a turbo will last 100k+ if not abused( made to surge/overspeed/poor oiling). 6. more low end boost than a centrifugal SC. 7. can even get electronics to limit boost per gear to maximize, performance/traction.