Rep Power: 0

ok i read a thred saying that Jackson racing is suposidly working on plans for a super charger. with that said what would the benefits be over a turbo.

1. super charger is belt driven, therefore instant boost. turbo has to be spooled.
2. super charger is all contained in one unit. turbo many componets
3. in order to increase boost on sc you have to buy a new pully but you are always limited to that setting. turbo you can change it around when ever you want.
4. supercharger is a lot less maintence than turbo.
5. both put out roughly 40% more power.
6. turbo you get the cool bov sound.

so what do you think would be a better system?

 
Rep Power: 330

sorry, double post

 
Rep Power: 330

you can get much more power out of the turbo. Also A turbo makes power out of wasted energy, but a SC takes power from your engine in order to make power.

 
Rep Power: 0

I agree with Riceburner... both times.

Also, I haven't been too impressed with the dyno numbers from SCs lately. I think that bang for buck, turbo is a much better route.

 
Rep Power: 0

Like they said... takes HP to make HP using the supercharger. It needs the engine, plus you have to carry around the extra weight of the blower. The gains of a supercharger would be better than a turbo IF a large amount of those gains weren't use to run it. But they are.

 
Rep Power: 0

A turbo causesback pressure which makes your ehaust not flow as efficently which gives the same effect as the loss of HP to turn a belt on a SC.

For smaller cars I would have to say a turbo would be a more sufficent device plus you get the cool sound from liek a BlitzBOV. If your running some big block domestic car then I could se teh advantage of a roots style blower instead of havign to run like dual T88s.

Id take a supercharges S2000 though.

 
Rep Power: 312

Actually, when the turbo gets spooled up, there is a suprisingly low amount of back pressure. If you run your car with the turbo on it (making zero boost), your car will be faster than stock. (i tested that last week.)

 
Rep Power: 0

Realy depends on the size of the turbo etc. you are right htough for some instances its just all depends on the size of the turbo and the CFM of your motor.

 
Rep Power: 312

i have a T3 (ar .42 int. .48 exh.)

 
Rep Power: 0

That thread only speculates that they MAY be working on one or will at some point. Here is the thread. Correct me if we are talking about two different ones.

http://www.7thgencivic.com/forums/sh...threadid=94084


Yes the turbo does cause back pressure. Put anything in the way of the exhaust gases and it will increase back pressure. A supercharger requires more power to run (parasitic drag) than a turbo.



Here's a quick breakdown:

1) Turbos recover power from the expanding gases as they leave the exhaust manifold. For this reason turbos are better for efficiency. (Turbo 1/ Supercharger 0)

2) Roots Superchargers using positive displacement (generally) and are better for low end torque. They pump more air than the engine breathes at any RPM creating boost off idle. Turbos have to spool up (this can be minimized) and create a higher RPM power surge. (Turbo 1/ Supercharger 1)

3) Turbos need oil from the motor to lubricate and cool. Superchargers usually have self contained lubrication systems. Turbos generally are more difficult to install and maintain. (Turbo 1/ Supercharger 2)

4) Turbos require "babying" or a turbo timer. Superchargers do not. (Turbo 1/ Supercharger 3)

5) Turbos require more tuning to "get it right". Because a Supercharger spins with a proportional speed to the engine it can be "pre-set" (size of the blower and pulley) for a given engine before it is bolted on and obviously maintains those settings. (Turbo 1/ Supercharger 4)

6) With more combustion more exhaust gases are created. This creates more power for the turbo to work with. This compresses more air in the intake etc. Superchargers "Steal" more HP to make more horsepower. (Turbo 2/ Supercharger 4)

7) Right now there are three available turbo kits to choose from. There are zero Superchargers available and zero announcements of any in development. (Turbo infinitely better/ Supercharger worthless)

You be the judge.

 
Rep Power: 349

JR sold there civic so unless they got another one which i doubt they are not making one for the em2 however they are makeing one for the ep3

 
Rep Power: 0

When it come down to the math if u even put a Paxton style supercharge or turbo on you will get an average 40-50% HP increase with either one.

Its mainly a matter of availibility for the application, feezibilty and amount of effort it takes to install. Forced induction is forced induction how ever it may come by.

Anyone remember that Factory Super Charged and Turbo'd MR2?

 
Rep Power: 0

You brought this same thing up in the other thread. When did they have this car you speak of and when did they sell it?

(p.s. I love that pic of your car in your sig, very nice.)

 
Rep Power: 0

My bad I gave bad information out... It wasnt "Factor" realsed it was an HKS addition you could get callef the Twincharge.

Consisted of a single Supra Turbo TD06 and a SC12 Supercharger. Only outputed 250Hp from a 4AG-ZE powerplant. I think it camout 1988.

I have seen a number of AE86(Corollas For you non JDM kids) with 4AG and the Twincharge System... Initial D style yeeeeee Not for you F&F kiddies lol

 
Rep Power: 312

if you think that a supercharger is easier to install than a turbo, then try fitting an autorotor under the hood of a honda and see where it gets you. (not trash talkin, but i tried super before the turbo)

 
Rep Power: 0

I agree, our engine bays can be tricky. They are both major additions to the engine and should be looked at as such. However, superchargers typically have less parts and no intercooler to plumb. For complexity reasons they are (relatively) less work to install.

 
Rep Power: 312

i was just talking about placement. When i was gonna do it, i was going to make a new intake manifold and put it under there.