more speculation on the usual debate

[reddelsol]

Anyone out there trying to build an all-out supercharged honda / beefed up parts, NOS, and any other usual speed tricks.

Just curious with the usual turbo vs SC debate if there is anyone really putting the cash and effort into seeing just how much you can get out of a heavily modified SC car.

Do we even know the limits yet?

[Mr Rogers]

JRCivic is going ALL out with two of his shops SC cars so time will tell. He is already posting great times with his 8psi Hybrid and planning on BIG boost numbers from his secret project motors. I can't wait to read about it in TURBO. It'll be wierd reading about it there but hey, go fast is go fast

------------------
98 GS-scR w/ 8psi JRSC, Walbro HO fuel pump, AEM cai, Airmass header, Thermal Exhaust, Skunk Works cam gears, J&S safeguard, Ground Controls and KYB AGX's, and of course to slow down, KVR X-drill F&R rotors and Carbon Kevlar pads and V1 to signal the slowing down and soon to go on a Carbon Fiber diet,RC 310 steriods,and new sticky foot wear of the 555R type

[FB]

Umm... maybe TOO? Or does his stuff not count for some reason?

[MTRS the 1st]

TOO don't count....

I belive Oscar Jackson will have the last laugh on all of this. It is now my belief that major power gains are NOT able to be realized with the supercharger for the following reasons.

1. Non-intercooled: loss of hp and we have to crank up boost to 8 or even 9psi to reach 225 to the wheels= 258 260 hp. So you cant go higher there. Even including water injection in the equation. Too much boost on this stock compression ratio = not good. Plus we've already seen diminshing returns when going higher anyway. And timing has to cranked back 8 or 9* as it is. (Mr. Rogers is treading the same water as Will and others who belive they can escape running full timing crowing about how they feel such good power).

2. Parasitic drag: We're losing hp from heat soak AND drag off the crank. As far as the amount? I dunno, maybe 15hp or more?

3. It's a mechanical device: it moves a set amount of air for every revolution, nothing can be done about this, sans changing the blower itself. Unlike a turbo where the turbo itself can be changed out, or compressor fins. The supercharger cannot be. All the fiddling around the country have resulted in MARGINAL improvements over Oscars orginal numbers. Heck he was the one who did 230 to the wheels, BUT that was on 100* gas, and no cat with FULL timing and who knows maybe no accesorry belts.

The original supercharger owners know this.

New guys read and digest this post. We hashed over all this before you guys got here.

------------------


The Import Avenger...hehe

[bj]

1. That's why you send it to TOO and have it rebuilt w/ new internals that produce less heat. Also, I know it doesn't count cause it's not out, but I think it's safe to say that it's possible to put an intercooling device to the SC (TOO again).

2. Parasitic drag can't be avoided I guess.

3. "it moves a set amount of air for every revolution, nothing can be done about this, sans changing the blower itself."
I don't know what your point is there, but you can change the pulley so something CAN be done about this...I'm sure there is a limit on the M62 but I don't know what it is.

[MTRS the 1st]

Bj.....(sigh)

1. "Send it to TOO" dude I live 4 miles from the mans house, I know what he can and cannot do. Rebuild? No one has done it, plus it's 1500 bucks or more and you're making more boost on a stock compression ratio. IC? too expensive and not cost effective...

2. I'm damm right new kid, listen to when I tell you stuff.

3.My point is you won't make more power unless you move a larger volume of air. Changing the pulley after 8 psi only increases heat and detonation.

I love ya man but....

Shut up. (hehehee)

MTRS

------------------


The Import Avenger...hehe

[bj]

Well, now it sounds like you're changing your argument. All you said was: "well, no one's done it dude" or "it cost too much dude" or "i know more than you kid"

Your argument revolves around too much heat leading to detination which CAN be countered for those who want to spend the money. If you would like to change your argument to "it's not cost feasible...." then be my guest but don't just say it's not possible. That's all I'm saying. Don't take it as a personal attack to your "seniority" here or something.

[SSBP]

BlowJob,
I think what my buddy MTRS is trying to say is:

"Your role, KNOW IT. Your mouth, SHUT IT!

But seriously, MTRS is right. We have hash it out since 10/98 trying to find ways to make more power and it is not cost effective. We have determined the ideal setup before engine work has to be done and stand alone fuel management. If you want 225 real H.P. and 168 real Torque on 92 pump gas then this is what you need:

GSR
JRSC 8 psi
Water Injection
Short Intake
DC 4-1 Header
Stock Cat
Aftermarket Exhaust
12 degrees of timing

Everything else stock. This was my setup with the dyno sheet at the Integra Dyno Center to back it up.

My car now resides in San Diego, CA with its new owner.

------------------
00 Naples Gold 3.2TL
N/A with 225 H.P. and 216 Torque at the flywheel
All stock and staying that way

[bj]

Yea, looks like this has resorted to some name calling and "just shut up" mentality. That's too bad...oh well. You make it sound like there is nothing more to learn about a SC. Might as well shut down the board and make it into a big archive for people just starting out. Good luck.

[Civic TSI]

I just want to add that I've already seen 2 SC cars with an intercooler. It's feasible but definitely not with a JRSC unless you tear it apart but them, why buy a JRSC ?

------------------
To 24 PSI, and beyond !
HS Le Club