What are the pros and cons for turbo and supercharger? i need some opinion and advice. I want to boost my 94 hb with b16a engine and i want to keep it safe and daily driven. Please help me out guys. Thanks and check out this one is this a good deal?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors...S%3A1

 

my bro told me forced induction on a b16 can cause oil probs. example: my mechanic had a 95 EX coupe like mine but with a b16 and he supercharged it. He had to add oil every week.

 

TurboCharging is probly the best way to go! all u get is turbo laggGG but once it hits full boost its goNE

Supercharging is also good but u wont hit full boost until the end of the rpms its not all that good for honda but good for chevys cuzz chevys muscle has the lower top end!

 

turbo for more power

 

Thanks Everyone

 

With a supercharger you actually have instant boost but it's less adjustable. I would go turbo b/c that's what I'm doing. It actually takes less engine power to turn a turbo charger as opposed to a supercharger.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Techy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">my bro told me forced induction on a b16 can cause oil probs. example: my mechanic had a 95 EX coupe like mine but with a b16 and he supercharged it. He had to add oil every week.</TD></TR></TABLE>*shaking head* That has nothing to do with the supercharger. And as for turbo or supercharger I would say go turbo.

 

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1501926

 

def turbo, much more options

 

this is just about the most uneducated thing ive read all day.

superchargers make MORE power down low, and they lose power at the upper end.

dont open your mouth about thing of which you have no idea.


Supercharging, also called mechanical charging, appeared in around 1885, and for racing, first appeared in Grand Prix cars in the 1920's in order to increase power. Since the compressor is driven directly by the engine crankshaft, it has the advantage of instant response (no lag). But the charger itself is rather heavy and energy inefficient, thus cannot produce as much power as turbocharger. Especially at high rev, it generates a lot of friction thus energy loss and prevent the engine from revving high.
A typical supercharger transforms the engine very much - very torquey at low and mid range rpm, but red line and peak power appear much earlier. That means the engine becomes lazy to rev (and to thrill you), but at any time you have a lot of torque to access, without needing to change gears frequently. For these reasons, supercharging is quite well suited to nowadays heavy sedans, espeically those mated with automatic transmission.

supercharger:
Advantage: Torquey and easy to take care of.
Disadvantage: Lack top end power, ruins revability, unrefined noise and vibration, difficult to adjust boost levels. takes some power away from the car, due to using a belt spun from the crankshaft.

turbos:

Basic Theory
The advantage of turbocharging is obvious - instead of wasting thermal energy through exhaust, we can make use of such energy to increase engine power. By directing exhaust gas to rotate a turbine, which drives another turbine to pump fresh air into the combustion chambers at a pressure higher than normal atmosphere, a small capacity engine can deliver power comparable with much bigger opponents. For example, if a 2.0-litre turbocharged engine works at 1.5 bar boost pressure, it actually equals to a 3.0-litre naturally aspirated engine. As a result, engine size and weight can be much reduced, thus leads to better acceleration, handling and braking, though fuel consumption is not necessarily better.

Turbo lag can cause trouble in daily driving. Before the turbo intervenes, the car performs like an ordinary sedan. Open full throttle and raise the engine speed, counting from 1, 2, 3, 4 .... suddenly the power surge at 3,500 rpm and the car becomes a wild beast. On wet surfaces or tight bends this might result in wheel spin or even lost of control. In the presence of turbo lag, it is very difficult to drive a car fluently.

Besides, turbo lag ruins the refinement of a car very much. Floor the throttle cannot result in instant power rise expected by the driver - all reactions appear several seconds later, no matter acceleration or releasing throttle. You can imagine how difficult to drive fast in city or twisted roads.


Advantages:
the power is "free" since its using exhaust gasses that are already being expelled. almost unlimited amounts of power can be achieved, and changed with a simple push of a button.

disadvantages: cheap kits, and failing parts can easily destroy an otherwise good motor. overboosting is a common problem, as is detonation.

you can do whatever you want, but the cost/hp ratio on a turbo kit is better on a 4 cylinder. if you were driving a 1995 or newer mustang, i'd tell you to get on ebay, and buy a used supercharger from a 03-04 cobra, with all the goodies it needs for under $1,500 and you will be able to easily net over 450 WHP.

good luck, and i hope that helps a little. dont listen to asshats who have no idea what they are talking about.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDrock86 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">TurboCharging is probly the best way to go! all u get is turbo laggGG but once it hits full boost its goNE

Supercharging is also good but u wont hit full boost until the end of the rpms its not all that good for honda but good for chevys cuzz chevys muscle has the lower top end!</TD></TR></TABLE>

dont post on here without futher research and knowledge

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDrock86 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Supercharging is also good but u wont hit full boost until the end of the rpms its not all that good for honda but good for chevys cuzz chevys muscle has the lower top end!</TD></TR></TABLE>

Sounds like you are talking about a supercharger like the Vortech system. So what you are saying makes some sense. But, there is another option, the Jackson charger. You are right, the Vortech style is better for more cylinders, and displacement. The Jackson is much better for hondas.
Now, to the person who started the thread, you should decide what you want to do ultimately with your car. Autocross, having fun around town I would go with a Jackson Supercharger. If you are looking to drag your car, absolutely go with a turbo. Like said by other members, with a turbo you are going to have a heck of a lot more options to get more power out of it. You just wont see huge numbers on a supercharger like you will with a turbo (without some major work).
I personally am going to get a Jackson charger. 220whp is more than enough for me. I actually want traction in 3rd gear and 4th gear.
I love these guys that are putting down like 500+whp and think they are going to be superfast when they dont even consider the big issue of traction. I already know Im going to have issues with the jackson charger. Anyway, I am just going on and on now.

 

Didn't the Si get like 277hp with the Vortech supercharger kit?

 

not stock at vortechs factory psi

 

This is a topic that has been beat to death, dug up, and beaten again.

You should try searching through the FI section.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by KoLRaNcH &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Didn't the Si get like 277hp with the Vortech supercharger kit?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yea, it got pretty damn close to that. The problem with that is, is that for that style of supercharger, it was only at that horsepower for a split second. See, with the vortech supercharger, you are making horsepower, and torque as your rpms increase. So your peak power is right at redline. People describe it as driving with 4 more cylinders infront of them. Where as with a Jackson charger, you have lots of horsepower, and instant torque as soon as your foot hits the gas. The turbo does that, but to a great extent with a little bit of lag at the start.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by NoBottleJustThrottle &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> The turbo does that, but to a great extent with a little bit of lag at the start. </TD></TR></TABLE>

The reason there's the lag and everything else with the turbo is because people get turbo's way to big for their applications.

I have a SMALL TD04 14G that is at 10psi by 3k rpm on my D16Z6. I really can't complain about turbo lag.

 

"lag" is not a function of turbo vs supercharger, it is a function of compressor sizing.

Take for example the turbo from a VW 1.8t. Tons of low end, and it runs out of breath at the top end.

Centrifugal blowers (looks like a turbo with no turbine housing, and more belts) actually tend to make more upper RPM power for a given compressor size.

Roots blowers (think big flat supercharger coming out the hood of a V8) are the typical low end power associated with superchargers, as their design causes more heating of the air as RPM's increase.

Its this simple.
Smaller Compressor: less lag, less top end
Bigger Compressor: more lag, more top end

That being said, Superchargers do require torque from the engine to turn and produce boost, and Hondas not being known for their stellar torque figures tend to benefit most from turbocharging, as you are essentially using "wasted" energy to turn the compressor. Superchargers however will produce great linear power and torque everywhere as previously mentioned. Depends on what you are doing with the car. Drag racing, go big turbo. Bracket racing, big supercharger. Autocross or road racing, properly sized turbo.

 

if his cars a daily driver, shouldn't he go with the supercharger...i know its not going to make as much power but a supercharger should be more reliable right???

 

while we are on the topic, i have a question about the jackson racing supercharger

i can only find it for the 97-01 lude's, and i have a 93 h22 swapped into my 93 civic ex..

will the 97-01 work on my engine? i only want to run stock boost levels.. and i would be happy with around 250 to the wheels

If the charger works on my motor, another problem is going to be the application.. i dont have much room in my engine bay to start with, any how-to's on the JR charger being put in a civic engine bay?

TIA

 

my opinion is turbo. i'm running a built b16a3 w/ turbo and have not had any problems, except wanting more power which makes the del sol not a fun daily driver

show me supercharger on a 4cyl that can compete with this turbo 4cyl: https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1339829

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Del Sol SiR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">show me supercharger on a 4cyl that can compete with this turbo 4cyl: https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1339829</TD></TR></TABLE>

Sure you're not going to find a supercharger on a 4cyl. that can do that, but you also arent going to daily drive that thing either.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Everyones Hero &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The reason there's the lag and everything else with the turbo is because people get turbo's way to big for their applications.
I have a SMALL TD04 14G that is at 10psi by 3k rpm on my D16Z6. I really can't complain about turbo lag.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I understand that...and I agree, I think people on here run far too big of a application for our cars, but even on your application, this is "lag." Although, it is slight, it is there. That is where I was making my point. No matter how little, there will be lag with a turbo. With a jackson charger, there is zero lag.

 

wow, thank everyone.

 

I have always wondered why people complain about turbo lag. I mean, is it really that hard to downshift?

 

even if u downshift boost isnt instantly there, the turbos gotta build the pressure