<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by blinx9900 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
sometimes we just need to try it for ourself, we need to get it out of our system... </TD></TR></TABLE>

wanna know what else happens when you live by that statement.

herpes and babies

to OP: http://hondata.com/dyno99b16230hpcivic.html
http://hondata.com/dyno99b16207hpcivic.html
2.0 centrigual http://hondata.com/dynoramair.html

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

wanna know what else happens when you live by that statement.

herpes and babies </TD></TR></TABLE>

not if your safe and everything has its risk

 

which is a topic for a completely new website...

try planned parenting, that explains why you are such a dick, you must be pregnant...

or the Valtrex website, there must be people there who want to hear what you have to say since the Herpes seem to be your expertise...

that doesn't even have anything to do with the topic...it's a valid way of life, and good advice...you're just a waste of bandwidth...so take your bs somewhere else, where people want to hear it...

 

I went the supercharged route once, had many turbo hondas before, decided to give superchargers a try. Had the exact same reasoning as you, wanted low end torque, didnt want insane power, simplicity, etc...
Now I can tell you it did give me all of those things, but not like I expected. Dont expect to bolt on a supercharger and have tree stump pulling torque. My supercharged honda was absolutley nothing low end torque wise compared to say a small 14b or t3 setup. It didnt have good topend either. It just made a whining noise and produced alot of heat, so much that I was detonating on a fairly conservative tune on hot summer days after a few pulls. The car only felt alive when it was cold, I loved it then. After a few pulls the power dissappeared. Why? Because Superchargers on Hondas are highly inefficient.
There is a guy here who made a post about mounting twin screw s/c's on a honda what happened to that?

You are set on buying a supercharger, so be it, but your supercharger will cost you alot more money than turbo once you go to the track and see how poorly it performs, forcing you to go turbo. If you dont care how it performs then leave your engine stock.

to prove my point, search jackson racing and see how many hits you get that are for sale ads.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by gotrice16 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">which is a topic for a completely new website...

try planned parenting, that explains why you are such a dick, you must be pregnant...

or the Valtrex website, there must be people there who want to hear what you have to say since the Herpes seem to be your expertise...

that doesn't even have anything to do with the topic...it's a valid way of life, and good advice...you're just a waste of bandwidth...so take your bs somewhere else, where people want to hear it...



</TD></TR></TABLE>

umm right this comming from the guy who asked if more displacement was better for a supercharger ROFL

 

ok...i'll do research for the twin screw thing...

 

yep, that came from the guy that doesn't have much experience...but the bs coming from tony413 is the ***-dyno version of an ego boosting slam...feels loud, but actually makes you slower...at least to everyone here...
just stop trying to one-up me...your walk is tall but your talk is cheap...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by gotrice16 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">ok...i'll do research for the twin screw thing...</TD></TR></TABLE>

isnt that what i asked you to do

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by gotrice16 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">yep, that came from the guy that doesn't have much experience...but the bs coming from tony413 is the ***-dyno version of an ego boosting slam...feels loud, but actually makes you slower...at least to everyone here...
just stop trying to one-up me...your walk is tall but your talk is cheap...</TD></TR></TABLE>

i'll stop with the pissing contest
honestly i hate seeing money goto waste and then people complaining about it. just go turbo theres a lot of options and they are reasonably priced. like crxdan and i said earlier a 14b turbo will give you what you are looking for. low end power but yet if you want something more you can move to a 16g.

 

okay...i'll consider it but unless i talk to someone who hates theirs, i won't bother researching turbo..

 

how about this?
http://superchargeronline.com/...ive=1

oh, yea and here///

http://www.autobookworld.com/shopexd.asp?id=2052

it describes the honda that puts out 500 supercharged horses...

 

the charger is a twin screw setup, which according to research compresses the air in the blower and also cools more efficiently than a Roots system...it's a smart idea...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by gotrice16 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">how about this?
http://superchargeronline.com/...ive=1

oh, yea and here///

http://www.autobookworld.com/shopexd.asp?id=2052

it describes the honda that puts out 500 supercharged horses...</TD></TR></TABLE>

that civic is similiar to the hondata link i posted in here go click on it and read.

also from the specs of the jackson supercharger you could ge the same, or even better performance out of a 14b turbo which will only run you about $100-$250 just for the turbo and the rest of the parts not including tuning would probably run you about $2500 or a less

 

that's the thing...i don't want a boost addiction...i don't want a small turbo that will spool and let me change boost levels easily...you wanna know why?

because a small turbo will hook me, give me the desire for a bigger one...i only want to tune it over 200whp and call it a day...i don't want to spend any more money on my car unless it's necessary to keep it running after the setup...with a supercharger, it entails a pulley change, and is a pain in the ***, which makes leaving it at the new amount rewardable...

with a turbo, i'll spend more money and then get bit, making it to where i save for a bigger turbo and more boost...so on and so forth, until the car can no longer run daily and becomes impractical...i enjoy the fact that my car costs 34 dollars to fill up, and i don't want to be spending as much as everyone else...if i did, i'd have bought an impreza or tuned a supra or MR-2...that way i'd have boost and crap mileage too...

plus, i know someone with a 460 whp setup that has been in the shop 6 times in the last 3 months for tuning and fixing hiccups like busted axles, detonation, etc...
he only wanted to turbo the car with the Full Race kit to 220 whp, just to be the first B16 in Montgomery over the 200 mark...well, he lost sight of his goal...now he regrets completely the fact that he even still has it...since the motor is such a hog and now requires constant fueling and octane booster to keep from detonating, he only has, like, 22 mpg and can't run it for very long without it detonating once in a while on a weekly basis...it's superfast, but he says it's very impractical and prevents him from being able to afford a simpler build...
since everyone here has been bitten by the boost bug, it's proof in the pudding that i don't want to fall under the same route...
sure, having a civic that can lap a viper is great, but when you get the fuel economy of a freaking truck and have to fuel with octane booster, unlike the viper, it's enough to discourage me from even trying it...
i've been in turbo civics, and it's a rush, but it costs way too much for a student that wants to travel to amsterdam and also has to get his own apartment...
having a supercharger will prevent me from just spending and spending...i don't want to do much else to this car besides painting it and making the interior nicer...i'd rather build a turbo D-series that would be cheaper and would have a definate limit...plus, more MPG to start with

 

boost addiction does suck but it happens

if you are going to go with a supercharger though look into vortech ftw

 

yea...i'll look for a used setup...honestly, every dollar counts, because i'm supporting myself, a girlfriend, and a mother...not a lot of cash to use...

i'm just not trying to get much more power...the only reason i'm considering the forced induction is because i've reached the limit of bolt-ons, and i don't think the car is fast enough...i don't want much, though...according to power-to-weight, 240whp is plenty to screw with camaros, cobra mustangs, and even the dreaded Subaru...

 

What makes you think getting a supercharger wont be the same? There are aftercooler kits, blower porting, different header, cams, youll need to upgrade your clutch, etc... as with turbo. youll still need an exhaust. i think in the end turbo is still cheaper and will always produce more power.

 

try to think more along the lines of torque not so much hp.

in a 2600lbs civic, 280 wheel torque can get you into the 10.9's which is what i was trying to get at earlier its not all about hp. if you want to gun for Z28's and cobra look to put around 180 to 200 wheel torque on the ground

 

my civic weighs 2125 with me in it...it's completely gutted and has no rear seats or passenger seat...
oh, and i have a stage 3 clutch in a box at home...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">try to think more along the lines of torque not so much hp.

in a 2600lbs civic, 280 wheel torque can get you into the 10.9's which is what i was trying to get at earlier its not all about hp. if you want to gun for Z28's and cobra look to put around 180 to 200 wheel torque on the ground </TD></TR></TABLE>

Torque isn't a very good way to measure how fast a car is going to be. You're better off using whp. Why? Because whp is a derivation of wtq through the entire powerband. Any Honda that makes big horsepower numbers with low torque simply means that they carried the torque they made really far into the powerband which will ultimately be faster than making the same amount of torque early on and having it die off like small pox up top.

OP, you are horribly confused with how turbochargers work and you will be sorely dissappointed with the supercharger when you get it. I think you need to research more, and be more open to turbochargers rather than trying to justify a supercharger by only finding the "bad."

I'll put it this way. JRSC on 7psi stock D16Y8 engine, 146whp 118wtq. T3T04e on 7psi 217whp 160wtq. I pieced the turbo kit together with the money I got from selling the supercharger setup. I still daily drive my setup today, 30+mpg and 325whp.

 

i think i'll try it anyway...my friend Jim has a 99 Si with a JRSC and it's been on it since 1999 when he installed it the day after he bought it off the showroom...

turbos are an interesting system...it's not that i don't know how they work, i just didn't figure they did much to your torque...a t3/t04e hybrid is rather large, and probably wouldn't spool south of 3000 rpms...but, anyway, i'll try it someday... if i ride with Jim and don't like the setup at all, i'll consider that turbo setup that was previously displayed...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SovXietday &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Torque isn't a very good way to measure how fast a car is going to be. You're better off using whp. Why? Because whp is a derivation of wtq through the entire powerband. Any Honda that makes big horsepower numbers with low torque simply means that they carried the torque they made really far into the powerband which will ultimately be faster than making the same amount of torque early on and having it die off like small pox up top.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

you misunderstood me. but just going by what you said, a means a car making 400whp and 260ft/lbs will be quicker than a car with 370whp and 285ft/lbs. which is not true.

i think of it this way, because a lot of things can change torque. i say that any car weighting 2200 to 2800 lbs. is going to run 10's with a minimum of 280ft/lbs of torque. granted the driver can get 1.7 60ft times and has a reasonable suspension. 280ft/lbs seems to be the starting point for 2200 to 2800lbs cars to get into the 10's

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

you misunderstood me. but just going by what you said, a means a car making 400whp and 260ft/lbs will be quicker than a car with 370whp and 285ft/lbs. which is not true.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
93
Bollocks. Torque # is meaningless w/o reference to rpm. All other things being equal, the 400 hp car will be quicker than the 370 car. Any type of racing requires gearing and driving to facilitate the hp peak. It is highly inaccurate to judge drag times or even street driving characteristics by the max torque # alone. I had thought that the relevance of the torque # to drag times was relegated to the ignorant domestic peoples. Tq and hp are just 2 directly proportional ways of measuring the same thing. It's just that peak hp is the ideal way to estimate performance, and the entire dyno plot has to be assessed to estimate street driving characteristics(but even this might not directly relate to part throttle conditions).
93 93/93

 

im not saying that torque is the end all be all. i know there are other factors. im just using 280ft/lbs as nothing more than a rule of thumb or very lose associate.

its just that usually the lowest amount of wheel torque honda's i see hit high 10's. most of the time have around ~280ft/lbs with VARYING wheel hp. thats all im saying. its nothing more than a benchmark.

 

Check the JRSC thread, plenty of happy SC'd Honda people there and a lot of good information. As with many HT threads that people ask about SC's in, this has turned into a "turbo is better and you are stupid" flame-fest:

https://honda-tech.com/zero...e=453

To answer your original questions:

It's relatively simple to install. My first one took me two days, but now I do them in a few hours. It is definitely easier than a turbo install.

A stock bottom end is fine, you'll only be running about 6 PSI of boost.

You don't need a standalone ECU. The FMU and enrichment relay works okay and is safe, but you end up pulling a lot of timing full-time, even when you don't need to, making the car sluggish off boost. JR makes a cheap MAP controller that fixes 90% of that problem, making the car much nicer to drive, and they make a piggyback timing controller that fully restores normal timing. I ran the base kit with those two extra components (got them both for cheap off of ebay) and it was a lot of fun, probably my favorite low-boost street setup. You will be able to squeeze a little extra out of it with a standalone, but it's not absolutely necessary.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rmcdaniels &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Check the JRSC thread, plenty of happy SC'd Honda people there and a lot of good information. As with many HT threads that people ask about SC's in, this has turned into a "turbo is better and you are stupid" flame-fest:

https://honda-tech.com/zero...e=453

To answer your original questions:

It's relatively simple to install. My first one took me two days, but now I do them in a few hours. It is definitely easier than a turbo install.

A stock bottom end is fine, you'll only be running about 6 PSI of boost.

You don't need a standalone ECU. The FMU and enrichment relay works okay and is safe, but you end up pulling a lot of timing full-time, even when you don't need to, making the car sluggish off boost. JR makes a cheap MAP controller that fixes 90% of that problem, making the car much nicer to drive, and they make a piggyback timing controller that fully restores normal timing. I ran the base kit with those two extra components (got them both for cheap off of ebay) and it was a lot of fun, probably my favorite low-boost street setup. You will be able to squeeze a little extra out of it with a standalone, but it's not absolutely necessary.</TD></TR></TABLE>

and the man finally shows up, i been waiting for you to post on this thread since the beginning...

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by gotrice16 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
turbos are an interesting system...it's not that i don't know how they work, i just didn't figure they did much to your torque...a t3/t04e hybrid is rather large, and probably wouldn't spool south of 3000 rpms...but, anyway, i'll try it someday... if i ride with Jim and don't like the setup at all, i'll consider that turbo setup that was previously displayed...</TD></TR></TABLE>

just for information:
i've had 2 turbo setups, 1 centered around a ball bearing T3/t04e which made 240wtq and 317whp at 14-15psi and now the current setup is centered around a GT3076r making 260wtq and 333whp at 12psi, (both on a b16a with 8.4:1 and a CTR head tuned on aem ems.) I'm just trying to show you that turbo's actually make a lot of torque. granted neither setup spooled below 300rpm but both turbo's are a bit on the large side for the power I'm making, i could have used a 3071 or a GT28RS and spooled much much earlier.

RMC care to chime in on the spool time of the GT28RS vs. your JRSC you had in regards to which made torque earlier and which made more torque? Not trying to make this a vs thread here just want your opinion since you had both.