falcongsr

All discussions about SC vs Turbo go here!

This thread will be a sticky at the top of the Forced Induction forum.

Useless posts will be deleted! Only useful info here!

People who make SC vs Turbo threads in this forum will be dealt with accordingly!

Thanks.

edit - I want to thank lazerus for inspiring me to make this thead.

falcongsr

I had a JRSC with stock exhaust, then I sold it and got a Greddy turbo with 3" exhaust.

HUGE difference in power. I have used the AEM EMS to tune the greddy, but I just sold it. Going to try a chipped ECU most likely.

I found having to tighten the belts on the JRSC kind of annoying even though you dont have to do it that often. There is no such maintenance on a properly done turbo car. Just frequent oil changes and smart driving habits will give a long engine life.

just my opinion!

Tofurky

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by falconGSR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">There is no such maintenance on a properly done turbo car. Just frequent oil changes and smart driving habits will give a long engine life.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

What about replacing head gaskets?

falcongsr

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

What about replacing head gaskets?</TD></TR></TABLE>

on a stock motor, you shouldn't have to replace the stock head gasket unless you've done something really wrong.

when properly tuned neither a turbo nor a supercharger will cause you to have to replace the headgasket. in my experience, i would say this is true in all cases where less than 12psi of boost is being used. above that, you're talking about a lot of cylinder pressure and there are no guarantees as to what might happen. you have to be willing to accept these risks before turning up the boost.

blown headgaskets on stock motors is typically result from a poor installation or a poor tune, or no tune.

on motors that have been opened up (to replace pistons sleeves etc) it is much more common to blow a headgasket and its typically from less than optimal machine work or less than optimal engine assembly.

SiRkid

yuk, this thread will be HUGE.

Ihave a turbo car . Been in many jrsc'd cars too.
Both are good. Both ahve their advantages.
If you want some more kick with some decent low end jrsc is the way to go imo.
if your looking for that much more or to really enhance the way most honda motors are (ie your top end power) turbo all the way!

jinxproof99

i have owned a few set ups, both thurbo and supercharger. about 4 years ago, i had an eg with a gsr motor, jrsc @ 8 lbs and all the bolt ons. dynoed 225-230 to the wheels. never ran slicks, but went 13.10 on radials. this was years ago before hondata, etc......the car was fun, quick, and had alot of torque. however, today, you could easily out do that for similar money with an all motor set up. i know guys running all motor set ups on radials running 12.70/12.80.

a friend of mine had a inlinepro set up back then, he was running low 11's on his turbo set up in an eg. stock gsr motor. we both went to the dyno one day and raced each other on the way home. it was embarrassing. he left me in 4th gear like i was sitting still. it was really sad cause i thought my car was pretty quick. after that, i thought about upgrading the jrsc kit or adding nitrous, but the bottom line was that i was almost maxxed out with what i had. that is the main problem with the supercharger......no room to grow.

so i later switched the set up entirely, copying my friends and eventually made 361 hp to the wheels on that same stock block. it was like night and day. my times went to like 12.40's on radials and i went mid 11's on slicks. it put the supercharger to shame and was 110% as reliable. when you have the right set up, tuned correctly, it will be just as safe as a jrsc set up anyday. bad tuning and poor maintenence will kill any motor, turbo or supercharger.

top misconceptions reguarding superchargers on hondas:

1. that they are more reliable than turbo kits.

2. that you will be 100% happy with the jrsc set up and that you will not need anymore power.

3. that a jrsc set up is cheaper to buy, install, and maintain.

4. that the vortech kit makes big power...........now THATS a joke.


there truly is NO comparisson between the jrsc and a decent turbo kit. the turbo wins in any senario and even a well thought out allmotor set up out does a jrsc any day of the week on the street, road course, autox, dragstrip, etc.......

dmotoguy

i would pick a turbo over a supercharger 97% of the time, superchargers are only fun on trucks/suv's and v8's

Andrea

You have to be distinctive in the manner you are describing superchargers. The roots style supercharger, or twin screw, has the major disadvantage of the intake charge carrying great amounts of heat. The ability to intercool the charge can show great amount of gains in both power and torque, giving very large "under the curve" gains on the dyno. The powerband is packed with torque, and peak horsepower but the major disadvantage of the instant powerband is the lack of traction in most cases if not on slicks. The inability to turn down the boost level (since driven off the crankshaft) on the street for aid in traction all weigh up against the roots style/jrsc chargers.

The centrifugal supercharge produced by ats, vortech, paxton, etc are all of a belt driven compressor. The main advantage of these supercharger lies in the ability to tailor a compressor that is optimal in for operation usage, and being able to easily intercooler the intake charge of from the compressor. "Turbo-like" intake air temperatures and power levels are obtainable from centrifugal style superchargers. The main disadvantage of the centrifugal supercharger is that it's still belt driven, makes pure peak power (or at least the kits on the market do) and high operating rpm are required in order to make maximum power.

The disadvantage of having an increased redline to obtain maximum peak power is that the tensile/compression stress on the rods and bearings is increased greatly as the rpm rises. The stress generated to make the same peak power as a turbocharger (all things considered the turbocharger could/would make the power sooner in the rpm band) is detrimental in this case towards power production in terms of reliability. Another aspect of the centrifugal superchargers is that they are still belt driven, they take engine energy to make energy. At high rpm/psi levels on the supercharger the wasted energy that goes into spinning the compressor would be a fuction of the rising rpm, therefore being a significant amount of parasitic drag (friction) and thereby losing in the magnitude of 20-40whp over a similar turbocharger system. You still have the drawbacks of increasing boost pressure by swapping out to another pulley diameter, changing drive belts, etc.

Turbochargers in all respects are quite a bit more complicated than both the roots style and centrifugal systems. Since they are driven off purely exhaust gas, the amount of variables for optimal performance vary greatly from engine to engine, compared to centrifugal and roots style system that use rotational inertia to compress the air. Variables such as engine cfm, thermal efficiency, combustion chamber design, cam profile and thermal loading to name a few will drastically alter the performance of a turbocharger. The ability to have endless variations, have the lowest possible intake air temperatures, and tailor the powerband towards each specific application (auto-x, roadrace, drag race, saltflat racing, etc) are where the turbocharging systems really shine. With the amount of compressor, intercooler, engine management, and electronic technology on the market the greatest possible horsepower per pound of boost/rpm is extracted from turbocharger systems since the chance of detonation and engine stress are the least with a properly designed system.

gitwidit

I've had fun with my JRSC but am finally going turbo. The power creating potential of my charger was max'd out a while back, just been pounding it with nitrous to get faster. It's been extremely reliable for me and I briefly considered trying to fab the M62 to the bottom of my manifold but before long I'm sure that would be max'd out also. Then I'd be back to spraying a 100 shot with it again. Properly tuned both styles of induction are fun to drive but feel different because of the hp and torque curves. Bottom line though, if you want to make big power with a 4 cyl you have to go turbo.

Ben Huynh

iTrader: (6)

In all the years we have been serving our customers worldwide, we have had countless supercharger guys jumping over to turbo setups. We have not had one customer go from a turbo setup to a supercharger set up.

Hoosier Daddy

I've never owned a supercharged car, but from my indirect experience with them, I don't think I'd ever buy one. A friend of mine had a supercharged Del Sol Si. Let me drive it, but it didn't impress me at all. Another friend had a JRSC'd Civic SI. $4,500 later he was still running high 14's. Just doesn't seem worth it to me. Turbo, on the other hand, is simply amazing

PH_B16-VTi

So Roots/Twin screw type compressor are not good over ~12psi, because they generate heat.
But isen't Vortech able to be afficiant up to 25psi, which should give alot of boost over the whole rpm area?

I'm only asking because there is allways this attitude about centrifugal compressor, to be no good. If you get the boost to 15-20psi at 8500rpm won't you get ~10psi in the mid range 5000rpm? and it will act like a normal car with 3-5psi up to 4000rpm? Then it still acts like a honda...

I have be reading of this forum for a half year now, and I think it's very interesting that no one like vortech, but no one has tried it, except ClubSiRacer which seems happy about it?

falcongsr

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PH_B16-VTi &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have be reading of this forum for a half year now, and I think it's very interesting that no one like vortech, but no one has tried it, except ClubSiRacer which seems happy about it?
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'll be honest. I am kind of conservative with my money. I don't like being the first person on the block to try something out that might be a bust. From an engineering standpoint, I don't think the centrifugal supercharger is a good idea for our cars.

I believe a turbo will spool up faster than a belt driven supercharger. Even a big turbo in most cases. I also believe a turbo will be much more effecient without the parasitic drag on the crank.

In short, my personal take on centrifugal superchargers is that they are a shitty compromise between SC and turbo.

The only reason centrifugal SC's are so popular is that Vortech is a big name and their products do well on V8's where the energy required to drive the SC is a much smaller fraction of the available engine torque. Thats where these products really shine. We have less than 2.0L of displacement. Torque is directly proportional to displacement. We do not have a lot of torque to start with. We do not have 4.6 or 5.7L. Effeciency is key.

Even the V8 guys are catching on. Taking a cue from us, the import enthusiasts, Turbo V8's are putting centrifugal SC'd V8s to shame nowadays, at least in terms of torque and HP. Not to mention roots blowers...

boosted97dc2

you people do know that jackson racing is not the only supercharger company out there? everyones comparying their turbos to just the JRSC, and the JR cant compete with ****.

dasher

on a engine 2.0 L or less I would choose a JR over any other SC.... if I had to pic... they work best with our cars.

If I was tring to break the top land speed record in a honda, or be a dyno ***** and get great peak HP #s I would choose a centrifugal SC.... but I'm a bit more practical of a person a prefer to have torque throughout the rpm band and not just the last 1000 rpm

...... thank god I don't have to choose between SC and I can stick with turbos

quikB18B

Ben makes a good point, i also went from a supercharger to turbo. I had the JRSC on my car for 8 weeks before i said fawk it.

Heres my quick thoughts

* Supercharger can be quick, but doesn't have alot of potential
* Turbo, countless options to upgrade
* You can piece together a kit these days for what a supercharger cost
* Supercharger, stupid belts, Turbo stupid bolts(exhuast leaks)
* Turbo sounds better
* Supercharger- whining is actually coming from the motor, it whines because it wants turbo
* Ive never heard of aayone going from turbo to supercharger
* Turbo isn't for everyone(read my signature )
* I think alot n00bs sway towards supercharger because of the quote on quote myth that "Turbo isn't reliable"

Now that that has been said let me sharemy opinion of the myth "unreliable turbo"

" A setup is only as reliable as the builder and owner"

2-3 years ago everyone and thier momma was running turbo kits with fmu's and boost controllers. Now most of us can control ourselves, but beleive me there are plenty of people who can't control themselves and don't know what they are doing. The thoery evolved from a friend of a friend told me so and so blew thier motor with turbo, but they forget to tell them that Johnny Ricer forgot to check his oil, or johnny's car boost spiked to 15 psi because of that killer deal they got on that ebay special manifold, or Johnny thought he only turned the boost controller up 1psi

Point im trying to make is that there is less room for error with a supercharger, and turbo can be a disaster for someone who doesn't know what they are doing.
Bottom line is you any setup can be unreliable or reliable as the next setup, but IMO it depends more on the owner/builder of the car than the power adder .

untitled

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 50trim EK &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> The powerband is packed with torque, and peak horsepower but the major disadvantage of the instant powerband is the lack of traction in most cases if not on slicks. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Toyosupr on these boards and has a fully built b16 gutted crx with the JRSC making 10.5 psi. he is currently building a equal length mani for his t3/t4 setup. Ive seen him spin through all four gears COMPLETELY and some of fifth. by the time it stopped spinning he left it in fifth and it dropped to about 4k rpm. he is constantly finding traction problems b/c there is no lag. its like instant tq.

Tinker219

supercharge AND turbo for the best of both worlds
Im kidding
Didnt some of the rally cars in the early 90's use a twin charger setup? The "Groupe B" cars?

untitled

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tinker219 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">supercharge AND turbo for the best of both worlds
Im kidding
Didnt some of the rally cars in the early 90's use a twin charger setup? The "Groupe B" cars?</TD></TR></TABLE>

dont knwo about that but there is compound forced induction where you use a roots style blower and a turbo.

MachAF

As said many times before it really depends on what you want. Each have their advantages.

Supercharger has instant boost so you get great low end power, but its not good for making high WHP numbers.

Turbo, delayed boost, lots of power delieved at one time, good for making very high WHP numbers.

As far as reliability is concerned there are far less parts to worry about failing on a supercharger than a turbo setup.

Supercharging is more of a bolt on mod.

For those of us who don't have ways around emmissions testing JRSC is a carb legal setup as in the Greddy turbo kit with no intercooler or BOV.

B94Cast

I look at it this way:

Max boost at Max RPM - Supercharger
Max boost a Mid RPM and the rest of the way up - Turbo
Add boost - Change Pully - Supercharger
Add boost - click button/rotate screw - Turbo
(appropriate tuning for both is assumed)

Just my 2 coppers tossed into the pot.

sporkcrx

I've always wondered why there are so many more v8's w/ chargers than turbo's? Their turbo kits cost just as much as ours. Maybe one w/ a turbo is just useless power on the street? I've riden in two JRSC cars, a prelude and a gsr and both were pretty god damn fast. Faster than my turbo sohc

falcongsr

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sporkcrx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I've always wondered why there are so many more v8's w/ chargers than turbo's? Their turbo kits cost just as much as ours. </TD></TR></TABLE>

personally i would not turbo a V8. the complexity is too high. 2 manifolds, probably 2 turbos, lots and lots of piping. 2 wastegates, etc. For a street car it would be pretty expensive for a proper turbo or twin-turbo setup. SC is more straightforward.

just my opinion.

boostsohfast

In my opinion superchargers have no place on small displacement 4 cylinder engines.The way they (eaton/roots) make power is completely uncharacteristic of our motors, which is why most people shy away from them.With v8's it's all about torque(for the most part) and those types of blowers are great at acentuating *sp that, but as far as hp goes on 4 cyls they suck, and that's where we need them most.I also agree that a centrifugal blower is a half *** combo between a blower and a turbo, if you wanna make real power go with a turbo.I could go into great detail about this but I don't think there is a need. Btw, I would love to turbo a v8.

dmotoguy

http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/22838/


http://homepage.mac.com/dgiess....mpeg