Nitrous, Super Chargers, & Turbos - Does anybody have a jackson racing supercharger?

I have a 99 ex auto and i am getting a jackson racing supercharger Does any body have one? How do you like it?

I would advise against a supercharger. On a Civic, turbocharging is your best bet and heres why. Since the supercharger is belt driven, as in it makes power off the engine itself, you need a powerful engine to harness the power of a supercharger. A puny engine such an in our Civics doesnt make adequate power to drive a supercharger to its full potential. In theory, the power made with a supercharger is exponential to the power made by the engine. Therefore the more powerful engine to begin with will get the best benefit from a supercharger. Turbochargers are spun by exhaust gases. Turbos spool faster on smaller engines for the simple fact that they rev much faster than bigger engines. The turbo may not spool fast enough until 3500 rpm, however a smaller engine with less reciprocating weight will in fact get to that 3500 rpm much faster than a heavier V8 with more reciprocating weight. Therefore smaller engines benefit more from turbos whereas bigger engines benefit more from superchargers [/endramblingtechnicalanswer]

sorry, but thats the worst answer Ive ever seen.

ORIGINAL: polo708

sorry, but thats the worst answer Ive ever seen.


And how is that? Its the truth. From a technical standpoint, supercharging a Civic is a stupid idea.

ORIGINAL: se7ensectoolate

And how is that? Its the truth. From a technical standpoint, supercharging a Civic is a stupid idea.


thats the 2nd worst answer, its almost not worth an explanation.

Prove me wrong. Show me how supercharging a Civic makes more power, is more efficient or is in any way superior to a turbo.

you're totally right, and I dont even know what a supercharger is either. Its obviously inferior to a turbo thingy. besides... turbo just sounds cooler doesnt it.

WOO HOO! I love posting about stuff I dont understand, lets all do it!

You're dead wrong. It takes power to drive a SC, just as it does to drive a Turbo. Backpressure in the exhaust of a Turbo setup costs you too, but with a SC setup you lose xhp driving it, but gain XX hp from it.

And you get that power RIGHT NOW off the line, no spooling lag, no high-end wait. Want instant off the line balls-out torqe? Ditch the turbo. Want high-end accelleration? Go with the Turbo, but I'll pass.

Im sure you know everything there is to know about everything. Way to make yourself look retarded. Instead of being a 6 year old why dont you explain why a supercharger is better and prove me wrong?

I dont even want to waste my time with this thread because you obviously have no idea how forced induction works. learn the basics and come back and see me. Oh yeah, that IC (that means intercooler) you will have to run... robs power also, so there goes your lame unorigional "takes power to make power argument". They can both provide equal power if tuned right, it just depends on where you want it. But you knew that already didnt you.

Ok, I'll try not to be retarded.

Ask yourself one question. Do you want low-end torque, or high-end hp?

Low end, off the line, go SC because it's BELT driven. Right off the line.

Turbo's need enough exhaust flow to spool and start compressing. Also, they tend to run hotter as they're driven by exhaust gasses.

Instead of being a retard, do you homework. I'm a pretty nice guy if you don't push my buttons.

Now that I've cooled off for a minute, if you ask a question, be prepared to swallow the answer, just in case the person answering MIGHT just know more than you. I know quite a bit about forced induction. Including Roots, Turbo's, and CSC's. I've seen a couple others here that seem to know their ****, too.

Try this if you don't want to 'rob power': http://www.turbonator.com/index.html?id=adWords2 But then again, your alternator will rob more hp from driving that obstruction.

good answer red, the turbonator sounds like exactly what he needs... you have more patience than I do. I wasnt going to answer him at all.

I just installed a Procharger on an 03' Stang LAST NIGHT, but my knowledge is obviously very limited in the FI area, why would anyone want a stupid supercharger thing anyways?

Coincidentally, at this very moment, I have pieces of an Eaton M62 roots blower on the table in front of me for rebuild. But what do I know?

Se, if you want to know, ask. I'm not an ass ;)

ORIGINAL: red91civicDX

Now that I've cooled off for a minute, if you ask a question, be prepared to swallow the answer, just in case the person answering MIGHT just know more than you. I know quite a bit about forced induction. Including Roots, Turbo's, and CSC's. I've seen a couple others here that seem to know their ****, too.

Try this if you don't want to 'rob power': http://www.turbonator.com/index.html?id=adWords2 But then again, your alternator will rob more hp from driving that obstruction.

I didnt ask the question, the kid with the auto Civic asked it. I wasnt calling you retarded. And all that im saying is that the more power you put into a supercharger, the more power youre going to get out of it. Im simply saying that if i was the kid asking the question, i would turbocharge his particular car rather than supercharging it. He can do whatever he wants to, i dont care. It takes power to make power. Im done.

you told the kid that superchargers are stupid and Turbos are the best thing since sliced bread. But you obviously know what you're talking about (<--sarcasm) so yeah, keep spreading bad info.

Seeing as polo has had both a supercharger and a turbo on a 4 banger, I'd say he's the man you're gona want to listen to.

yup.... besides some one (i think polo) said awhile back that civics dont produce enough exhaust power to addequitly run a turbo... right? one more thin i forgot to ask when i posted my s/c topic. It completly cool to slap a s/c in a auto civ right? also why would i need a tac anyway? I have a rev limitor. also if i have to have a tac are they a pain in the ass to install?

get a tach. wait. its a manual right? if so, get a tach. but personally, i like turbos better than SC on hondas because:
1. theres more aftermarket support. yeah, theres a ton for SCs too, but nothing compared to turbos.
2. turbos are easier to manipulate to your needs.
3. turbos CAN raise your efficiency enough to increase your fuel efficiency more than an SC, because they are driven by wasted energy, instead of crank energy.
4. FWD cars tend to have traction problems, esp light ones like hondas. that low-end torque often ends up as tire smoke.

ORIGINAL: remington870_20ga

yup.... besides some one (i think polo) said awhile back that civics dont produce enough exhaust power to addequitly run a turbo... right? one more thin i forgot to ask when i posted my s/c topic. It completly cool to slap a s/c in a auto civ right? also why would i need a tac anyway? I have a rev limitor. also if i have to have a tac are they a pain in the ass to install?


No way, Civic's work extremely well with turbos. Just to settle this, both superchargers and turbos can produce tons of power on a civic. It's just a matter of deciding which one you want.

Sacicons said the two things I was going to say, and then two more. In case that's not clear, I would RECOMMEND a turbo over a SC on any small-disp. engine for obvious reasons.

Edit: Sorry, I think that came out sounding a little cocky. I wasn't trying to dump on anyone's knowledge.

well i want the s/c for simplicty, remeber im an audio guru not a gear head... also I want to "set it and forget it". you feel where im coming from? You guys know a hell of alot about this stuff and wouldnt you guys reccommend a s/c for begginers?

Granted, I'm not as familiar with the honda's through various years, but in general, the SC will be a much simpler install, and more importantly, much lower maintenance. It doesn't use engine oil for lube.

Most SC's will go 150,000 miles before bearings and seals need to be replaced, and you can do it yourself for $40 in parts.

Since I'm overdriving my M62 a bit, I change the oil twice a year. Suck it out with a syringe and a piece of tubing, put new in. Very simple.

ORIGINAL: XCM828

No way, Civic's work extremely well with turbos. Just to settle this, both superchargers and turbos can produce tons of power on a civic. It's just a matter of deciding which one you want.

Now, this i can live with. Both have their upsides and their downsides. One of the things i simply like about a turbo is that the difference between low boost and high boost (for me anyway) is simply the push of a button away. With a supercharger its a different pully.

Not really true. With a supercharger, boost is variable, and based on engine rpm's. I can control boost very well with my foot in my SSEi. You can't do this with a turbo.

Why is it that no one even seems to hear it, no matter how many times it is said, that there's a good chance you'll run into traction problems with a SC (in a FF 4 banger) unless you ride the clutch like a ten dollar hooker.

well, maybe not so bad in the ssei though. but in mine, i know i would go through tires in NO TIME. i mean, with the NA GSR, i spin them into VTEC, and they will burn anywhere in first gear. i could only imagine what it would be like with a bunch more torque. and i like turbo for my needs better because i can get a good BC and set up different boost levels and fuel maps, then its just a quick button push for whatever i need. low for street, higher for auto-x, and high for 104 octane at Thunderhill or the dragstrip.

Oh, I'm not saying the Bonneville is a bad idea. It weighs an ass-ton more than any Civic. But in a stock base 4G hatch, you can spin the tires for a good long time with that 70 hp... Civics are just too light for low-end grunt.

yeah, LSD, traction bars, and poly engine mounts are a must. hell even with turbo, im gonna need that stuff. i MIGHT, be getting a Spoon tranny soon.:D:D:D, thatll take care of the LSD, then a buddy of mine designed traction bars that he'll give me at cost (chrome-moly), and i have the mount inserts, so im getting there. but that tranny is expensive.[:@]

ORIGINAL: remington870_20ga

yup.... besides some one (i think polo) said awhile back that civics dont produce enough exhaust power to addequitly run a turbo... right? one more thin i forgot to ask when i posted my s/c topic. It completly cool to slap a s/c in a auto civ right? also why would i need a tac anyway? I have a rev limitor. also if i have to have a tac are they a pain in the ass to install?


First of all, I think the amount of power question has been answered adequately. Basically it makes no difference.

Secondly (with reference to a conversation with Remington), an IC would not be necessary on a Jackson Racing setup at 8psi. I run 11+PSI of boost on my M62 without an IC, and have NO KR. When you get into extreme boost with smaller pulleys on a honda, you'll need one, as your engine wasn't designed for it. A supercharger isn't driven by hot exhaust gasses. If you're not overdriving it, it won't really produce enough heat for you to be concerned with. Just make sure you supply it with a well designed CAI. No open cones. Shield it from hot engine bay heat.

Third- A tach is completely unnecessary and useless in a Supercharged application in comparison to the need for it with Nitrous or a Turbo, ESPECIALLY with an automatic trans like your car has. With a Turbo, you want to know what rpm you're at, so you know when it's going to spool. Same holds true with Nitrous. With the SC, you're ALWAYS in boost. It doesn't matter.

Lastly......don't be fooled by numbers. "my turbo produces 16 psi and your SC only has 8psi". That's a bunch of bunk. It means nothing. Superchargers are rated in CFM's, not PSI. PSI just means you're not using the air that you're compressing. Change your cam or go with larger valves, and the pressure indicated on the gauge will drop (even headers cause this)......and it scares alot of people. Guess what? Nothings wrong, everything is RIGHT. It means you're moving more air, and not allowing it to pressurize in the manifold. You want FLOW in CFM's for your engine to gulp, NOT pressure. Because most turbos don't produce the high CFM flow numbers that a roots blower does, they MUST pressurize the manifold to have enough air on demand for the engine's demand.

Each type of FI has it's advantages and disadvantages. In the end, a supercharger kit will be easier for a noob to install and maintain. It's also alot easier and cheaper to take care of when it does (rarely) need any kind of maintenance.

[sm=smiley32.gif]

He called you a noob...:D:D and you applauded him!:D:D

It wasnt what he meant. He was pointing that subject out to everybody. I appluaded him because he managed to make absolute sense. I know im a noob but I do understand what is involved in a s/c and how it works.

Definately, a s/c is easier and less complex. If you want reliability then go with a supercharger.

One of the things i simply like about a turbo is that the difference between low boost and high boost (for me anyway) is simply the push of a button away. With a supercharger its a different pully.

Like said, boost varies with alot of things: pulleys, running an intake, opening up the exhaust, even driving up a steep hill will increase boost. I can cruise at highway speeds with minimal boost and in less than a second be up to full boost.
there's a good chance you'll run into traction problems with a SC (in a FF 4 banger) unless you ride the clutch like a ten dollar hooker.

I dont have too much of a traction issue, but im running motor mounts and a stiff suspension. Also, Turbos have an engine wearing issue called "surging" which will wear on an engine also.

FINAL THOUGHT: both are great, its just what kind of setup you are looking for, and a s/c is in NO WAY inferior to a turbo. For the setup you are wanting (low maint. and reliability) a blower is a great choice.

Correctamundo ;)

Remington and I spent at least an hour on the phone last night talking about all this. I don't hate Turbos. Don't misunderstand me. I prefer a SC for the way I drive. Instant always-on at ANY RPM boost. With no extra stress on engine oil.

For you that may not be true, you may want only the higher rpm boost.

I just want to make sure SC's get as much of a chance as Turbo's, and don't get a bad rep. There's a reason that SC's are out there, and in use in many applications (including from the factory).

To add one other thing....about the Tach....you don't need one, but you DO need a boost gauge. Go small, and it won't be obtrusive.

ahh... nirvana at last!

It wasnt what he meant. He was pointing that subject out to everybody. I appluaded him because he managed to make absolute sense. I know im a noob but I do understand what is involved in a s/c and how it works.

Sorry rem, I wasn't really trying to make fun of you; a lot of people on this thread got kinda serious, so I was trying to lighten up a bit...

I dont have too much of a traction issue, but im running motor mounts and a stiff suspension. Also, Turbos have an engine wearing issue called "surging" which will wear on an engine also.

I guess I should have been more specific; I was basically talking about Civics (I don't know if you have a S/C Civ... thought you just had the 'Rolla.) But like I said before, in a stock base 4G hatch, you can spin the tires for a good long time with that 70 hp... Civics are just too light for low-end grunt.

And I love how the people who push S/C's are always like, "blowers and turbos are equally good, but here's why blowers are better..." So I'm done trying to argue for turbos in this thread anymore...

I can lay an easy 30' of rubber with my SSEi on dry, clean pavement. But it's all in how you manage it. I launch at the dragstrip with hardly a tire squeak. Traction is something to manage, not something to dictate what type of FI you go with. A turbo

Have you ever driven a blown Civic? Or even a B-series swap? They can go through tires like you wouldn't believe if you're not careful, but you really don't know until you go there. Like I said, an SSEi has a lot more front-end weight, so it's not exactly on the same plane of comparison.

Traction is something to manage, not something to dictate what type of FI you go with.

The biggest problem with that theory when applied to a blown Civ is that, while you're trying to "manage traction," you're burning the clutch down to the rivets. This is not a questionable fact; you can't ride the clutch through that much torque for the sake of traction and expect it to hold up. Replace the clutch? Sure, but a 6-pot will kick hard enough to have the tires going again in no time. And as for wanting to lay patches, I can light up all four tires on my otherwise stock T3/T04 DSM if I feel the desire to, and that's only about 220 turbocharged ft/lbs to all four wheels; you don't need "low-end torque" to do that...

Basically, I just think rem will find himself in a similar situation in no time; that's all.

I'm going to class now, so I won't be able to respond for quite a while...

no hard feelings, i wasnt stomping you in my reply if you felt that.

I can definately spin tires all day long, bu tits not as bad as most probably think. Also, my Corolla is pretty similar to the civics.

Yeah, I think it's only maybe 350 lbs difference max. And rem, no, I didn't think you were stomping me or anything. It's all gravy :D.

Rem has an automatic. At the worst, he'll need a higher stall on the TConverter at some point. Burning the clutch won't be a problem ;)

Oooh, ya got me there... :D

yeah, with an auto, the SC is a lot better idea than with a manny. that kills the clutch argument anyway. one of the bigger decisions is probably the maintenence. if you dont want to have to worry about it, get the SC. i have huge plans for my car, and i dont think the SC kits out there for it are expandable enough. it surely wont be as easy as upgrading a turbo system as i go. but i do all of my own work (except tuning, unless i get a wideband.) so that makes a difference. i can replace parts as i go, without paying more for labor every time.

yeah, with an auto, the SC is a lot better idea than with a manny. that kills the clutch argument anyway. one of the bigger decisions is probably the maintenence. if you dont want to have to worry about it, get the SC. i have huge plans for my car, and i dont think the SC kits out there for it are expandable enough. it surely wont be as easy as upgrading a turbo system as i go.

There ya go...

ORIGINAL: Kappa22

Why is it that no one even seems to hear it, no matter how many times it is said, that there's a good chance you'll run into traction problems with a SC (in a FF 4 banger) unless you ride the clutch like a ten dollar hooker.


Very very very true. My Mini is FF SC, and if you turn off traction control, you can spin the tires all the way through second gear up to redline. But that's mostly the power to weight ratio thing going on there. However, if you can get it into gear and have a good grip on the road, you can shoot right up the track without loosing traction at all.

Yeah, I think a SC would do fine in just about anything EXCEPT a Civic (anything with more body fat, pretty much.)

ORIGINAL: polo708

tits not as bad as most probably think.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. funny, i never thought anything bad about that.;)

my mothers 05 S60 Vovo has that traction control crap. On wet pavement, if you do it right you can turn the TCS off and spin well into 3rd gear. And yes if I were to seriously trick my car out and had ample money to dump into it, id get a turbo. But I dont need a car that sucks trees down behind it.

The only thing I don't really like about the traction control on the Mini is how sensitive it is. If I take a corner pretty fast and accelerate hard out of it, my tires might start to spin just a little bit because of the acceleration. Then the traction control turns on and apply's braking to the wheels that are loosing traction. Of course, this slows you down a LOT because it'll leave the brakes on for a good 15 - 20 feet, meanwhile I've got my foot to the floor, but I'm not going anywhere and I'm loosing seconds off of my time. I'm just glad I can turn it off at the switch of a button. It's for my own good I guess.

they should make a performance chip for that, like they do with ecus.

I'll just stick with turning it off when I'm autocrossing. I've gotten used to driving it so I'm getting better at giving it just enough throttle to pull me out of the corner quickly without losing traction.

local://upfiles/1649/348EFFF7FC194D34B9A9A1A1F5A65F37.jpg

ice box, no doubt. a cool air intake is very important with an SC. the cooler the air, the less detonation. and the JRSC has no IC, so a cool air is a great idea.

But I dont need a car that sucks trees down behind it.

Oh yes you do... :D:D

(BTW, that's some funny ****, remmy. LMAO.)

Just to let you all know, i have a Jackson Racing supercharger and turbo on my 99 d16y7 and at 11psi on the supercharger i only produced 156Hp and with 11 psi on the turbo i produced 192 so you do the math the supercharger just gets.
way to hot!!! and the intercooler is the extreme advantage and just to let you all know the supercharger has lag too unless you rev it up to 2200 rpm and drop it, other wise the lag from dead to go is less on the turbo then on the supercharger.

man, this thread was getting quite and everyone was happy where it was going to end... then you post that crap and get it going again with your 2nd post. A s/c is instant boost, what part of INSTANT doesnt make sense? The second I get on the pedal, my boost needle shoots up to full boost. less lag on a turbo, ok... welcome to hcf.com I guess.

The reason your blower gets so hot is because you dont know what you're doing. You cant run 11 lbs. of boost on that thing without some sort of cooling system (water injection), so all you're doing is actually losing HP because of the added heat.

ORIGINAL: redcivic99

Just to let you all know, i have a Jackson Racing supercharger and turbo on my 99 d16y7 and at 11psi on the supercharger i only produced 156Hp and with 11 psi on the turbo i produced 192 so you do the math the supercharger just gets.
way to hot!!! and the intercooler is the extreme advantage and just to let you all know the supercharger has lag too unless you rev it up to 2200 rpm and drop it, other wise the lag from dead to go is less on the turbo then on the supercharger.


First of all, I'd like to see a pic of your dual boost setup. Secondly, Polo makes a good point. I can get away with 11psi from a SC on my SSEi, as it was designed for it. You have done alot of work on your car, but you're not quite there for 11psi yet, and should have an intercooler. I can't see you running more than 8-9psi without boost stacking and KR out the ying-yang.

And I'll back Polo up on the SC lag thing. No offense, bud, but that's just hilarious. If you see a lag, it's because you have so much KR, your ECU is pulling timing. There is no boost lag. If there is, it's measured in MILI-seconds.

I'd like to see your dyno sheets to determine exactly what's wrong. Your transition in boost from SC to Turbo should be well-defined in the logs, and I hope you had AFR data logging during your dyno run, too.

Another often-overlooked aspect of SCing and Turbo use is that most people look only at the PEAK hp. Many overlook torque, which is the major point of it all. Not only that, but don't look just at the peak value. How flat is the curve? At what rpm did your hp and tq peak at BEFORE the SC or turbo, and where does it peak now? How long does it hold peak before dropping off? How many rpm's are at 90% of peak tq with the SC? It's how the curve LOOKS, for 3 things....horsepower, torque, and AFR.

For example, if I had a civic that I popped a JRSC on, and my hp (theoretically) went from 100hp to only 120, then I took the SC off, and put a turbo on, and my peak went from 100hp to 130, the turbo may not necessarily be better if the peak with the SC happened 1000 rpms LOWER. The same applies to torque.

There's something very wrong with your setup. Let's see if we can figure it out with your dyno numbers (you've obviously run it on a dyno), and perhaps a data-logging scan during a dyno or street run.

FWD cars tend to have traction problems, esp light ones like hondas. that low-end torque often ends up as tire smoke

i know im a little late, but if you have a turbo, especially a small one, when it starts to spool aren't you at max boost? thus creating more power at 3500 than you would with a SC?

ORIGINAL: blackeyes

FWD cars tend to have traction problems, esp light ones like hondas. that low-end torque often ends up as tire smoke

i know im a little late, but if you have a turbo, especially a small one, when it starts to spool aren't you at max boost? thus creating more power at 3500 than you would with a SC?



Depends on the Turbo or SC you're comparing. And alot of other variables. So no, not necessarily. When you say 'more power', it's pretty elusive. More boost? Not the right question either. We need to compare CFM's. A SC can provide more power at 3500 rpm's than a Turbo, depending on which components you're comparing.

well a turbo and an sc at 11 pounds of boost.

If you're comparing, say, a T-25 and a JRSC both running about 6 or 7 lbs, the T-25 will be spooled and ready when you hit about 3,200, so it's going to pull just like a SC (but not before that, unless you know how to keep it wound). That's why GSX's kick so hard once they hit positive displacement, because when you punch the gas, that tiny-ass T-25 spools in no time. So it really depends on what turbo/setup you're using. Low-end torque is nice (unless you have TOO MUCH), but I would never drive below about 3,000 anyway...

ORIGINAL: blackeyes

well a turbo and an sc at 11 pounds of boost.



That's not valid. 11psi out of each may be totally different CFM's. What is the CFM rating of the Turbo you're comparing to that of an Eaton M45? At what RPM?

There's this hybrid turbine: the Forced Performance Big 28. It uses a T-28 core in a modified T-25 housing and compressor, spools like a T-25, makes full boost before 3,100 rpm and holds it to red, and moves 520 CFM. FP strapped one to a GSX, cranked it to 21 psi, and bested 11.82@119.3. That's a full-weight, lightly-motored up, GSX.

So you see, if you actually explore your options, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Or to have full boost at 750 rpm's, right off the line with an Eaton M45 ;)

First of all, SC + 4g63 = Winner of the "Worst Idea of This Generation" award...

Second, if you're digging your engine to 750 rpm anytime other than idling, it's time for driving school...

And third, this whole concept of too much low-end/not enough weight just isn't getting through to you... A Civic is NOT an SSEi, no matter how you slice it.

why do u guys think its so bad? You can never have enough low end power

ORIGINAL: Kappa22

First of all, SC + 4g63 = Winner of the "Worst Idea of This Generation" award...

Second, if you're digging your engine to 750 rpm anytime other than idling, it's time for driving school...

And third, this whole concept of too much low-end/not enough weight just isn't getting through to you... A Civic is NOT an SSEi, no matter how you slice it.


This is one of the biggest misconceptions I've heard on this topic.

I know several people that have transplanted modified L67's (Supercharged 3800) into many different types of vehicles. All of them light cars. Fiero's, Cavaliers, and even a couple sand rail/dune cars.

If I want to, even with good tires, low pressure and sticky VHT all over a proffessionally prepared track, I can skip the water, and burn out all the way to the staging line. But if I want to manage it, I can launch without a chirp. Without using traction control. The guys running these in the smaller cars have twice the 'problem' with traction that I do. And they manage just fine.

There's a two-sided argument going here. If you spool at the line with a turbo, what's the difference? Don't you still have the very problem you're talking about with a SC? The difference is that with the SC, you don't have to rev to spool. Your RPM's are dictated by what RPM is best to launch at, not where you need to be to be in boost. So you can rev to 1500 (like I do) and launch, and you're in boost all the way up to 3000 when the turbo WOULD have spooled. You just left Mr. Turbo in the dust.

there's no convincing them red, they are all turbo groupies:D j/k... Like i've said before. I have owned both an find a s/c'd car alot more fun to drive. Yes my Turbo was alot quicker, but took alot more money and time as well.

Im not fighting a turbo vs. supercharger discussion, i'm defending the "superchargers are no good for FWD light cars". When they are just as great, if not better in some aspects.

All things being equal (which isn't ever the case, but for the sake of comparison, let's do this):

Kappa, we're going to clone you and your car. Absolute perfect clones.

YOU and your current car will be outfitted with a Turbo.
Your clone and clone car will get a JRSC kit with the eaton M45 as the base power-adder.

You will launch side by side in the same manner (you're clones, after all).

Your clone will eat your lunch and take your milk money. You might get it back if you stay in the throttle past 100mph, but it's going to take some effort.

Now how often do you drive (race) and exceed those speeds? Even cruising side by side on the freeway, the SC will have the advantage. When your clone hits the gas, he's in boost NOW. RIGHT now. Even if he's cruising at only 1500 rpm's.

There are two sides of the argument, and we can go all week debating back and forth, but what it comes down to is do you want your power down low, or above the spooling rpm's of a Turbo. Pick one.

And no, you won't have traction issues with a SC. At all. You adapt your driving style for whichever forum of Forced Induction you choose, whether it be a roots, centrifigal, Turbo, or Nitrous.

nice post red, well put.

My friend is the proud new owner of a 500whp Supercharged Mustang GT (which I helped install)... amazingly enough he can keep traction on launch with a slight chirp and hand me my ass OFF THE LINE. So the traction argument holds no weight.

Ok, let me try to straighten this out for you ONE MORE TIME... I'm not arguing that SC's are WORSE by any means (though I myself wouldn't prefer one; I guess Polo's right about me being a Turbo Groupie:D).

What I am TRYING to say is that, on a Honda Civic, a turbo will be more comfortable as a daily driver TO THE RELATIVELY INEXPERIENCED... sure they can adapt to a SC, but on a HONDA, the higher-end is where all the fun is at anyway. REMEMBER: the CIVIC is the car in question, NOT my (former) S14, NOT a Mustang GT, NOT a Bonny, NOT a Cavalier or a Fiero or a ****ing dune buggy.

Here's a couple problems with your clone comparison:

1)If you put a blower on what I still fondly refer to as my car, it would be twincharged (or maybe triple charged, if you account for both turbos).
2) If I turned the boost on my turbos up to 1.6 BAR on stock everything, and you put a pulley on the blower to match (assuming the blower replaced the TT's) I would eat the blown S14 alive beginning at about 3,500 rpm and carrying on through 8,000. You (here, "you" refers to the "blown clone," as it were) might have a CL or two off the line, but after that, it's nothing but turbocharged taillights filling up your windshield. The mechanics and dynamics of an RB26 are obviously something you have yet to experience...

Kappa, keep in mind that I'm not arguing.......but back at you, there's obviously alot about forced induction you haven't experienced or researched yet.

There will be NO problem supercharging a civic, or driving it either, for the inexperienced. This is a big bunch of bull. You make it sound like tire-squealing hell for the 15 year old driver, and that's just not going to happen. :eek:

1)If you put a blower on what I still fondly refer to as my car, it would be twincharged (or maybe triple charged, if you account for both turbos).
2) If I turned the boost on my turbos up to 1.6 BAR on stock everything, and you put a pulley on the blower to match (assuming the blower replaced the TT's) I would eat the blown S14 alive beginning at about 3,500 rpm and carrying on through 8,000. You (here, "you" refers to the "blown clone," as it were) might have a CL or two off the line, but after that, it's nothing but turbocharged taillights filling up your windshield. The mechanics and dynamics of an RB26 are obviously something you have yet to experience...

I'm talking blower vs turbo, not ADDING a blower to an aleady turbo'd car. BASE cars starting from scratch. EQUAL comparison.

And even in your TT, you're at a disadvantage off the line, since the SC doesn't have to wait while you're spooling. You'll see HIS taillights before he sees yours. It's where you want the power. Off the line, or on the high end.

A SC will take you off the line, all the way to the quarter (somewhere between 800-100mph), and will give you enough of an edge over MOST torbo'd civics, that they cannot make up the deficit within a 1/4 mile. Maybe by the half.

And even in your TT, you're at a disadvantage off the line, since the SC doesn't have to wait while you're spooling. You'll see HIS taillights before he sees yours. It's where you want the power. Off the line, or on the high end.

Of course I'm at a disadvantage off the line. And I'll probably see his taillights first. BUT, as long as we're racing for more than 40 feet, the tables will turn faster than you can imagine.

And yes, it's true, I've only driven 2 blown Civic's, but the point I've been trying to make is one of comparison... I have no gripes with how SC's perform on Civics, as long as you know how to handle it. But what's obviously slipping through the cracks here is my whole point here of comparison. COMPARE the ease and daily driveability of a blown vs. a turboed Civic, NOT how often you race for 50 feet from a stop light. A supercharger will obviously give you a flatter torque curve that helps with drag launches and provides instant-on power, but a turbo just gives you so much more where your car (Civic) is comfortable: in the high end.

Unfortunately, it's that time again. I'm off to class. Be back in an hour or two.

ORIGINAL: Kappa22

And even in your TT, you're at a disadvantage off the line, since the SC doesn't have to wait while you're spooling. You'll see HIS taillights before he sees yours. It's where you want the power. Off the line, or on the high end.

Of course I'm at a disadvantage off the line. And I'll probably see his taillights first. BUT, as long as we're racing for more than 40 feet, the tables will turn faster than you can imagine.

And yes, it's true, I've only driven 2 blown Civic's, but the point I've been trying to make is one of comparison... I have no gripes with how SC's perform on Civics, as long as you know how to handle it. But what's obviously slipping through the cracks here is my whole point here of comparison. COMPARE the ease and daily driveability of a blown vs. a turboed Civic, NOT how often you race for 50 feet from a stop light. A supercharger will obviously give you a flatter torque curve that helps with drag launches and provides instant-on power, but a turbo just gives you so much more where your car (Civic) is comfortable: in the high end.

Unfortunately, it's that time again. I'm off to class. Be back in an hour or two.


Friendly debate continues......in a simple sense, if Turbo's were all you crack them up to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because superchargers wouldn't exist. But since the do exist, they obviously have alot of value.

Yes, you are a Turbo junkie, and you're very biased. That's why I'm trying to dispel some inaccuracies or misunderstandings, because it's not fair to the original author of this topic, nor anyone else reading it.

Ease of driving? There's NO DIFFERENCE! NONE! You keep coming back (even in subtle hints) to this myth that a supercharged civic will be hard to handle, and this is MAJOR BS. Raise the BS flag!

The Turbo does NOT give you 'so much more where your car is comfortable'. The car could give a crap. Where the civic lacks is the low end. Give it some! Kappa, I'd invite you to investigate supercharging a bit more and actually go out and experience it so that you can be a bit more objective in these topics.

I've owned both, and driven many more of both. I can honestly tell you from my personal experience, I prefer Supercharging for it's simplistic practicality, but turbo's do have their uses, and there are applications where I'd prefer them.

From a cost, ease of installation, maintenance, and 'transparent' effect while driving, the original author of this topic would benefit more from a SC than a Turbo. And he'll get off the line like no other civic out there. And he may not care if his car falls flat on it's face (although still better than stock) at over 100mph.

Please quit giving supercharging the inferior role in every comment.

Edit.....this isn't the Fast and the Furious here. Honestly, how many here have the opportunity to do much footwork above 100mph? ;)

in a simple sense, if Turbo's were all you crack them up to be, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because superchargers wouldn't exist

This is not a point of debate, but just for reference, I believe superchargers were actually invented first (Bentley Blower).

Yes, you are a Turbo junkie, and you're very biased.

I could say the same (on the opposite side) for you.

You keep coming back (even in subtle hints) to this myth that a supercharged civic will be hard to handle, and this is MAJOR BS. Raise the BS flag!

Kappa, I'd invite you to investigate supercharging a bit more and actually go out and experience it so that you can be a bit more objective in these topics.

Let me ask you something: have YOU ever driven a SC'd Civic? From what I've gathered from your posts, you're simply speaking from a standpoint of, "well, it worked fine for these guys; it'll work fine for you too." Having driven both a 5G EX sedan and a 6G EX coupe with blowers, I KNOW that the lack of front-end weight on a Civic combined with the low-end grunt of a supercharged engine WILL cause a lot of wheelspin if you don't feather the clutch. It's the same thing with a B18 swap, and that's not even that much of a change in torque.

The Turbo does NOT give you 'so much more where your car is comfortable'. The car could give a crap. Where the civic lacks is the low end. Give it some!

See, you need to be aware that cars are designed differently. Hondas are designed to perform in the mid to high rpms, so giving them an excuse to dig down to 1000 is actually putting unnecesary wear on the engine parts... I should know; I've seen it many many times.

From a cost, ease of installation, maintenance, and 'transparent' effect while driving, the original author of this topic would benefit more from a SC than a Turbo. And he'll get off the line like no other civic out there. And he may not care if his car falls flat on it's face (although still better than stock) at over 100mph.

I'm not questioning this at all (except the last part), so I see no reason to keep bringing it up except to play the other side and give turbocharging the inferior role in every comment... But a SC will not hold strong on a Civic all the way to 100mph... it's not an M3, you know.

I KNOW that the lack of front-end weight on a Civic combined with the low-end grunt of a supercharged engine WILL cause a lot of wheelspin if you don't feather the clutch. It's the same thing with a B18 swap, and that's not even that much of a change in torque.
just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. i can attest to this. i have a bone stock b18c in my 95 civic coupe, and in dry weather, i have to pull throttle all the way through first gear (open diff) and in rain, forget about it. there is no hard acceleration till at least third. a SCd sohc, would have more torque, lower down than my 1.8. and id have to agree with Kappa on the fact that civics are designed to stay a little higher in the rpm range. if you put extra stress on the engine while its spinning slow, like, 3000 and below, the oil pressure is not high enough to properly lube the motor. so it can put a lot of undue wear on the engine. and when i shift my engine at redline(8200) it drops down to about 5800-6000, so once i hit 2500-3000, and my turbo spools, theres no going back. i dont need that low-end grunt, except for the first 20-40 ft. yeah hondas may be lacking low-end, but they make up for it in a massive redline, and a very big final drive, mine is 4.4, and there are some that are bigger than that. the type r tranny has 4.785. thats another reason the low-end isnt really welcome. im not saying that SCs are no good by any means, and i would not begrudge anyone for getting one, but, from my own experiences and observations, a turbo has more performance potential. and there is a reason that so many mustangs out there are SCd, not turbod. the trends follow the racing. turbos are not allowed in many classes of v8 drag racing, so the trends follow the racers using SCs. they are not allowed because they dominated too much when they were. and i got that straight from a musclecar magazine (dont remember which). i saw a 99 SI, with a JRSC kit on his B16, with a boost upgrade, and he was running 14.4-14.6. my brother had better times in his stock si with a 50 shot of nitrous, spraying in second gear on up. he managed a 14.2, with a slipping clutch, on street tires (i mean STREET tires, not drag radials. they were Toyo Proxes FZ4s). so traction is essential in these cars. ill be the first to admit there are some apps that an SC is better, but, i dont think a civic is one. im not necessarily saying a turbo is better, because its not always true. im just trying to put it out there that turbos are not the bad idea you seem (i dont think its your intention, but you are putting forth the attitude) to be saying.

It seems to me that this all depends entirely on your driving habits. If you never go to the strip, but like the occasional "race till the speed limit" at a stoplight, a supercharger is probably the way to go. But, if you go to the drag stip a lot and plan to run low 1/4 mile times, a turbo is probably the way to go. Note this is strictly for Civics here. Taking into account the build of the Honda engine and the final drive ratio, a supercharger just isn't going to give you power where you need it. When you are dragging, you spend probably about 5% of the time in the launch and below 4000 rpm in a civic. This is why turbo civics do so well, because the turbos will put the power where you drive during most of the race. In the end, it all matters who crosses the finish line first. Nobody is going to give you props for keeping ahead for the first 100 ft.

a positive displacement or roots style s/c gives near instantaneous power. so that is ideal for most street cars.

a centri s/c has to get into the higher rpms b4 you cant take advantage of it. ideal for the strip.

If you want all the real facts about blowers then buy a book called "Supercharged!"

I believe the Turbo book is called Overboost or Maximim boost... something like that. Google it if you're really interested. They are like $40 but well worth the read.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=um2juiHA4M&isbn=0837601681&itm=12

and

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?userid=um2juiHA4M&pwb=1&ean=9780837601601

That them?


EDIT: OOOOH Check it out. Buy them both for a fraction of the price! http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0837601681/qid=1108955176/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-7570056-5638357?v=glance&s=books

yup! thats them... I have the Supercharged! book and only hear good things about "maximum boost"

Highly recommended if you are serious about FI

Nobody is going to give you props for keeping ahead for the first 100 ft.


"Dude I almost had you"

"Almost had me? "You never had me, you never had your car" [sm=gears.gif]

"Winnings winning."

I cant believe this thread was brought back up, solely for that horrible post...

I feel your pain, Polo.:(

Okay to finally get back to all of you, I donr have a dual stage setup, I'm now running just turbo , and ll i can say is, Be in my shoes, I'm telling the truth, I ran a Jackson racing water injectionon my supercharger at 7psi and at 11 psi, the supercharger ran a better run at at 7psi then it did at 11psi, even with the water the intake temperatures were recorded at 95F hotter with 4psi more, come to my worls and talk if you think you know what you are talking about, My fastest run on th 1/4 was 15.8 with supercharger, so far i have raced 3 laps down the track with the turbo and i've ran 15.2 spinning 1st and 2nd the laps i did with the supercharger was with semislicks, I have ****tons of lag with the turbo, but once its there it hold full boost the whole time. I have a t3/t4 TO4E Turbo running 9-10 psi, 12'x24"x3" intercooler, 38mm external wastegate, greddy BOV, Walbro255 Blox Regulator, I'm needinf some help on the SAFC though, it is apexi gen 2 the car runs well with out it, but when i put on the safc and up the fuel it runs really well through 1st and 2nd , but when it gets to 3rd it falls on its face (Like there is no HP) no clue what is goin on. it also dsoesnt like the jump from no boost to boost PLease send me info, if anyone has an SAFC and is using it on there car

you might need larger injectors and/or a bigger fuel pump. Also it could be the way that the ECU and safc are talking to eachother.

for the vacuum-boost transition, you need something called a "missing link" there are other companies that make it, and they work as well as the actual ML from Synapse. i havent actually had any experience with it, but it seems pretty simple, and seems to clear up that little problem nicely. check out ebay for a good price on one.

I have a walbro 255 fuel pump and a blox rising rate fuel regulator, I have a syn, missing link, my car wount run with out it, I do think i need bigger injectors, do you think that a heater on my o2 sensor being out sould be the problem, I also wenr drag racing this weekend and it ran alright, But i disconeccted the SAFC II and my car still does the wierd no power down low, when it is cold, but when it does it, i just turn the key off and turn it back on and it runs fine then, I definatly nedd help on this one, I ordered two ned o2 sensors, I hope thats it, I'm a regular car junkie and i usually know what the problem is but this one has me stumped

thats probably your problem then... its amazing what kinda problems an o2 sensor will cause.Good luck on it and I hope you get off easy with the sensor

lsd is a must for a SC civic. i have a 98 hatch with b16a2 and a jackson SC. when i first installed had horrible tracition problems burned through 3 sets of tires in 1 year. i had an lsd installed and now its ALOT better.

LSD wouldnt b bad on ANY car, much better cornering, but i was drivin my cousins car who had an LSD, i tried to induce some oversteer and the LSD started workin and it wouldnt slide and i was like 'TURN DAMMIT!!!'

haha

but an LSD takes some getting used to

Just throwin my opinion in there, but i just installed my JR Turbo this morning an i LOVE it. Thats just my 2 cents.

Remmy,do you have in mind aS/C kit you'd recomend? I'm the type of driverwho don't normallygo over 3000rpm and can use some instant torque on the lower end range. I'm notpower hungry and can use somethingcheap, easy to install/uninstallbut at the same time reliable. I'd be happy if I can gain 15-20hp on my 94 civic ex.




well i want the s/c for simplicty, remeber im an audio guru not a gear head... also I want to "set it and forget it". you feel where im coming from? You guys know a hell of alot about this stuff and wouldnt you guys reccommend a s/c for begginers?

lol, this thread is two years old.

Have you the supercharger and turbo sticky???

In my opinion, you get more power for your money if you go with a turbo set up.

I'm locking this because it is so old and 70% of the people in this thread don't post here anymore. Please direct your questions here: http://www.hondacivicforum.com/m_281776/tm.htm