I always thought that turbos cause more stress on the engine, i was always told superchargers were safer to run on the engine.

 

all forms of forced induction or chemical induction place added stress on the motor.

6 psi of boost is 6psi of boost, no matter how it shows up in the motor.

 

i prefer a SC to a turbo b/c i feel that there is more of a powerband with a SC than a turbo.... also there is no tuning involved with a SC.... it's plug and play... but as far as safer... nothing is exactly like drift said.... 6psi is 6psi...

 

$4000 for 40-50 horsepower...You do the math..


Personally, I dont think its worth it.....

 

actually i got my Greddy turbo kit w\out intercooler installed for a little over 3600 dollars
it put out 285 hp\213 ft-lbs to the wheels
but i guess the VAFC and adjustable cam gears plus a 5Zigen FireBall cat-back helped it a little....i really think the stickier Yokohama AVS ES 100's really helped my H22A put all that power to the ground......
does anyone know if engine condition\mileage effects turbo gains at all....???? i think it shuold right?
my Sh only has 32620k miles as of 8/11/03

 

turbo is less wear on the engine supercahrgers rattle the shit out of the block and heads while turbos don't do this sicne they arn't belt connected i imagine ifu ahve a factory supercharge r it wouldn't be as bad but after market stuff just ain't as good honda and acura needs to start putting turbos on some of there cars i love na but boost is jsut fun at times

 

actually, the tuning for both turbo and SC's are the same... like i said, 6psi is 6psi, and demands enough fuel and proper spark to allow for 6psi.

it's just that Oscar Jackson has done a good job of jading the public with his "it's a simple bolt-on" scheme... but if you look at results of proper tuning with something as cheesy as a Hondata system, you'll see that it's not simply a bolt-on if you want to maximize the efficiency.

something the turbo has over the SC in a big way is called thermal efficiency. a turbo charger's air can be efficiently cooled for more volumetric efficiency than a roots style supercharger since there is very little room under the hood of a Honda. a turbo is normally more efficient than a supercharger, thus makes more power per lb of boost.

 

the turbo will alwasy make more hp if both are tuned on the same psi and tahts becasue the supercharger is being turned from the crank and is stealing hp off the engine so 6psi isn't 6psi a turbo doesn't take the hp away as well as ad it on

 

Go turbo!Boost is boost whether it's nitrous,supercharged or turbo all will add stress to your motor.If your bottom end is built properly you shouldn't have a second thought.Superchargers are belt driven which cause parasitic drag(lost potential hp),whereas a turbo runs off of you exhaust gases making it more efficient.Turbos are more tuneable boost controllers,intercoolers over 6p.si. of boost,larger turbo(with proper build-up),etc.I'm sure the JRSC only has 1 upgrade pulley which limits your gains.It's up to you.People will talk about "lag"in a turbo but if you have a relatively small turbo you'll make awesome torque from 1500rpm on.Figure out what's best for you and your wallet first and foremost and what kind of performance goals you realistically have for your car.

 

Worrying about a SuperCharger being parasitic is like saying you don't want to win the lottery because you'll have to pay taxes on the winnings.

IMHO the supercharger is a good mod if you want a minimal amout of work to do on your engine. Turbo setups generally require much more work (and expense) to get them running right.

What I really don't like about turbo's is the heat they generate under the hood. Your making an oven in there and need a timer just to let the thing cool off before you can shut off the engine. The supercharger has no such problem.