Supercharger or Turbo?
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,095
From:
RE: Supercharger or Turbo?
Nope. Just subtle hacks.
Like trying to have a gunfight at a wedding without anyone noticing.
Anyway, I'm not going to say anything constructive or destructive, just to try and help keep the atmosphere fairly sane.
Banana Hammock!
Like trying to have a gunfight at a wedding without anyone noticing.Anyway, I'm not going to say anything constructive or destructive, just to try and help keep the atmosphere fairly sane.
Banana Hammock!
HCF Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 7,699
RE: Supercharger or Turbo?
And many people argue that the supercharger uses power to make power because it strains the pulley system... this is true, but a turbo system uses power also. A turbo is an obstruction in the exhaust system which interupts flow and an intercooler uses power to make power also so its kinda one for one again. Without an intercooler you might be running say 6 psi... if you add an intercooler to that setup the IC will be an obstruction and will probably only put out about 4 psi of boost causing you to increase boost to say 8 psi, just to get back up to the origional 6 psi you were at before adding an IC. So it all cost horsepower int he end.
both will make your car faster, for a much more reasonable amount of money than an all motor setup. both have their advantages and drawbacks. but these statements are more than a little biased Polo
. the amount of energy (usable hp, lost from the wheels) it takes to turn a blower and a turbo is no comparison. a turbo will cost you about 10-15 hp tops (for a normal "kit" turbo setup) and a Jackson SC for example, takes roughly 80 hp to turn for a typical b16 setup. thats power straight from the wheels. sure the boost more than makes up for it, but its a factor. most of the energy used to drive a turbo comes from wasted heat in the exhaust stream, energy that would otherwise just be burnt up and spit out the tailpipe. and an intercooler doesnt "lose" or "cost" boost, unless its a cheap one. most of the pressure drop you would see from an IC install is because the air is cooled, therefore denser. meaning the mass of the air going into the motor at the non-I/Ced 8psi is roughly the same as the mass at the I/Ced 6psi, also meaning the power will be about the same, or more than likely higher, along with a higher power potential due to the lower temperature/denser airs resistence to detonation, compared to the hotter non-I/Ced air.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,095
From:
RE: Supercharger or Turbo?
ORIGINAL: sacicons
both will make your car faster, for a much more reasonable amount of money than an all motor setup. both have their advantages and drawbacks. but these statements are more than a little biased Polo. the amount of energy (usable hp, lost from the wheels) it takes to turn a blower and a turbo is no comparison. a turbo will cost you about 10-15 hp tops (for a normal "kit" turbo setup) and a Jackson SC for example, takes roughly 80 hp to turn for a typical b16 setup. thats power straight from the wheels. sure the boost more than makes up for it, but its a factor. most of the energy used to drive a turbo comes from wasted heat in the exhaust stream, energy that would otherwise just be burnt up and spit out the tailpipe. and an intercooler doesnt "lose" or "cost" boost, unless its a cheap one. most of the pressure drop you would see from an IC install is because the air is cooled, therefore denser. meaning the mass of the air going into the motor at the non-I/Ced 8psi is roughly the same as the mass at the I/Ced 6psi, also meaning the power will be about the same, or more than likely higher, along with a higher power potential due to the lower temperature/denser airs resistence to detonation, compared to the hotter non-I/Ced air.
both will make your car faster, for a much more reasonable amount of money than an all motor setup. both have their advantages and drawbacks. but these statements are more than a little biased Polo
. the amount of energy (usable hp, lost from the wheels) it takes to turn a blower and a turbo is no comparison. a turbo will cost you about 10-15 hp tops (for a normal "kit" turbo setup) and a Jackson SC for example, takes roughly 80 hp to turn for a typical b16 setup. thats power straight from the wheels. sure the boost more than makes up for it, but its a factor. most of the energy used to drive a turbo comes from wasted heat in the exhaust stream, energy that would otherwise just be burnt up and spit out the tailpipe. and an intercooler doesnt "lose" or "cost" boost, unless its a cheap one. most of the pressure drop you would see from an IC install is because the air is cooled, therefore denser. meaning the mass of the air going into the motor at the non-I/Ced 8psi is roughly the same as the mass at the I/Ced 6psi, also meaning the power will be about the same, or more than likely higher, along with a higher power potential due to the lower temperature/denser airs resistence to detonation, compared to the hotter non-I/Ced air.
Thanks. That's pretty much what I was going to say, but I didn't want to provoke anything...
HCF Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 8,519
From: South Central
RE: Supercharger or Turbo?
This is as un-bias as it comes right here.
It depends on what kind of power you want simple as that. No way around it guys, if you want decent lowend with a flatter tq curve and do not have to many expectations as far as being able to move on and get more power in the future then a supercharger is for you. A turbo $ for $ ='s more power, a faster car, and more ability to grow. Bottom line.
A properly setup turbo system on a car is every bit and will be every bit as reliable as a properly setup supercharger. Different things do arise with each though like with a supercharger you are stuck on one boost level unless you buy and install different belts, turbo's main problem over everything is heat. There are ways to fix the heat problems with turbo's(bigger radiator, cooler thermostat, water/meth injection, n2o intercooler sprayers, turbo placement, vented hoods, so on, and so on) But noway to get around having to wrench on your car with a supercharger.
I would never invest in a supercharger it just seems like you go from one dead end to another for me, not saying it is not a good route to go for some because it is but for me........no.
HP (Peak) 160----218
Torque (ft. lbs.) (Peak) 111----142
Stock numbers at the flywheel on the left, Vortech Centrifugal Supercharger on the right at 9psi
HP (Peak) 160----190
Torque (ft. lbs.) 111----138
Again stock on the left, JRSC Roots Style Supercharger on the right but at 8psi
HP (Peak) 160----324
Torque (ft. lbs.) 111----203
Engine: B16a bone stock, Mods: FR stage 1 kit, 3" thermal exhaust, RC 550cc injectors, walboro 255lph pump, neptune fuel management. Tuning at 9psi pump gas
That is 106 more hp and around 60 more ft lbs of tq all on the same amount of boost. The lag thing also gets thrown out here also as the Turbo'd car made the tq of the Vrtech equiped car at around 4500rpm which is a full 4000rpm away from the rev limiter.
I will post these dynos in the same order I posted the number excluding the Vortec dyno because they do not deem it fit to post this info for you to look at. So the JRSC dyno then the Full Race turbo'd dyno second
It depends on what kind of power you want simple as that. No way around it guys, if you want decent lowend with a flatter tq curve and do not have to many expectations as far as being able to move on and get more power in the future then a supercharger is for you. A turbo $ for $ ='s more power, a faster car, and more ability to grow. Bottom line.
A properly setup turbo system on a car is every bit and will be every bit as reliable as a properly setup supercharger. Different things do arise with each though like with a supercharger you are stuck on one boost level unless you buy and install different belts, turbo's main problem over everything is heat. There are ways to fix the heat problems with turbo's(bigger radiator, cooler thermostat, water/meth injection, n2o intercooler sprayers, turbo placement, vented hoods, so on, and so on) But noway to get around having to wrench on your car with a supercharger.
I would never invest in a supercharger it just seems like you go from one dead end to another for me, not saying it is not a good route to go for some because it is but for me........no.
HP (Peak) 160----218
Torque (ft. lbs.) (Peak) 111----142
Stock numbers at the flywheel on the left, Vortech Centrifugal Supercharger on the right at 9psi
HP (Peak) 160----190
Torque (ft. lbs.) 111----138
Again stock on the left, JRSC Roots Style Supercharger on the right but at 8psi
HP (Peak) 160----324
Torque (ft. lbs.) 111----203
Engine: B16a bone stock, Mods: FR stage 1 kit, 3" thermal exhaust, RC 550cc injectors, walboro 255lph pump, neptune fuel management. Tuning at 9psi pump gas
That is 106 more hp and around 60 more ft lbs of tq all on the same amount of boost. The lag thing also gets thrown out here also as the Turbo'd car made the tq of the Vrtech equiped car at around 4500rpm which is a full 4000rpm away from the rev limiter.
I will post these dynos in the same order I posted the number excluding the Vortec dyno because they do not deem it fit to post this info for you to look at. So the JRSC dyno then the Full Race turbo'd dyno second
HCF Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,702
From:
RE: Supercharger or Turbo?
well as much as a turbo guy as i am...i have to say thats pretty biased. but i agree with you on almost every aspect. actually...every.
but im not sure if its fair putting a JRSC up against a Full Race turbo. theres more engineering, number crunching, man hours, and more time-consuming work overall put into a Full Race manifold than the whole JRSC, let alone the whole Full Race turbo system.
but im not sure if its fair putting a JRSC up against a Full Race turbo. theres more engineering, number crunching, man hours, and more time-consuming work overall put into a Full Race manifold than the whole JRSC, let alone the whole Full Race turbo system.
HCF Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,168
From: Jersey
RE: Supercharger or Turbo?
Okay I have decided to add to the thread. I definetly think turbos are way better than superchargers on hondas because........Like stated before, superchargers require more work to up the boost. On a honda you wont really see much of the "Turbo Lag" people love to talk about, because youre going to be running a small turbo, which will spool way before 4,000 RPMS. Honestly im all about power for money, and you can build a turbo kit for under $1,000, which is a very reasonable cost for the mod. Then if you decide you wanna up the boost, you can upgrade your internals and just get tuned for a higher boost level, where as most superchargers (for hondas) would be seeing their max power level. For a beginner I think the turbo route is better, because you can start at low boost, learn, and then explore your options. Honestly though, cost is a huge factor for me, because I wanna get the best bang for my buck. You can get boosted for a thousand bucks, and make damn good power, where as superchagers are usually hard to find at a low cost. I may be biased being I drive a turbo honda, but I did go turbo because i felt it was a better option. I also think turbos will allow you to get to your stock engines best power level, as most honda SOHC can reach 200-225WHP bone stock with turbos, well with a good dyno tune.........but ive come across few stock sohc 200+ WHP cars.
