2012 JKUR (still unnamed) RIPP Supercahrger High Altitude Full Kit Install

[Rexx19]

Um...
Pretty sure the power levels are NOT the same considering we run the same boost levels. The difference is turbochargers make more power at the same boost level. There are pros and cons to both but who makes more power is not really a debate. The wheels hanging in the air is a testament to how powerful a Jeep can be. That Jeep is daily driven, stock engine and has never broken anything but an axle.

I didn't feel like ripp's comment was calling out the turbo guys. They are stating that the SC could be set up to spin up more boost than it does, but they need to keep the beast tame. All tuners have the same issue. The turbo guys can make more power too, but for any manufacturer sell it to the masses, they need to make sure that it dosent have problems with the tune.

Both mods can make more power, but both companies have to tune it so that it drives the way the end user thinks it should.

[UselessPickles]

I didn't feel like ripp's comment was calling out the turbo guys.

Considering that Prodigy has promotional material showing their 3.8 12 psi turbo jeep lifting the front wheels in the air at a drag strip (and they are the only forced induction option to do this with a Jeep), and that Prodigy claims to have the most powerful forced induction option for the Jeep, I think it's quite reasonable to conclude that the following was in reference to Prodigy, and could imply that Prodigy is sacrificing reliability for power:

To answer your question, Because at RIPP we believe the best foot forward is the 1000's of kits running soundly world wide..... NOT Hanging the front wheels up in the air and saying we're the more powerful.... We can be plenty more powerful that we are now, but it's not worth the down side.

Prodigy's point above was that both Prodigy and RIPP are running similar boost levels, so the Prodigy turbo isn't necessarily stressing the engine more than RIPP to get more power. With the supercharger, there is more parasitic power loss to directly driving the supercharger itself. A turbo is inherently more efficient, so a larger portion of the internal forces/stresses produced in the engine are actually transmitted to the drivetrain. A supercharger would need to produce more boost and internal forces/stresses in the engine to match the power output of a turbo. If there was another competitor with a centrifugal supercharger using more boost than RIPP to produce more power, then it would be fair for RIPP to bring up the question of reduced long-term reliability in that competitor's product.

Let's just assume that RIPP did not intend to imply anything about the reliability of the Prodigy turbo, and instead assume that RIPP was simply saying that they are comfortable with their current balance of power and reliability within the context of their own centrifugal supercharger platform, and that they choose not to sacrifice reliability to increase power output and try to compete in peak dyno numbers with a competitor's offering that has an inherent advantage in power production efficiency.

Like Prodigy said, all the forced induction options have different pros/cons. Designed properly, they can all have similar overall reliability, but differences in peak power, throttle response, shape of the torque curve, etc. Peak power/torque is not everything, so there's nothing wrong with not being the most powerful option. None of the forced induction options are inherently overall better/worse. We all have different priorities and desires.