Just purchased an 88 Si with b16 swap. Now I am questioning whether I should go super or turbo... I want the most reliable power, since this will be a daily car. But I also want to run a quick quarter.

 

Mild turbo setup.

Superchargers blow...(and that isn't a pun on words).

 

from what i have heard a supercharger is a little bit "safer". but a turbo is more effiecient because it doesnt put drag on the engine.

 

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

Superchargers blow...(and that isn't a pun on words).</TD></TR></TABLE>

this is coming from a guy that has NEVER owned one....


WTF do you know?

honestly though, if youre only going to do 1/4 mile, id say turbo.

if you want to road race, go supercharger.

there are ways to make AWESOME power with superchargers if you plan on doing research. some people that have them just bolt them on, and are unhappy..... it takes a little effort to make great power/torque from them though.

 

I have had both at 10lbs on my 89 B16 crx. I liked them both. I make more power with the turbo cause of intercooling..well not totally cause of intercooling..but ya you get eh idea..if you intercool the SC then the power will be better but not as much as a turbo. The sound of them is different, SC has the evil whine..while the turbo has the jet engine pshhhht sound.

Forced induction no matter how you look at it will lessin the life of your motor. But with good management and the right stuff to go with it, then it will last a lot longer.

either way...its great fun and a fantastic leaning experience. Personally I would go turbo again if I had to do it all over again, unless you get a great deal on a SC kit. if not..turbo setup can be done cheaper.

peace

 

turbo. you might be happy with the power you get now from a supercharger, but later on your more than likely going to want more. go turbo with proper engine management.

 

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

this is coming from a guy that has NEVER owned one....


WTF do you know?

honestly though, if youre only going to do 1/4 mile, id say turbo.

if you want to road race, go supercharger.

there are ways to make AWESOME power with superchargers if you plan on doing research. some people that have them just bolt them on, and are unhappy..... it takes a little effort to make great power/torque from them though. </TD></TR></TABLE>

wtf kind of road race class do you think he'd fit into with a b16 swapped and supercharged ef? as a beginner?

to the op- both setups are going to have different strengths and weaknesses, and also different people telling you which one they prefer. have a look around the site and read some of the previous discussions that covered the topic better than this thread will, and make the decision for yourself, based on what you plan to do with the car, your budget, your level of mechanical skill, etc. good luck.

but since this seems to be a poll thread and we only get two choices- i'll agree with the mild turbo setup with whatever you or the best shop near you feels comfortable tuning running it.

 

Yeah, around here, LoCash racing is pretty popular (locashracing.com). They are pretty popular when it comes to the CRX's. I was also looking at that supercharger from http://www.hasport.com/Products/Supercharger.htm. But I am worried about my wheels sticking to the ground. My new SI is a one wheel wonder.

 

I've owned both, and would also agree with mild turbo.
My last CRX that I sold is now turboed, running a straight T3. It amazingly has the smoothest dyno graph you would ever see from 2k until you let off, its just straight up hill.
With the JRSC you get good power, but as you get used to it, you'll want more later. It's just easier to extract more power from the turbo than the SC.

 

An excerpt from an old SCC article:

The turbocharging vs supercharging debate has been raging for as long as men have associated horsepower with testosterone. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, of course, but the natural human instinct is to pick a favorite and then defend it with religious conviction.

Turbocharging is usually the preference of engineering purists because it captures wasted exhaust energy and puts it to work. Using a turbo, the heat and horror of the exhaust stream can be used to compress the intake air, making more power, and more heat and horror in the exhaust, which compresses more air, etc, etc. It's a veritable perpetual power machine. In addition to capturing wasted energy, turbochargers tend to be the most efficient types of air compressors, meaning that they heat the intake charge the least when they compress it.
The disadvantages, of course, are numerous, and most of them have to do with packaging. Because a turbo is driven by the exhaust, the exhaust and intake air both have to go through it This not only means one side of it has to get extremely hot, but a lot of plumbing has to be used to bring the intake and exhaust systems to the same place and then back out where they belong. Add an intercooler (a good idea with either a turbo or supercharger) and you have more plumbing than a hardware store.

Finally, there is the lag. The centrifugal compressor of a turbo has to be spinning quite fast before it can effectively move air. Getting the turbo up to speed takes a certain exhaust volume, which takes a certain intake volume, which takes a certain compressor speed, yada, yada, yada. Careful sizing of the turbine and compressor can bring lag to a minimum, but it still takes a certain amount of time to get the perpetual power machine going.

Superchargers vary tremendously, and so do their strengths and weaknesses. Centrifugal superchargers are essentially the same type of compressor as a turbocharger, but are driven off the crankshaft instead of by exhaust energy. Centrifugal superchargers still need to be spinning quite fast to be effective, but because their speed is mechanically linked to engine speed, there is no turbo lag. At high speeds where the compressor is effective, throttle response is immediate, but at lower speeds where the compressor is still struggling there is no boost available no matter how long you wait.

Posifive displacement superchargers (such as roots-type blowers) are a different story. Instead of airflow being dependent on a complicated relationship between airflow, compressor speed, and boost, positive displacement superchargers simply move a certain amount of air for every revolution, no matter what. The linear nature of positive displacement superchargers makes for excellent drivabilty and instant throttle response. The downside is that most positive displacement superchargers either have relatively low compressor efficiency (in other words they heat the air a lot) or they are just plain expensive, or both.

Packaging tends to be easier with superchargers, since you don't have to deal with the exhaust system, but you still have to find enough room for the compressor in a location where a belt can reach from the crankshaft and where the intake air plumbing makes sense.
The achilles heel of superchargers, though, is parasitic drag. Driving that air compressor takes a certain amount of power, and you take that power from the front of the crankshaft there is less power to go out the back of the crankshaft and down to the wheels. Power cornsumption depends on what kind of compressor is used and how much air it has to move, but 10 to 15 hp is not uncommon.

Most of these turbo vs. supercharger debates eventually break down to each party alternately yelling "turbo lag!" "Parasitic drag!" "Underhood heat!" "Low efficiency!" Fisticuffs inevitably ensue, and if one side is unlucky, the debate will end with a ceremonial *** kicking.

 

Thanks for that davens. So, if I were to go turbo, what kind of setup do you guys recommend? From who? Where do I get it?