supercharger on a Type R

I was just wondering if anyone had any information or experience w/ Integra Type R's w/ a Jackson Racing supercharger. I just want to know if it gives it a decent power gain and if there are any side effects (ie. pinging engines). Any help would be appreciated.

I think the reliablity suffers if you boost the very high strung type r. If you own a type r, dont destroy it--put in some 9:1 pistons. I dont think you can safly run more than 5 psi on it. I doubt that will get you more than 40hp. Get a set of June stage 3 cams, underdrive pullies and chip mods. Bolt ons wont help the type r much either but a nice sounding exhaust doesnt hurt

I read a magazine recently about a turbocharged S2000 using off-the-shelf Trust bolt-on turbo kit. This car is running on stock internals (11:1 compression engine) thus limit the boost to 6psi / 0.4bar only. Thanks to the high compression, the gain is 75hp from 4500-9000rpm, but most significantly is the tremendous increase in torque at the lower rpm range. I am also considering supercharging (6psi) a B16B without touching the internals .... hoping to achieve more usable low end torque for daily driving. Noy sure about the gain and reliability. Comments?

ive heard both from the type R, so i cant be much help..but i do know this , if your gonna throw a charger on there, if you have teh cash just go all out with the vortech...it makes so much moer power thru the band and as we all know vortech is the mamma jamma of chargers

Trash the SC and go turbo or N/A. And do it right which ever yoiu choose. The SC will put extra strain on your front main bearing and wear it out quicker. Please don't destroy a C5.

If I were to go all motor how much power would camshafts give (say Jun) and would it greatly affect the cars idle?

if your going to use the car for autocross, i would look into a s/c but maybe not jackson's

there many biased turbo guys on this forum. and many biases against the underdog of the boost family(the jrsc) The c5 will be ok boosting on a jrsc with the right fuel management and tuning. try hostboard.com for your jrsc questions. there are many many many integras on jrsc that have experience and a few that roam there with b16s. most of them are teg guys though. youll find a wealth of info there. heres the link

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/forum/f/110

good luck.

Boosting a Type R is like going all motor with an Eclipse GS Turbo.

Its stupid and not what the car is designed for. The Type R with a Turbo will need to have the compression brought down in order to allow for more thn 7 lbs of boost.

The Type R is already a high compression vehicle for a reason.

A friend of mine had a Jackson Racing Supercharger on his R when he bought it and when he took it to the track he went 14.6

When he took the JRSC off the R and added GOOD bolt ons he went 14.2

there many biased turbo guys on this forum. and many biases against the underdog of the boost family(the jrsc)

It's not a bias, it's common sense. The best exapmle is the JRSC - yeah, you can put a unit on a Si with Hondata and tune it to run mid 13's. If you stick the same amount of money into a turbo setup, it'll eat the supercharged car for lunch (no desert, either). I've seen the weakness of the JRSC firsthand as I've raced plenty of S/C'd cars on the 1320. The ones that are really fast are the ones with the Vortech - they've purchased the upgraded pulley and all the extras to include internals.

ok, you arent looking at the other reasons for buying a JRSC. JRSC is a HELL of a lot more reliable then a Turbo. If you are running your car on a track all day long a turbo is MURDER. (Im not talking 1/4 mile track).

If you run a JRSC at the track you run less chance of blowing up. Also the JRSC is constant power rather then a building turbo lag which if not tuned right can be hell on a track...

ok, you arent looking at the other reasons for buying a JRSC. JRSC is a HELL of a lot more reliable then a Turbo. If you are running your car on a track all day long a turbo is MURDER. (Im not talking 1/4 mile track)

I've seen this statement so many times. Prove it. :eek:

ok, you arent looking at the other reasons for buying a JRSC. JRSC is a HELL of a lot more reliable then a Turbo. If you are running your car on a track all day long a turbo is MURDER. (Im not talking 1/4 mile track).

If you run a JRSC at the track you run less chance of blowing up. Also the JRSC is constant power rather then a building turbo lag which if not tuned right can be hell on a track...

Ok so the extra strain and wear on the front crankshaft bearings from a s/c is realiable? Also any mod that is in the FI class will be murder on a motor if not tuned and used properly, no matter which one it is, Nitrous,turbo or S/C. I have also seen the results from a JRSC and it by all means was terrible for the money. There are JRSC gsr's and LS's here and the best time I have seen from them are in the low 14's and that is with the upgraded pulley for more boost. But the turbo integra's are in the 14's untuned and low 13's high 12's tuned, completely streetable and most daily drivers. Also not to mention that when you get the upgraded pulley for more boost on a JRSC you create even more stress on the front crankshaft bearings. I can't seem to grasp why people like using a mod that takes power to make power over a mod that just makes power.:screwy: A S/C is in no way more reliable than a turbo. It all comes down to tuning with noth and in the end the turbo will be faster for less and will run just as long. I have heard soo many reasons that people have came up with about this is the reason that a S/C is better etc, and all were just not true. The one I hear the most is the extra heat from a Turbo. Yes a turbo generates extra heat, but that is what you have an intercooler for, but wait how about the S/C? It creates extra heat as well, maybe not as much but no intercooler or anytrhing else for the JRSC!

If a b18c5 was in my hands I would leave it NA. Its personal taste, i would leave it like that because it has so much potential. When I was in Vancouver Canada I saw a ITR with full NA mods, headers, exhaust, intake, vafc, chipped, cams, gears, individual throttole bodies...pretty expensive mods but he had a dyno sheet proving that his Naturally Aspirated 1.8 liter engine put 235 horsepower at the wheels. Being modest thats more than 255 hp at the crank. If you ask me having a 9000+ revving NA engine producing 250 hp, is a marvel.

there many biased turbo guys on this forum. and many biases against the underdog of the boost family(the jrsc) The c5 will be ok boosting on a jrsc with the right fuel management and tuning. try hostboard.com for your jrsc questions. there are many many many integras on jrsc that have experience and a few that roam there with b16s. most of them are teg guys though. youll find a wealth of info there. heres the link

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/forum/f/110

good luck.


Thanks Bro for the link. REally found what I want to know there.
Many adviced me to go turbo instead of jrsc. In my opinion, if buying brand new jrsc, I would agree it is not worth the money, as compared to going turbo route. However due to many pro-turbo ppl, used jrsc can be quite a bargain. With proper tuning, sc cars are really very streetable, especially as daily driver who spends most of the time at the lower RPM ranges. Track use, go turbo. City streets, I just love the sprints between traffic lights.

JRSC is a HELL of a lot more reliable then a Turbo.
Oh, I had one more comment on the reliability issue - if they're so reliable, why aren't diesel trucks equipped with them? Those motors only last around a million miles, so I guess you think they're stupid for using them. :lol:

City streets, I just love the sprints between traffic lights.
Getting a used JRSC will definitely save you a lot of cash, good thinking. But, you're deluding yourself if you think that you're going to be eating Civics from light to light. Yeah, superchargers give instant power - what do you think that does from a dead stop? It spins the tires. So, while you're spinning I'm off the line. My turbo spools at about 2500 rpm, so that's maybe 1/2 a second the supercharger will save you until I hit full boost.

If I can smoke S/C'd Civics by the 1/8th mile mark on the track, what makes you think it'll be different on the street?

Boosting a Type R is like going all motor with an Eclipse GS Turbo.

Its stupid and not what the car is designed for. The Type R with a Turbo will need to have the compression brought down in order to allow for more thn 7 lbs of boost.

The Type R is already a high compression vehicle for a reason.

A friend of mine had a Jackson Racing Supercharger on his R when he bought it and when he took it to the track he went 14.6

When he took the JRSC off the R and added GOOD bolt ons he went 14.2

You can run more than 7 pounds of boost on a stock ITR motor, and your friend is a HORRIBLE driver if he goes 14.6 with a JRSC blown ITR.

You can run more than 7 pounds of boost on a stock ITR motor, and your friend is a HORRIBLE driver if he goes 14.6 with a JRSC blown ITR.

anything over 7 psi on a stock b18c5 daily driven is just plain stupid and is asking for trouble, or the guy simply has alot of money and just doesn't care about a fine piece of machinery.

with good tuning and engine management the type R will be fine

http://www.hondata.com/98sctyper.html

tuning and engine management can do wonders ;)

yeah i seen this a while back ago and was pretty impressed with the high psi numbers but wasn't impressed with the power it created especially for a high comp motor.

hmmm did u read the bottom of the page yet? it says they lowered vtec to 2000rpms, i don't know much on adjusting vtec to a lower rpm, but from what i heard it is actually bad for the car when it is brought down really low such as this.

i agree tuning and engine management can do wonders but i have doubts that car is daily driven.

yeah i seen this a while back ago and was pretty impressed with the high psi numbers but wasn't impressed with the power it created especially for a high comp motor.

hmmm did u read the bottom of the page yet? it says they lowered vtec to 2000rpms, i don't know much on adjusting vtec to a lower rpm, but from what i heard it is actually bad for the car when it is brought down really low such as this.

i agree tuning and engine management can do wonders but i have doubts that car is daily driven.

I wonder if it has enough oil pressure to actually lock the pins at 2K ?

I wonder if it has enough oil pressure to actually lock the pins at 2K ?

Side issue, how about adding oil cooler? Will it cause the oil pressure to drop and affect VTEC engagement?

I have a C5 w/ a JRSC just bolted on & I'm quite well enjoying it. I was N/A for over 3.5 years & just decided to give it a try. I have other bolt-ons than the SC alone & soon to go Hondata. But for now I'm happy.

Getting a used JRSC will definitely save you a lot of cash, good thinking. But, you're deluding yourself if you think that you're going to be eating Civics from light to light. Yeah, superchargers give instant power - what do you think that does from a dead stop? It spins the tires. So, while you're spinning I'm off the line. My turbo spools at about 2500 rpm, so that's maybe 1/2 a second the supercharger will save you until I hit full boost.

If I can smoke S/C'd Civics by the 1/8th mile mark on the track, what makes you think it'll be different on the street?

IF that's the case, then you are also saying N/A spins your tires because it is also INSTANT power, now why don't I always see that? I went to my nearest dragstrip a few times and the people driving turbo'd DSM cars and a Supra kept slipping their tires in second gear as well as a bit on first gear. Not sure about the superchargers though because I can't really tell if it is sc'd or not.

Who the hell are you guys? This thread is OVER a year old. This is my last reply, as I'm no longer an active member on this forum.

IF that's the case, then you are also saying N/A spins your tires because it is also INSTANT power, now why don't I always see that?
You have abolutely NO IDEA what you're talking about. N/A is NOT instant power unless you're driving a car inherently powerful, such as a WS6 Vette.
When you look at a dyno graph on a stock Civic the torque and hp doesn't peak until high in the rpm range. Yeah, you can drop the clutch to get the same response, but the torque curve of a s/c'd Civic is high at such an early point in the rpm range that when coupled with 1st gear (low gearing) it's common to see spinnnig tires. It's great with slicks or fat tires, though. Compared to a turbo setup running the same boost and everything else being equal, the S/C will lose every time because of it's inefficiency. Even Hot Rod agrees - turbo's rule.

Actually, the question is who the hell are you? Who cares how old this is, if someone were to make ANOTHER new thread similar to this one, you would just bitch about it and tell them to use a search. Now when someone HAS (assuming) used a search to find his answer and posts an unanswered question in an old thread as opposed to making a new one, you STILL bitch at him. You people are never satisfied are you? Double standards or something...

So, I am guessing that N/A takes time to spool up correct? When people say "instant power" they mean the power of their modified car the second you touch that throttle, and obviously not when HP or TORQUE peaks, because that would just be plain silly.

Torque is the measurement of how much mass an engine can pull, torque is not everything.


Compared to a turbo setup running the same boost and everything else being equal, the S/C will lose every time because of it's inefficiency. Even Hot Rod agrees - turbo's rule.


That's funny, if both an s/c and a turbo were running the same amount of boost pressure throughout the whole time, why would inefficiency have anything to do with it?

First off, you have failed to mention the type of s/c being discussed (so I am assuming you mean "roots"), second of all, s/c's have better throttle response and ACCORDING to YOU, the torque band peaks earlier, a turbo takes a while to spool up (a standard turbo) before it reaches the same amount of boost as a supercharger meaning there is a time lag between the 2, now if this was road racing or autocross, there would be some degree of lag between turns, while an s/c has boost right on the spot for each turn, the turbo'd car would lose a fraction of a second for each turn, and by the end of the run the s/c'd car would be in front by a few car lengths.

I also want to comment on turbos, they ARE JUST PURE power. They are excellent for drag racing or anything with plenty of high speed turns.

And about hot rod, I don't read their magazine and I could care less WHAT they say, after all it IS just the opinion of ONE person, just like the rest of us.

EDIT** Wait a sec, this thread isn't a year old what the hell were you thinking?

And about hot rod, I don't read their magazine and I could care less WHAT they say, after all it IS just the opinion of ONE person, just like the rest of us.
Right, you could care less about any FACTUAL data that years of experience and standardized testing have to say. That's why I don't participate here. Little unknowing fags like you have so much information to offer. :loser:

As for the turbo being good for drag racing and the other shit you said, that must be why they put them on millions of diesel trucks around the world. Let's not forget about the F350 turbo diesel - made just for autocross. Get a grip, get some knowledge, and then get some respect. They work in that order.

Don't change that username until you do so, because you'll surely be an "Auto_NEWB" until then. :grinyes:

That's funny, if both an s/c and a turbo were running the same amount of boost pressure throughout the whole time, why would inefficiency have anything to do with it?
Ever heard of heat-soaking? You're such a fucktard. :loser:

Right, you could care less about any FACTUAL data that years of experience and standardized testing have to say. That's why I don't participate here. Little unknowing fags like you have so much information to offer. :loser:

You're really silly how old are you, 12? What factual data? You've shown nothing except your opinion and other people's opinions. Don't participate here? Then how come you got 500 posts? What? Now you can't count? You also said you won't be coming back, yet you still do...


As for the turbo being good for drag racing and the other shit you said, that must be why they put them on millions of diesel trucks around the world. Let's not forget about the F350 turbo diesel - made just for autocross. Get a grip, get some knowledge, and then get some respect. They work in that order.

Turbo's ARE good for drag racing, if you have an automatic you CAN BRAKE BOOST all the way to max boost so that you are running full boost at launch. I didn't say anything about diesel trucks being good at autocross...

I have some respect around here, I don't have many posts here, but if you search all my posts, only 1 or 2 posts have been flames, you are obviously jealous that I get more respect than you, THAT is why you are so angry, plus YOU are angry because you have nothing to rebuttal against what I have JUST said. When I came onto this forum, I knew nothing about cars, and after reading post after post, and making lots and lots more threads I have gained much knowledge out of this, that is why my name is what it is, I knew nothing when I came here. But unfortunately, I cannot change it.


Don't change that username until you do so, because you'll surely be an "Auto_NEWB" until then. :grinyes:

Funny, this "auto_newb" has more respect than you do, people like you are the ones ruining this forum, posting flames all over the place and typing things irrelevant to the argue. Go ahead and leave, don't come back exactly how you said it, because when you do leave, we have one less person messing this place up.


Ever heard of heat-soaking? You're such a fucktard.

I believe that they both are the same, care to explain the differences smart one? If you can't explain it, then you are no better than the rest of your kind, eThug.

there many biased turbo guys on this forum. and many biases against the underdog of the boost family(the jrsc) The c5 will be ok boosting on a jrsc with the right fuel management and tuning. try hostboard.com for your jrsc questions. there are many many many integras on jrsc that have experience and a few that roam there with b16s. most of them are teg guys though. youll find a wealth of info there. heres the link

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/forum/f/110

good luck.I'd say someone needs to learn how to drive! I haven't been to the track yet since I installed my JRSC on my R but I can assure you it's a faster car now. :2cents:

Looks like I schooled him good.


I'd say someone needs to learn how to drive! I haven't been to the track yet since I installed my JRSC on my R but I can assure you it's a faster car now.

What are you talking about?

OOPS! My bad, wrong quote. Sorry.

auto_newb, stfu. you don't know what the hell you are talking about. sleeper does. everything he has said so far has been correct. please stop posting on this thread..it is dead. if you have questions about what he said, feel free to pm me.

auto_newb, stfu. you don't know what the hell you are talking about. sleeper does. everything he has said so far has been correct. please stop posting on this thread..it is dead. if you have questions about what he said, feel free to pm me.


Ok smart one, you managed to say in your post that he knows what he is talking about, but you have failed to mention what he said that has been correct.

This thread is not dead, what makes it so?
I bet you are "sleepercivic", your typing is alot like his.

And don't tell me to STFU unless you have anything that would rebuttal against my arguments, because it would make your post ever so pointless. :loser:

Yeah, i'm sleeper and i made this screenname 2 years ago and posted on it 500+ times so I could JUST annoy you. ok, let's start with you.

So, I am guessing that N/A takes time to spool up correct? When people say "instant power" they mean the power of their modified car the second you touch that throttle, and obviously not when HP or TORQUE peaks, because that would just be plain silly.

How can something n/a spool up? what the hell are you talking about. A turbo spools up. the rest is right.

Torque is the measurement of how much mass an engine can pull, torque is not everything.

No, that is not what torque is. Torque is a measurement of rotational movement. If your definition was true, then a ferrari with 500 ft*lb of torque would be able to tow more than a "f-350" with 380 torque. this is obviously not true.

Torque basically is everything. It is was gets the car moving from a stop in a drag race. It is what accelerates the car after slowing down to make a turn.

That's funny, if both an s/c and a turbo were running the same amount of boost pressure throughout the whole time, why would inefficiency have anything to do with it?

Because it take energy to make the s/c turn. It causes parasitic loss (like the a/c or alternator). I'm throwing out numbers here, but the theory is correct. Let's say boosting a motor 10 lbs. gives you 100 hp (just think of the numbers). With a turbo, you lose no power b/c the exhaust pressure gets wasted anyway and get 100 hp. With a s/c, you have to drive the pulley through the belt, so you lose 15 hp but are still boosting 10 lbs. So the turbo will give you 100 hp and the s/c 85 at 10 lbs boost. Make sense? That is the inefficency of a s/c.

First off, you have failed to mention the type of s/c being discussed (so I am assuming you mean "roots"), second of all, s/c's have better throttle response and ACCORDING to YOU, the torque band peaks earlier, a turbo takes a while to spool up (a standard turbo) before it reaches the same amount of boost as a supercharger meaning there is a time lag between the 2, now if this was road racing or autocross, there would be some degree of lag between turns, while an s/c has boost right on the spot for each turn, the turbo'd car would lose a fraction of a second for each turn, and by the end of the run the s/c'd car would be in front by a few car lengths.

It doesn't matter what time of s/c, they all work by having the pulely drive them.

A s/c does have better throttle response (not opinion). This is where turbo lag comes into play. They s/c is always spinning at the same ratio as the speed of the engine (the pulley multiples how fast the s/c spins). Since there is no peak of the s/c boosting, the maximum torque will be reached quickly. Ok, that is one hell of a run-on sentence you got there. The fraction of the second you lose from turbo lag is made up for from the parastic loss of the s/c. So a s/c will add 85 hp in 2 secs, but the turbo will add 100 hp in 2.5 secs. understand?

I also want to comment on turbos, they ARE JUST PURE power. They are excellent for drag racing or anything with plenty of high speed turns.

That is not factual. that is opinion. according to your theory above, wouldn't drag racing have the same affect (lagwise) as a low speed turn? You still have to shift and lower your rpm! Fact is, race cars which are allowed to be FI (like leMans) only use turbo. Think audi R8, porsche turbo, etc. etc.

And about hot rod, I don't read their magazine and I could care less WHAT they say, after all it IS just the opinion of ONE person, just like the rest of us.

Hot rod is a well respected magazine for the american car world. They know more than you, me, and sleeper put together. BTW, they love superchargers, but they also know their pitfalls.

You've shown nothing except your opinion and other people's opinions.

Unfortunately, we don't have time to cite graphs and reference articles to satisfy your curiosity. But we can tell you what we know and you can take it at face value.

Oh, I had one more comment on the reliability issue - if they're so reliable, why aren't diesel trucks equipped with them? Those motors only last around a million miles, so I guess you think they're stupid for using them.

Can you honestly even argue about that?

But, you're deluding yourself if you think that you're going to be eating Civics from light to light. Yeah, superchargers give instant power - what do you think that does from a dead stop? It spins the tires.

I went to my nearest dragstrip a few times and the people driving turbo'd DSM cars and a Supra kept slipping their tires in second gear as well as a bit on first gear. Not sure about the superchargers though because I can't really tell if it is sc'd or not.

That's the diff between a civic and a dsm/supra. a civic is fwd (so it can handle a lot less torque at launch) compared to a awd/rwd. And if you are burning your tires during the launch, you are not launching well. you should get nothing more than a slight chirp.

I have to get up @ 6:30 tomorrow for work, but i hope this satifies you. I put a lot of work into that so you should appreciate it.

Also, to learn more about turbo/super goto www.howstuffworks.com
you will learn a lot there. you have been a member for nearly a year, and you should know that people here know what they are talking about, even if they don't explain it all out. good luck.

How can something n/a spool up? what the hell are you talking about. A turbo spools up. the rest is right.


If you have to know, I was being sarcastic to him because he said N/a IS NOT INSTANT POWER.


No, that is not what torque is. Torque is a measurement of rotational movement. If your definition was true, then a ferrari with 500 ft*lb of torque would be able to tow more than a "f-350" with 380 torque. this is obviously not true.

Torque basically is everything. It is was gets the car moving from a stop in a drag race. It is what accelerates the car after slowing down to make a turn.

Ok so I forgot to mention it had to be rotational movement. I also don't know as much about torque so I will just leave it at that.


Because it take energy to make the s/c turn. It causes parasitic loss (like the a/c or alternator). I'm throwing out numbers here, but the theory is correct. Let's say boosting a motor 10 lbs. gives you 100 hp (just think of the numbers). With a turbo, you lose no power b/c the exhaust pressure gets wasted anyway and get 100 hp. With a s/c, you have to drive the pulley through the belt, so you lose 15 hp but are still boosting 10 lbs. So the turbo will give you 100 hp and the s/c 85 at 10 lbs boost. Make sense? That is the inefficency of a s/c.

Yes ok, but the turbo still is a restriction for the exhaust, so wouldn't that affect horsepower as well?
Yeah, that does make sense, but the guy said that the turbo'd car would win hands down.


It doesn't matter what time of s/c, they all work by having the pulely drive them.

A s/c does have better throttle response (not opinion). This is where turbo lag comes into play. They s/c is always spinning at the same ratio as the speed of the engine (the pulley multiples how fast the s/c spins). Since there is no peak of the s/c boosting, the maximum torque will be reached quickly. Ok, that is one hell of a run-on sentence you got there. The fraction of the second you lose from turbo lag is made up for from the parastic loss of the s/c. So a s/c will add 85 hp in 2 secs, but the turbo will add 100 hp in 2.5 secs. understand?

Of course it matters, a positive displacement s/c will have immediate boost, whereas the Centrifugal S/c will have to rise to a certain amount of RPMs in order to start creating boost, and it does so... Linearly (if that is a word).
Actually, there is a peak, on a centrifugal that is, because it builds boost as the RPMs rise.

Yeah I understand, but a centrifugal has less hp loss but whatever.



That is not factual. that is opinion. according to your theory above, wouldn't drag racing have the same affect (lagwise) as a low speed turn? You still have to shift and lower your rpm! Fact is, race cars which are allowed to be FI (like leMans) only use turbo. Think audi R8, porsche turbo, etc. etc.


Of course it is opinion, did I say otherwise? Drag racing is different because if you have an automatic tranny you can brake boost so that the second it turns green you are ALREADY running FULL BOOST. Of course they only use turbo, they have the money to do all these things, who wouldn't? That is just like comparing F1 to Indy, F1 cars got all these electronic gadgets in them that make them go faster, while indy cars are like a "poor man's" version of an F1 car, and obviously their cars are slower.


Hot rod is a well respected magazine for the american car world. They know more than you, me, and sleeper put together. BTW, they love superchargers, but they also know their pitfalls.


So what if they DO know more than us? I can never accept the fact that one thing is COMPLETELY better than the other, maybe for power production, BUT NOT EVERYTHING, as sleeper stated.


Unfortunately, we don't have time to cite graphs and reference articles to satisfy your curiosity. But we can tell you what we know and you can take it at face value.


Well that will do, the reason I said that was because you can't say "my friend says this and that... and they're the best". I have already told you the reason for my opinion above. I just can't stand people constantly telling others what to think without them asking a simply question "why"?


Also, to learn more about turbo/super goto www.howstuffworks.com
you will learn a lot there. you have been a member for nearly a year, and you should know that people here know what they are talking about, even if they don't explain it all out. good luck.


I have already been there. As a matter of fact maybe half the people on this board are just sheep, they don't know what they're talking about, as long as the majority says something, it just HAS to be right. Therefore, they may never know the reason behind what they have been reading.

Isn't the point of this forum sharing knowledge? If you don't know the reason, and nobody explains it, you'll never know the reason.

Yes I appreciate your reply, unlike sleeper's dumb@ss replies I have actually learned a thing or 2 out of this.

BTW, I hope you're not directing this comment at me:

That's the diff between a civic and a dsm/supra. a civic is fwd (so it can handle a lot less torque at launch) compared to a awd/rwd. And if you are burning your tires during the launch, you are not launching well. you should get nothing more than a slight chirp.


Because that was sleeper's comment...

EDIT* one more thing, since you're obviously turbo biased, please learn more about superchargers so you can understand what "we" think. I sure as hell read alot about turbos already, so I know the differences almost inside out.

It amazes me how it seems that every time that the subject of a Jackson SC is brought up it most always turns into a TURBO vs SC debate. I myself like both the turbo & the SC & they both have their place. This is why I don't post alot in here much. No matter how fast it is, it's only a car.:2cents:

i think i have a valid opinion in this because ive owned a supercharged car and have participated in driving and building a few turbocharged cars. now regardless none of them were hondas because when it comes to hondas i think they should be NA as mine was. but i will say that for small displacement motors s/c's are the wrong choice. now let me explain why. first of all most small displacement motors are on FWD chassis cars. and the last thing you want is instant torque and hp on a FWD platform. even for autocross, would you want your tires spinning coming out of every turn? also the parasitic loss of the pulley is much greater than that of the exhaust restriction. a good average most tuners go by is that for every 100hp gained by a sc 30hp is lost from the pulley. also smaller motors have a harder time turning the sc due to lack of displacement like my corrado. it made a great flat power curve but if i had turbo my peak hp would have been much much higher. also turbos have much more potential. you dont see any 600hp s/ced hondas out there do you? why? because they cant flow like turbos can and put strain on the motor. anyways thats good for now i have to go but ill be on later. see what you guys think about that

first of all most small displacement motors are on FWD chassis cars. and the last thing you want is instant torque and hp on a FWD platform. even for autocross, would you want your tires spinning coming out of every turn?

Actually, the wheels have a better chance of slipping if the car was turbo'd, because the sudden jolt of power will break traction. If instant torque and HP on a FWD is a problem, I guess leaving it N/a is a problem too, because guess what? That is instant torque and HP.

And if you have your wheels slipping at the exit of every turn in a SC'd car, the problem is the driver not being smooth with the throttle NOT the SC itself.


also the parasitic loss of the pulley is much greater than that of the exhaust restriction. a good average most tuners go by is that for every 100hp gained by a sc 30hp is lost from the pulley.

That is a false statement, not ALL SC's have 30hp robbed for every 100 hp gained. The difference is with a SC you are ALWAYS on boost, and when you got a turbo, you are on boost only sometimes.


you dont see any 600hp s/ced hondas out there do you? why? because they cant flow like turbos can and put strain on the motor. anyways thats good for now i have to go but ill be on later. see what you guys think about that

Yeah sure, have you heard of the comptech S2000's? They don't turbo that.


I think you don't have any experience with supercharged cars, never driven them, never raced one. You are also obviously turbo biased.

both turbo and superchargers have their pros and cons. Correct me if im wrong but when comparing--the same motor, one with a turbocharger running say 8 psi and a supercharger running the same the wheel Hp on the turbocharged car would be higher because the supercharger is belt driven. but hey i love them both--depends what your into.

Actually, the wheels have a better chance of slipping if the car was turbo'd, because the sudden jolt of power will break traction. If instant torque and HP on a FWD is a problem, I guess leaving it N/a is a problem too, because guess what? That is instant torque and HP.

And if you have your wheels slipping at the exit of every turn in a SC'd car, the problem is the driver not being smooth with the throttle NOT the SC itself.


That is a false statement, not ALL SC's have 30hp robbed for every 100 hp gained. The difference is with a SC you are ALWAYS on boost, and when you got a turbo, you are on boost only sometimes.


Yeah sure, have you heard of the comptech S2000's? They don't turbo that.


I think you don't have any experience with supercharged cars, never driven them, never raced one. You are also obviously turbo biased.


youre a complete moron. i actually felt sorry for you in the beginning for all the stupid stuff youve said but now you go and attack me? i hate people like this man. check it out and pay close attention numbnuts, first of all my last car was 1990 corrado g60 with a lysholm twin screw supercharger. for your info thats the most efficient supercharger design ever put on a car and it will outflow any of your jackson racing or vortech superchargers. i owned that car for 9 months so dont tell me what i have and have not owned. also no NA is not a problem because there is never instant hp and torque. the revs must climb in order to produce power. if the car is kept within the powerband it will have power of course, but it would take a very very heavily modified honda motor to spin the tires out of a corner going NA, and even that would take an unexperienced driver. my point was that supercharged cars have a flatter torque curve and would spin the tires much easier than turbo or NA. yes a turbo spooling up could cause the tires to spin but that again would have a to be a heavily modified motor that is not designed for track racing. autocross cars that are turbocharged have extremely fast spooling turbos that do not spike in hp in the middle of the rev range. they maintain a minimal boost in power across the board and act alsmot as if the car were N/a. you must be referring to drag motors and only a newbie like yourself would see one of those motors in a track car. let me just say the inexperience shows in you. and about my statement that sc typically lose 30hp per 100hp was a generalization. thats why i said

"a good average most tuners go by is that for every 100hp gained by a sc 30hp is lost from the pulley"

it was an average but your stubbornness must have blinded you.

and lastly i have personally never seen a 600hp s/c s2000 but im sure theyre out there. ever seen a 600hp turbocharged s2000? i have. check out www.full-race.com and youll find one for example. also do a little of your own reseach and youll find a few turbokits for the s2000. go home little boy. you said it yourself

"When I came onto this forum, I knew nothing about cars, and after reading post after post, and making lots and lots more threads I have gained much knowledge out of this, "

you said you learned from this board? ever notice that half of everything on these boards is disputed and never settled? thats because most of the info presented here is false. i leaned from doing my own research on my cars, in books, and other reputable sources, not some forum where some schmuck like you could be on the other computer typing with his ass instead of his mind.

youre a complete moron. i actually felt sorry for you in the beginning for all the stupid stuff youve said but now you go and attack me? i hate people like this man. check it out and pay close attention numbnuts, first of all my last car was 1990 corrado g60 with a lysholm twin screw supercharger. for your info thats the most efficient supercharger design ever put on a car and it will outflow any of your jackson racing or vortech superchargers. i owned that car for 9 months so dont tell me what i have and have not owned. also no NA is not a problem because there is never instant hp and torque. the revs must climb in order to produce power. if the car is kept within the powerband it will have power of course, but it would take a very very heavily modified honda motor to spin the tires out of a corner going NA, and even that would take an unexperienced driver. my point was that supercharged cars have a flatter torque curve and would spin the tires much easier than turbo or NA. yes a turbo spooling up could cause the tires to spin but that again would have a to be a heavily modified motor that is not designed for track racing. autocross cars that are turbocharged have extremely fast spooling turbos that do not spike in hp in the middle of the rev range. they maintain a minimal boost in power across the board and act alsmot as if the car were N/a. you must be referring to drag motors and only a newbie like yourself would see one of those motors in a track car. let me just say the inexperience shows in you. and about my statement that sc typically lose 30hp per 100hp was a generalization. thats why i said

"a good average most tuners go by is that for every 100hp gained by a sc 30hp is lost from the pulley"

it was an average but your stubbornness must have blinded you.

and lastly i have personally never seen a 600hp s/c s2000 but im sure theyre out there. ever seen a 600hp turbocharged s2000? i have. check out www.full-race.com and youll find one for example. also do a little of your own reseach and youll find a few turbokits for the s2000. go home little boy. you said it yourself

"When I came onto this forum, I knew nothing about cars, and after reading post after post, and making lots and lots more threads I have gained much knowledge out of this, "

you said you learned from this board? ever notice that half of everything on these boards is disputed and never settled? thats because most of the info presented here is false. i leaned from doing my own research on my cars, in books, and other reputable sources, not some forum where some schmuck like you could be on the other computer typing with his ass instead of his mind.


Are you f*cking retarded? I made NO personal attacks, READ, read, and RE-READ.

Text is NO PROOF, if you had known more about superchargers you would know that the percent only goes for a certain type of SC not ALL types. You cannot be general unless you specify the type smart one.

"and lastly i have personally never seen a 600hp s/c s2000 but im sure theyre out there. ever seen a 600hp turbocharged s2000? i have. check out www.full-race.com and youll find one for example. also do a little of your own reseach and youll find a few turbokits for the s2000. go home little boy. you said it yourself "

Ok, so I made a bad statement, but everyone can SC or turbo just about anything.

"you said you learned from this board? ever notice that half of everything on these boards is disputed and never settled? thats because most of the info presented here is false. i leaned from doing my own research on my cars, in books, and other reputable sources, not some forum where some schmuck like you could be on the other computer typing with his ass instead of his mind."

Well apparently, the problem is retards like you giving false info for everyone to eat up, this forum isn't my only source, you idiot. How can I expect a person like you to know lots about cars when you can't even type any better than my 7 yr old brother?

It's so funny that retarded morons like you get offended so easily, just because I say you're turbo biased and don't believe you owned a SC'd car, it's like I said "I f*cked your mother" or something like that, what? Am I NOT allowed to have my own opinion?

To tell you the truth, the reason why people don't like this forum is because people like you blow up on the shortest fuse and spread it like a wildfire.

BTW Just in case you don't know, YES I AM ATTACKING YOU.

both turbo and superchargers have their pros and cons. Correct me if im wrong but when comparing--the same motor, one with a turbocharger running say 8 psi and a supercharger running the same the wheel Hp on the turbocharged car would be higher because the supercharger is belt driven. but hey i love them both--depends what your into.

That's exactly what I keep telling these idiots. But instead they bring more moron friends to flame on the board or something.

ok man you keep believing in youre own ways. obviously youre too set in your own ways to listen to others and reason. go on with your superchargers while others fly by you with their turbochargers. you still misunderstood half of what i said and you must have one genius brother to be able to type like me. i bet hes the one who taught you everything you know. youre the problem in these forums and you dont even realize it because you blame it on others. im done with this thread. if anyone actually thinks this guy makes a valid point go ahead and listen. i personally would be laughing at a supercharged type r motor. what a waste.

and yes you did make personal attacks as soon as you disputed everything i said and told me what you think i have and have not owned. that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but if you bring it out in the open then prepare to hear comments by people who know more then your puny little brain could comprehend.

Ok, Enough Of The Flaming. How About U Guys Debate This Like Grown Ups.

Ok, Enough Of The Flaming. How About U Guys Debate This Like Grown Ups.


that would be a great idea if this guy knew how to talk to people. it seems hes the only one on his side of the argument and he still wont listen to anything we have to say.

ok man you keep believing in youre own ways. obviously youre too set in your own ways to listen to others and reason. go on with your superchargers while others fly by you with their turbochargers. you still misunderstood half of what i said and you must have one genius brother to be able to type like me. i bet hes the one who taught you everything you know. youre the problem in these forums and you dont even realize it because you blame it on others. im done with this thread. if anyone actually thinks this guy makes a valid point go ahead and listen. i personally would be laughing at a supercharged type r motor. what a waste.

and yes you did make personal attacks as soon as you disputed everything i said and told me what you think i have and have not owned. that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but if you bring it out in the open then prepare to hear comments by people who know more then your puny little brain could comprehend.


Nothing is completely better than the other, I am not stating SCs are the "cure-all" devices, it only seems like it because you are obviously biased.

Funny thing, I misunderstood half of what you said? That's because the other half was just you telling me how you owned this sh*t and that sh*t, and the fact that I am stupid, because like your kind, at last half of your post MUST be :BS:

Funny thing how you said I made personal attacks, but you are obviously too lazy or stupid to quote them in order to prove it. I just said I didn't believe you owned a SC'd car, is that so much to ask for?

You're right, I am stubborn about this because I refuse to accept they are COMPLETELY better than the other, because we just haven't found it.

Yes, I know the turbo charged cars will blow past me, but they can do it all day, and guess what? I don't care.

I blamed you for starting the flame in the first place, remember? I obviously said something about your mom (apparently to you), so guess what? You flame me and start stuff, then when I rebuttal, you just KNOW that I am right so you cool off and make a pointless post to make a closure, and I doubt you will be coming back again, knowing that I will school you again. :owned:

"puny little brain could comprehend."
Wow, looks like at the end of the post you just gotta act tough, like a typical e-thug, putting gas on the fire.

that would be a great idea if this guy knew how to talk to people. it seems hes the only one on his side of the argument and he still wont listen to anything we have to say.


The "we" is the 3 turbo biased people who have yet to make rebuttals to my comments because all they can do is cry and throw things when they don't get what they want.

And if you come back, I'll bet you will say sh*t about my name, because you are an e-thug, with nothing better to say then stuff UNRELATED to the arguement.

BTW, if I have such a puny brain, why you bother wasting time arguing with me? Why did you get schooled so badly? Why do you feel that you need to insult me over the internet?

Lol, this is beyond hilarous.
#1 A properly sized turbo is more efficent than superchargers.
#2 Auto_newb you didn't school anybody
#3 "why do you feel that you need to insult me over the internet", kinda a hyprocritcal question if you ask me especially since you've dished out your fair of insults.
#4 NA cars do not have instant power, i think what your trying to say is that they have instant throttle response.
#5 As stated earlier it's almost retarded to supercharge honda engine's well most of them at least.
#6 you do know we are talking about FWD high revving honda's right?

Lol, this is beyond hilarous.
#1 A properly sized turbo is more efficent than superchargers.
#2 Auto_newb you didn't school anybody
#3 "why do you feel that you need to insult me over the internet", kinda a hyprocritcal question if you ask me especially since you've dished out your fair of insults.
#4 NA cars do not have instant power, i think what your trying to say is that they have instant throttle response.
#5 As stated earlier it's almost retarded to supercharge honda engine's well most of them at least.
#6 you do know we are talking about FWD high revving honda's right?


i think this is the smartest post in the thread so far. its funny that this guy thinks he "schooled" someone. we all just got tired of hearing your crap so we let you be to yourself. enjoy yourself buddy
Auto_newb :loser:

Lol, this is beyond hilarous.
#1 A properly sized turbo is more efficent than superchargers.
#2 Auto_newb you didn't school anybody
#3 "why do you feel that you need to insult me over the internet", kinda a hyprocritcal question if you ask me especially since you've dished out your fair of insults.
#4 NA cars do not have instant power, i think what your trying to say is that they have instant throttle response.
#5 As stated earlier it's almost retarded to supercharge honda engine's well most of them at least.
#6 you do know we are talking about FWD high revving honda's right?

1. I knew that from the start, never said superchargers were more efficient.

2. Then how come they haven't had anything to rebuttal with? Saying they are tired of hearing this crap is just a stupid excuse

3. Yes I know it is hypocritical, but tell me, have I insulted people who haven't insulted me first?

4. I meant NA instant power in the same sense they say "SC's have instant power"

5. I can't really comment on that, but there are some exceptions.

6. Somewhat, apparently.

From this point on, I will just have to put edman or whatever in my ignore list, second person on it. Since he obviously hasn't replied to any of my questions, and posts.

Funny how you said you are tired of hearing me, yet you still manage to come back to type a bunch of :bs: that doesn't relate to the topic, if you think you know better than me, how come you haven't replied to any of what I said, you haven't said anything to prove that I misunderstood half of your posts.

You know what? Don't bother replying this thread, get a new acct. because I won't be able to see what you post, in about 30 seconds after this has been posted up.


Now Genuine, from the looks of your post I hope we can discuss this in a civilized manner, it doesn't matter who loses or wins, just whatever works, and like this person, I sure as hell hope you don't get offended on the spot like these 2 e-thugs.

1. I knew that from the start, never said superchargers were more efficient.

2. Then how come they haven't had anything to rebuttal with? Saying they are tired of hearing this crap is just a stupid excuse

3. Yes I know it is hypocritical, but tell me, have I insulted people who haven't insulted me first?

4. I meant NA instant power in the same sense they say "SC's have instant power"

5. I can't really comment on that, but there are some exceptions.

6. Somewhat, apparently.

From this point on, I will just have to put edman or whatever in my ignore list, second person on it. Since he obviously hasn't replied to any of my questions, and posts.

Funny how you said you are tired of hearing me, yet you still manage to come back to type a bunch of :bs: that doesn't relate to the topic, if you think you know better than me, how come you haven't replied to any of what I said, you haven't said anything to prove that I misunderstood half of your posts.

You know what? Don't bother replying this thread, get a new acct. because I won't be able to see what you post, in about 30 seconds after this has been posted up.


Now Genuine, from the looks of your post I hope we can discuss this in a civilized manner, it doesn't matter who loses or wins, just whatever works, and like this person, I sure as hell hope you don't get offended on the spot like these 2 e-thugs.


wow if this guy actually puts me on his "ignore list" that will be the biggest bitch move ive evr seen on these boards. does he not realize i did reply to everything he said or is he just a moron? im just tired of replying over and over again. wow this guy acts like a little b#tch. oh is he going to cry now that an "e-thug" hasnt made a "rebuttal" to his comments? someone else please quote this in a reply so he can see it since hes too much of a b#tch to defend himself.

wa wa wa wa, are you going to go cry to mommy because the mean men on this board said some bad things to you? he just cant stand the fact that hes wrong so he keeps saying "you made no reply to what i have said" yes i did you retard!!! im just not repeating myself over and over again to someone who obviously cant read very well.

oh my bad he is ignoring me now. boohoo.

wow if this guy actually puts me on his "ignore list" that will be the biggest bitch move ive evr seen on these boards. does he not realize i did reply to everything he said or is he just a moron? im just tired of replying over and over again. wow this guy acts like a little b#tch. oh is he going to cry now that an "e-thug" hasnt made a "rebuttal" to his comments? someone else please quote this in a reply so he can see it since hes too much of a b#tch to defend himself.

wa wa wa wa, are you going to go cry to mommy because the mean men on this board said some bad things to you? he just cant stand the fact that hes wrong so he keeps saying "you made no reply to what i have said" yes i did you retard!!! im just not repeating myself over and over again to someone who obviously cant read very well.

oh my bad he is ignoring me now. boohoo.

Just thought i'd do you a favor.

Just thought i'd do you a favor.
thanks buddy :p

i'll do everyone a favor.

CLOSED