1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of.
04-28-2002, 08:13 PM
#4
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (Rguy)
He wanted reliability. Yes, i know reliability is dependent on tuning, but around here turbo cars are blowing up left and right, so he went w/ the JRSC.
He lost 2psi w/ the fmic, so it is only running 5psi, but it is faster than it was at 7psi.
He lost 2psi w/ the fmic, so it is only running 5psi, but it is faster than it was at 7psi.
Trending Topics
04-28-2002, 10:31 PM
#8
New User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (inspyral)
very impressive work... i wonder what the performance impact of pushing all that air about 6 feet from the blower to the intake manifold is!?!?
That's a whole lotta pipes 
04-29-2002, 08:57 AM
#11
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere in the valley,, BC.
Posts: 1,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (LsTurbo91)
That's what I've been waiting for. How sweet it is!
To whomever can make one for the GSR, I have cash ready
To whomever can make one for the GSR, I have cash ready
04-29-2002, 09:55 AM
#13
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: CO, USA
Posts: 1,356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (blowncivichb)
Dyno charts?...Before and after...I assume with all that time and $$ that it was dyno'd before hand right?
M
M
04-29-2002, 10:49 AM
#15
Corr Performance Pilot
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (94Accord)
Hey Steven,
Is this the guy from Knoxville? Was thi made by the guy who was a big name in Porsche Racing? I would REALLY love to know more about this!
Is this the guy from Knoxville? Was thi made by the guy who was a big name in Porsche Racing? I would REALLY love to know more about this!
04-29-2002, 10:53 AM
#16
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (94Accord)
i would love to see pics of the plumbing inside the intake manifold, i still cant work out how this would work effectively.
04-29-2002, 11:18 AM
#17
B*a*n*n*e*d
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: 99th level of hell, where all roads only go straight, where curves go to die. Houston Texas
Posts: 1,225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (philo)
It's new, and nobody else have's it. He should feel special. I know ... I would... I feel speical, somebody give me a hug. You know... that Kind of deal. WHo here can say.. "I was the first"I'd like to see some numbers though.
04-29-2002, 11:24 AM
#18
Honda-Tech Member
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (Snafu-Si)
I don't get it, I'm guessing the charger no longer sits right on the head? Must be something between it and the head to route the air to the FMIC right? That's alot of twisted piping there!
Kinda wonder why he just didn't turbo it..
Kinda wonder why he just didn't turbo it..
04-29-2002, 11:31 AM
#20
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SO CAL, USA
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (TurboSohc)
now he can run a 12 lb pulley with ease... and the charge will be cool. only problem would be the efficiency of the eaton blower, but the charge will be MUCH cooler! A JRSC'd LS with 180whp does 13's... not too bad. Imagine more power and no parasitic heat causing major power loss.
04-29-2002, 11:56 AM
#21
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (csufweed)
Mou-Yes, that is the guy from Knoxville, that has been posting on Hostboard. It was designed by a guy w/ a Porsche that has 700+hp, according to that guy, it was a very easy design, and he was curious why no one else had done it before.
I have NO clue how it works and what not, i do know that he can bypass the fmic if he wants, so when he goes to the dyno, he can dyno w/ the fmic and w/ out it, on the sameday at the sametime so there is no variations. Also someone else mentioned on hostboard that the way it is setup on his car wouldn't work on a GSR because of the ABS lines, but im sure the guy can route it a little differently if need be.
I have NO clue how it works and what not, i do know that he can bypass the fmic if he wants, so when he goes to the dyno, he can dyno w/ the fmic and w/ out it, on the sameday at the sametime so there is no variations. Also someone else mentioned on hostboard that the way it is setup on his car wouldn't work on a GSR because of the ABS lines, but im sure the guy can route it a little differently if need be.
04-29-2002, 01:42 PM
#23
New User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Westerville, OH, 43081
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (typerturbo)
No more ABS huh? That is for sure the more cosmetic way to run a intercooler. Looks mean as hell. Pretty cool that we will soon be comparing IC'c, and a few months ago we were just wishing for one.
Numbers would be nice to see.
Numbers would be nice to see.
04-29-2002, 02:14 PM
#24
Corr Performance Pilot
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (94Accord)
Mou-Yes, that is the guy from Knoxville, that has been posting on Hostboard. It was designed by a guy w/ a Porsche that has 700+hp, according to that guy, it was a very easy design, and he was curious why no one else had done it before.
I have NO clue how it works and what not, i do know that he can bypass the fmic if he wants, so when he goes to the dyno, he can dyno w/ the fmic and w/ out it, on the sameday at the sametime so there is no variations. Also someone else mentioned on hostboard that the way it is setup on his car wouldn't work on a GSR because of the ABS lines, but im sure the guy can route it a little differently if need be.
I have NO clue how it works and what not, i do know that he can bypass the fmic if he wants, so when he goes to the dyno, he can dyno w/ the fmic and w/ out it, on the sameday at the sametime so there is no variations. Also someone else mentioned on hostboard that the way it is setup on his car wouldn't work on a GSR because of the ABS lines, but im sure the guy can route it a little differently if need be.
04-29-2002, 02:41 PM
#25
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SO CAL, USA
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 1st Intercooled JRSC Si that I know of. (MouhadIb)
The following is from the FAQ section of the JR website:
Q: How does the Supercharger compare to a Turbo system and does it need an intercooler?
A: Jackson Racing has been in business for over 25 years doing high performance Honda/Acura tuning and we speak with some sort of authority on the subject of Turbo vs Supercharged Vs Intercooling. Having built turbo Hondas since 1976, the first turbo/intercooled CRX's in 1984, and having run the first turbo/intercooled Honda at the first Battle of the Imports in 1990, we do have experience with all of the above issues and can speak, without bias, having done so. And, having seen first hand the long term effects of turbochargers on daily driven high compression Honda/Acura engines, we have opted to supercharge the future.
For ease of installation, instant power, and low cost, nitrous is the only way to fly. However, that is if you only want to go drag racing. If you want everyday nitrous type power, you have to go to forced induction. That is where the turbo Vs supercharger debate comes in. For absolute peak power where driveability, turbo lag, emissions, and long engine life does not need to be taken into consideration, turbo is the only way to go. But, with all things in this life, there is no free ride. With a properly designed turbo charger system you have the ability to produce huge amounts of boost and horsepower easily. The problem with that amount of boost is that once the turbo spools, it goes to full boost. There is no linear delivery of boost.
Consequently, if the turbo spools at 3000 rpm, you have full boost at a valve speed that is very slow. So, the turbo has lots of time to create cylinder pressure on the rods and pistons because of the very long time that the valve is open. This, in turn, is what creates that huge rush of power when the turbo spools. This is also what causes so many turbo engine failures. Combine that with the fact that the compressor sits within 2" of a glowing 1300 degree cast iron oven, the charge air temperature is always very high. This has created the myth that anything with forced induction has to be intercooled. If you have checked the intake temperature of any of the late model O.E. manufactured intercooled turbos, at the intake manifold, not the outlet of the intercooler, you will find that the intake air temperature is near 200 degrees, even after the intercooler. As an example, a test by Sport Compact Car on a new model Turbo/intercooled German built car, they found the charge air temperature at the throttle plate to be 206 degrees after the intercooler. You see, the intercooler is a great thing as long as you have steady air flowing over it. If you are doing a lot of starts and stops, the effectiveness of the intercooler is diminished. Secondarily, once the air has been cooled, it has to be routed back to the intake manifold. That means that it has to come back into the hot engine compartment and the tubing re-heats the air. Not a lot mind you, but it still happens. Equally important, you have to fill all of that tubing with boost, then, when you shift and the bypass blows open, it empties the tubing, requiring the tubing to be refilled. This is the main cause of poor throttle response and the classic turbo lag in a intercooled turbo car. Now, keep in mind that this is all a mute point if you are at speed. But, then you have to stop. Once you stop, you have to cool the turbo. And heat, being the heart of the turbo, is also the enemy of the engine. To further the intercooler debate, let us consider the Ford supercharged/intercooled T-Bird and the GM (Buick-Pontiac) supercharged/non intercooled cars.
The Ford uses a 90 c.i. Eaton supercharger with as much as 14 psi and an intercooler. GM uses a 62 c.i Eaton supercharger with 8 psi and no intercooler. GM mounts their supercharger "Hot Rod" style, on top of the intake manifold as close to the intake valves as possible, with no intercooler. GM's approach, it appears, is to run less boost and thereby, less discharge temperature, and mount the supercharger as close to the intake valve as possible for maximum driveability. Ford's approach seems to be to go for the maximum effect with an intercooler. But, to push the charge air all the way out to the grill, through the intercooler, and back to the intake manifold, requires a larger supercharger and large quantity of boost. Thus, the 90 c.i. supercharger on the T-Bird and the 62 c.i. Supercharger on the GM models. In the final analysis, both engines have an identical horsepower reading. I am sure you are asking yourself "How can that be?" It is in the systems efficiency.
The GM system appears to be more efficient overall. Less load from the supercharger, intercooler, and all of the related plumbing equals better throttle response and an overall better driving package. Now, I am not saying that an air to water intercooler, mounted close to the engine would not be a great piece, it is just that in some engine compartments, it is not possible to package it. So, intercooling is fine if the system is not parasitic by design with plumbing running everywhere, and the net effect of the intercooler system in day to day driving, and that is what I am speaking of, is positive.
Q: How does the Supercharger compare to a Turbo system and does it need an intercooler?
A: Jackson Racing has been in business for over 25 years doing high performance Honda/Acura tuning and we speak with some sort of authority on the subject of Turbo vs Supercharged Vs Intercooling. Having built turbo Hondas since 1976, the first turbo/intercooled CRX's in 1984, and having run the first turbo/intercooled Honda at the first Battle of the Imports in 1990, we do have experience with all of the above issues and can speak, without bias, having done so. And, having seen first hand the long term effects of turbochargers on daily driven high compression Honda/Acura engines, we have opted to supercharge the future.
For ease of installation, instant power, and low cost, nitrous is the only way to fly. However, that is if you only want to go drag racing. If you want everyday nitrous type power, you have to go to forced induction. That is where the turbo Vs supercharger debate comes in. For absolute peak power where driveability, turbo lag, emissions, and long engine life does not need to be taken into consideration, turbo is the only way to go. But, with all things in this life, there is no free ride. With a properly designed turbo charger system you have the ability to produce huge amounts of boost and horsepower easily. The problem with that amount of boost is that once the turbo spools, it goes to full boost. There is no linear delivery of boost.
Consequently, if the turbo spools at 3000 rpm, you have full boost at a valve speed that is very slow. So, the turbo has lots of time to create cylinder pressure on the rods and pistons because of the very long time that the valve is open. This, in turn, is what creates that huge rush of power when the turbo spools. This is also what causes so many turbo engine failures. Combine that with the fact that the compressor sits within 2" of a glowing 1300 degree cast iron oven, the charge air temperature is always very high. This has created the myth that anything with forced induction has to be intercooled. If you have checked the intake temperature of any of the late model O.E. manufactured intercooled turbos, at the intake manifold, not the outlet of the intercooler, you will find that the intake air temperature is near 200 degrees, even after the intercooler. As an example, a test by Sport Compact Car on a new model Turbo/intercooled German built car, they found the charge air temperature at the throttle plate to be 206 degrees after the intercooler. You see, the intercooler is a great thing as long as you have steady air flowing over it. If you are doing a lot of starts and stops, the effectiveness of the intercooler is diminished. Secondarily, once the air has been cooled, it has to be routed back to the intake manifold. That means that it has to come back into the hot engine compartment and the tubing re-heats the air. Not a lot mind you, but it still happens. Equally important, you have to fill all of that tubing with boost, then, when you shift and the bypass blows open, it empties the tubing, requiring the tubing to be refilled. This is the main cause of poor throttle response and the classic turbo lag in a intercooled turbo car. Now, keep in mind that this is all a mute point if you are at speed. But, then you have to stop. Once you stop, you have to cool the turbo. And heat, being the heart of the turbo, is also the enemy of the engine. To further the intercooler debate, let us consider the Ford supercharged/intercooled T-Bird and the GM (Buick-Pontiac) supercharged/non intercooled cars.
The Ford uses a 90 c.i. Eaton supercharger with as much as 14 psi and an intercooler. GM uses a 62 c.i Eaton supercharger with 8 psi and no intercooler. GM mounts their supercharger "Hot Rod" style, on top of the intake manifold as close to the intake valves as possible, with no intercooler. GM's approach, it appears, is to run less boost and thereby, less discharge temperature, and mount the supercharger as close to the intake valve as possible for maximum driveability. Ford's approach seems to be to go for the maximum effect with an intercooler. But, to push the charge air all the way out to the grill, through the intercooler, and back to the intake manifold, requires a larger supercharger and large quantity of boost. Thus, the 90 c.i. supercharger on the T-Bird and the 62 c.i. Supercharger on the GM models. In the final analysis, both engines have an identical horsepower reading. I am sure you are asking yourself "How can that be?" It is in the systems efficiency.
The GM system appears to be more efficient overall. Less load from the supercharger, intercooler, and all of the related plumbing equals better throttle response and an overall better driving package. Now, I am not saying that an air to water intercooler, mounted close to the engine would not be a great piece, it is just that in some engine compartments, it is not possible to package it. So, intercooling is fine if the system is not parasitic by design with plumbing running everywhere, and the net effect of the intercooler system in day to day driving, and that is what I am speaking of, is positive.