Printable View
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?
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 http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
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
Umm... maybe TOO? Or does his stuff not count for some reason? http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
perhaps if they rehash the internals on the supercharger for more efficiency they can pull a bit more HP.
But one thing is for sure, the point about no type of intercooling has been proven .. when Curt in Florida ran a 25 shot NOS with his charger (what was it a 12psi pulley), 11.1's were established so we know the thing boosts jsut needs cooling period.
Vortech tried a different approach and ran into safety issues, i.e. the shaft is in the open stretches across the entire engine bay ... thats a no-no for fed regulations
I think the best (and only way of doing a) supercharger kit is to utilize the a/c compressor spot with the charger then pipe it from there thru an intercooler and into the stock intake manifold... ala turbo kits for Hondas.
Maybe there is anotehr way but it'll take mucho work. Even this way I suggested isn't practical because the regular joe-schmoe doesn;t wanna lose his a/c.
Greg
------------------
94 Civic FROG
435HP/289 lb-ft. torque.
11 Second Club.
More power is possible. I think 240 whp would be there with:
B18C
JRSC 8 psi
Water Injection
J&S Safeguard
3 Inch CAI
Kamakazi Header
Aftermarket Exhaust
Random Tech Cat
Apex'i V-AFC
Cam Gears
310 Injectors
Cartech/Vortech FMU
Add some headwork, a ITR exhaust cam, and some other goodies, I think 255 whp is possible, at 8psi.
Now I know that this is possible with a turbo kit, simply because of the drag the supercharger puts on the engine. But then I think a supercharger is better power, and the stock jrsc kit cannot be beat for what it is.
Just to set the record straight (cause I don't want to be the fool here) I run 12-13 daily with about a 96-97 octane mix and only plan to run *FULL timing with straight 100 octane at the track only. I am running tommorow and I will be running straight 100 and the 12-13 degrees just to set somewhat of a baseline and I will bump up the timing latter in the season. I am not crazy, nor fool and I don't play roulet with my motor (Not that anybody said I do, but I jsut wanted to say that I don't http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif) I think that NO2 is going to be the intercooler for me come the end of the summer but for now I am gonna see what she will do http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I am curious to know if anybody that is running NO2 on their JRSC has a J&S to observe if any "More" det. is being presented?
------------------
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
Now lets add up the money I spent for 225 H.P. and 168 Torque not including the parts that did not work since I sold them.
JRSC $2300
8 psi $100
Water Injection $400
Short Intake $75
DC 4-1 Header $270
RSR Exhaust $400
Total not including labor$3545
Labor, dyno runs and tax$1600
Total $5145
I think a Turbo can be done for same amount of money with more power.
------------------
00 Naples Gold 3.2TL
N/A with 225 H.P. and 216 Torque at the flywheel
All stock and staying that way
i keep telling you guys WATER INJECTION is tha bomb ( the best) swear by it ,also drink it when i run outta beer!!!!!!!!!!!but no one listens the a new guy , especially when hes CANADIAN.......
I agree with SSBP, nothing against jrsc's.
BJ,
Don't be discouraged by all of these doubters that have flamed you here... they all have underestimated the power of a supercharger.
Let us not forget that the FASTEST cars on this planet (Top fuel dragsters and funny cars) are all powered by SUPERCHARGERS... positive displacement roots-style blowers like the JRSC. Incidentally, the closest a turbo has ever been to any of these powerhouse tarmac rockets resides under the cab of the huge diesel truck that tows it from event to event !!!
Very soon now, any one of three of my project cars will begin turning heads all along the East coast... I believe that many of the current doubters will become believers.
Keep watching the board. You will see.
------------------
'93 Civic Si H/B with B18C1, JRSC @ 8psi
Best 1320: 12.68 at 110 mph
JRCIVIC,
Don't forget, the reason why Top Fuel dragsters use roots type superchargers is because that is what is mandated in the rules. Turbos are not allowed. NHRA sets up certain rules they must abide by. Why do think there has never been a Top Fuel dragster powered by a Rotary engine? It's because they are not allowed.
Saying "superchargers are the best" because Top Fuel dragsters use them doesn't mean anything. After all, they also use pushrod V-8's. So by your rationale, we shouldn't be bothering with high output aluminum Japanese DOHC/SOHC I-4 VTEC engines. Instead we should be running domestic pushrod V-8's. Is that what you are saying? Afterall, since Top Fuel uses V-8 engines then they must be the best right?
There is nothing wrong with either method of FI. Lundgren, SSBP, and the others were merely stating their opinion and experience with the JRSC. A lot of people including myself have had quite a bit of trouble lately with the blowers. Many of us are starting to question whether or not we made the right decision. Given the same amount of money spent on a turbo setup it most likely be much faster, easier to upgrade, and we would have fewer detonation problems. However, had we gone turbo and had problems, we would probably be discussing why we should have chosen a blower instead of a turbo.
------------------
Marc
1997 Civic EX, Supercharged
[This message has been edited by Marc (edited May 21, 2000).]
I suppose one could make an apologetic argument for supercharged Hondas, in that compared to turboed Hondas they are still in their infancy.
More companies, racers, and individuals have spent more tinkering time with small displacement Honda turbos, compared to Honda based superchargers. Despite advantages of turbo, this also may have something to do with it.
Actually JRCcivic still may have a reaonsable point.
Consider shows where special vehicles, rocket cars/ trucks run. No reason a car couldn't be specially built to show that a turbo could run as well or faster than the current Top Fuel group.
Perhaps no company really has an interest in doing that -- but I don't know if that is the reason, or why it wouldn't be a good idea if it can be done.
why do most of the sc people here think that superchargers are "more relaible than turbo?"
Is it just because most people with turbo's eventually turn up the boost, then grenade?
It is my understanding that at reasonable boost levels the turbo should be more reliable, because of the cooler charge temps?
Being faster by just turning a knob is hard to resist though.. I only lasted 3 months on mine before I cranked her up and melted a piston...
------------------
94 GSR drag gen 3 turbo
Benson's built bottom end
There is nothing wrong with the roots blower superchargers. They do a very good job. Make your car feel like it has a couple of more cylinders and 30%-40% more displacement. I've owned 2 Miatas, one with a turbo and another with a JRSC. The JRSC was much more reliable than the turbo. I had 2 turbos self destruct and I finally removed and sold the kit with a brand new blower and J&S, etc for a fraction of the cost http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/frown.gif The JRSC was practically trouble free and the couple of problems I had were much easier to correct, plus the car was not down until the repairs were done and only took a couple of hours to do.
Now, the turbo I had was a variable pitch vane affair made by Aerodyne. These are not conventional blowers and might have a lot more reliability problems. I know for a fact that my turbo had a lot of problems. The JRSC did not have anything like the problems with the turbo.
I know that many guys out there have turbos that make all kinds of power. The JRSC, on the other hand, seems to be more limited in the power output for the Miata application. However, the GSR blower is the M62 which is larger than the Miata's M45 blower, so it can probably make a lot more power if tuned properly.
The turbo guys are very happy with their choice and claim total reliability, etc. However, I always see where they are posting about their continual adjustments to the fuel and ignition maps, etc. The charge temps of the JRSC are not necessarily higher than those from a turbo, actually they might be quite lower. The difference is that the turbos are easily intercooled while the roots blowers are much more difficult to intercool. For my $$ and in my experience, the JRSC (in its *stock* configuration) is quite adequate and relatively inexpensive. Also, it is much easier to sell it and get more of your money than *any* turbo kit.
Manuel
F1 thought that blowers weren't dependable and they don't use them anymore. Turbos will be history in Cart next year as well. Probably becuause they're so dependable.
Redline,
You hit the nail on the head. Turbos were too expensive, even for F1.
Crane Cams worked on turbo top fuel dragsters for years and they never could make one competitive. They finally plumbed the intercooled turbos into a blower and it finally started to run. They finally gave up, siting that they could have sponsored the entire top fuel qualifying field for three years for what the program cost.
Their superturbo was one of the vehicles that inspired mine, tho.
ho train: It was not that the turbo itself as too exspenive and was everthing that teams started to do. Almost every team had a fuel sponser and they started to bring different fuel blends to different tracks. At 1500hp that the hondas were making they were melting the pistons off the rods. The was a strong faction in F1 that wanted to keep turbos and limit displacement to 1L to keep the power levels in tact.
I think that you have a cost arugment with fi vs. n/a but not SC vs turbo.
Kyle
F1 was still running rocket fuel until three years ago and all the budgets are well above what they were (even Hondas) during the peak of the turbo days.
As for being a NA person, I think not. Just how many people do you know that have both a supercharger and turbo on the same car? They both work together just fine too and it wasn't cheap.
Watch for it in the magazines.
then how much more power are you getting with both systems??????
ho train????
------------------
1996 GSR 4dr....221 hp with a 6psi JRSC
Heres how I pay for all my goodies
POWER
Well MarkC... it sounds to me like you agree with me then !!! Superchargers are better than Turbos for drag racing... Right ?!?
Actually, the reason Turbo's are not used in Top Fuel (or any drag vehicle with 1000+ hp) is because their power delvery is non-linear... it is too difficult to put it to the ground. One would have to "spool up" the Turbo to eliminate lag, but this would blow the tires away at launch. If a softer launch was attempted, when the Turbo spooled up, a huge power spike would occur, and the tires would break loose.
Either way, the advantage at the track for the Supercharger is LINEAR power delivery.
Now, not to side with the Turbo guys here, but sometimes having a lower power output at low rpm's and exploding with big power in the midrange elminates some traction problems on the street. Most stret races are won or lost at the light...
------------------
'93 Civic Si H/B with B18C1, JRSC @ 8psi
Best 1320: 12.68 at 110 mph
[This message has been edited by JRCivic (edited May 22, 2000).]
The best it's made has been 324 HP at 6200 RPM. It hasn't been easy either and I'll be broke for another year, but it works.
We haven't tried to max out the boost even though the engine has the best of everything, so I don't know what it could produce and i won't until I have another car to drive (and a wife that's calmed down).
F1 banned turbos cause the power levels were getting to high and cost. But when the rules stated 1.5l FI or 3.0l n/a a turbo was picked over a SC.
CART has talked about no turbos but it has never went anywhere to the best of knowledge.
There is a tt truck in pro stock that kicks ass.
k
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>By JRCivic
(Top fuel dragsters and funny cars)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Top fuel dragsters make 6000hp and run in the 4's. I think a turbo big enough to make that much hp would take more than 4-sec. to spool up! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/eek.gif http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
Mark - Darth Boost - Turbo Mafia
98 Pearl Black GS-R, DRAG Gen. 3 Turbo
13.2 at 114MPH (GTech/Pro w/Drag Radials)
Me? Agree with JRCivic? NEVER!!...
Hehe... well maybe just this once... becuz I want something... i.e. Lenso 13" rims with 22x8x13 M/T's. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
Sorry guys. I will always be a turbo freak. Supercharger will never be better than Turbo in my mind. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/tongue.gif
------------------
Mark - Darth Boost - Turbo Mafia
98 Pearl Black GS-R, DRAG Gen. 3 Turbo
13.2 at 114MPH (GTech/Pro w/Drag Radials)
Damn... I thought I had you for a second there Mark. Anyway, both are great... both require additional tuning and maintainence, and both have a lower reliability than the stock motor. For these sacrifices, we get more enjoyment, admiration from our peers, and the ability to beat up most street cars... and to me, it is worth it !!!
The continual banter about this issue astounds me... we are not talking about abortion or religion here... this board is about MAKING POWER !!! How about we unite both camps, and focus on real issues... issues that move each and every one of us in a positive manner.
Frankly, I am tired of the "My dick is bigger than yours" discussion.
Can't we all just get along ?!?
------------------
'93 Civic Si H/B with B18C1, JRSC @ 8psi
Best 1320: 12.68 at 110 mph
Haha.... We've always been united I thought. Maybe a little sibling rivalry, but still family/camp.
Now some of these domestic V8 meatheads that have just shown up on Honda-Acura.Net... http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/mad.gif Thats who we need to beat up on.
------------------
Mark - Darth Boost - Turbo Mafia
98 Pearl Black GS-R, DRAG Gen. 3 Turbo
13.2 at 114MPH (GTech/Pro w/Drag Radials)
Gang....
I will venture to say this:
The "bickering" on this board is attributable to the fact that the SC is for the most part a closed loop system. Once you make 225 to the wheels it is too EXPENSIVE and dangerous to the motor to make more power. I'm NOT saying 225 to the wheels is the limit that the stock motor can take. I'm saying that because there is no EFFICIENT way to IC the charge, and the blower itself runs out of efficency we are stuck at this power level. End of story end of discussion. THAT is what creates bickering, newbies then come in and want to run 15 psi and head work this and cam that. The SC does NOT have the same measure or even CLOSE measure of UPGRADABILITY as the turbo. We my SC brethen are the kids stuck with no possibility to go up. That and that damm tip in det! (immediate boost....sigh) and then those crappy pumps.....hehhehe. But other than that?
It's a good system!
If this was a tubo majority member board, there would be no "stuck at this power level" discussions. The "robustness" of the stock motor would be a well talked about topic!
Mac
------------------
The Import Avenger...hehe
well there is always NOS as a step-up mod http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
it does the intercooling and even better throttle response .. unlike the *lag* in a turbo (SIGH)
Greg
Speaking of nos and a supercharger and a d16 engine (well no one said d16, but anyway)
http://www.teamdelsol.com/members/0173/0173.htm
He's pretty close to 11's with a full interior. (and yeah he's got some money invested)
So what is the final verdict on this water injection thing? Yeay or Ney?
------------------
It take a Nation of Millions to hold Us Back!!!
http://www.bocajuniors.com.ar/escudoanim2.gif
[This message has been edited by MouhadIb (edited May 24, 2000).]
yup, homeboy bryan from NY ... his best time to date is something like 12.1 with a heavy wind gust.
Greg
ya, he's one dedicated mo-fo... 11's are right around the corner. He's had his fair share of problems though... But hey, haven't we all???? 11's don't come easy...*sigh*
------------------
Mike
93 PreludeVTEC, fmax turbo kit, erl mf2, lsd, btm&6al, 2mm rIdeal gasket, cut and polished crank, UO pulley, 50-75shot(not used), koni's, GC's, ST's, autometer, blitz and lots of other goodies :)