I was wondering because it seems like with turbos there is more parts that you have to buy in order to get the amount of boost that you are looking for.

 

i would go for a turbo.. i can change my boost anytime i wan.. for a supercharger its only really good for fast pickup...i would rather a turbo..cheeers

 

there are pros and cons to both...I can list a few
supercharger cons: you won't get as much power as you would with a turbo, I hear it's a major pain in the *** to tune, and you don't get your money's worth like you would with turbo.
supercharger pros: it doesn't lag like a turbo does, it won't wear your engine down as fast as a turbo, and makes your engine look tight as **** when revvin that sucker.

turbo cons: you get lag, costs a bit more, wears your engine down faster than SC.
turbo pros: you get much more power out of it, is easier to put in and has many more options in terms of boost, and makes that sweet whistling noise as it kicks in.


[Modified by HondaNewbie, 2:24 AM 11/19/2001]

 

They are powered differently, just depends on which means of boost you'd prefer.

 

A supercharger is a little more easy on the engine, however, if you're going to fork out all the money for a turbo, why not go all the way and do the necessary internal work, like lowering the compression, etc.

A turbo has far more potential than a supercharger ever will. Superchargers are way over priced as well. Also, about the turbo lag thing, turbos are made much better now than they were in the 80's when lag was a big deal. Most smaller turbos that you can get these days don't have any noticable lag. That's how far technology has come.

 

Tis true.

 

i don't know a lot on this subject but wouldn't a supercharger drain a little power from the engine, made up later I assume, because it is belt driven and requires the engine to turn it?

 

yes. You know how when you have the a/c on it drains like 5 HP or so? The same goes for the supercharger...but it's a small price to pay to gain around 100hp.

 

Your right Morgan, thats exactly how it works, it requires HP to drive the belt but the power it makes more than makes up for it.

 

but it makes it lack in low end power doesn't it?

 

It would seem that since it gives it better pickup that low end wouldn't lack...but I really don't know

 

Superchargers provide low rpm power, because it is pulley driven. Turbochargers have to wait til 2K rpms for exhaust to generate boost. Small Turbo provide quick spool up. Large Turbo provide high-end rpm power. Modern Turbos don't have much lag.

Turbos are capable of generating a lot of cfm's at 15 psi. Again, upgrade bottom-end engine components, upgrade valves, and lower compression between 7.0 and 7.5:1. I know of turbo Supras and Conquests running well into 150K miles without engine or turbo problems. Idle those turbos (run oil thru oil cooler) for 20-30 secs before turning off engine.

 

what are cfm's?

 

cfm's - cubic feet per minuite
and no one makes a supercharger kit for our car, you would have to figure out a way to custom a centrifugal unit

 

Is there really any debate to this question.................

 

go read up on both of them on http://www.howstuffworks.com maybe then you will figure out for yourself which is better for you. Personally- i think you should also consider how much other stuff needs to be built up before you run boost safely and daily. i had a friend that upped his boost on his RX-7 (yeah yeah- much different than an accord) but he didn't build anything up and ended up ruining his clutch. asking a general question like that without doing much background research doesn't allow for good responses besides explaining what each means.