Turbo Vs Supercharger

My Question Is What Is Better For A B16 A Superchager Or A Turbo Kit???

thats a matter of preference what is this car going to be a daily driver or u going to use for racing only?

racing only!!

turbo always better, does not take away power like the super charger does...daily driven you can always go with a super charger but you might regret getting it when you lose quick to a turbo car...lol

ok thanks for the info ok guys

no problem

turbo always better, does not take away power like the super charger does...daily driven you can always go with a super charger but you might regret getting it when you lose quick to a turbo car...lol
How exactly does a supercharger take away power?

It's belt driven. It takes power to spin the belt.

How exactly does a supercharger take away power?

Superchargers are classified as positive displacement components, i.e. it takes engine power to operate them. Its kinda like your A/C, power steering, etc. The more the engine revs, the more power available for the supercharger.

Argument for and against superchargers: Superchargers are capable of providing power where small displacement Honda engines need it most; down low. Because they are powered by the engine's powertrain, it spools up right away and provides good consistent throttle response. Because it is powered by the engine's powertrain, it is also limited by the amount of horsepower the engine can produce.

Argument for and against turbos: Turbochargers are powered by exhaust gases. It takes wasted energy and uses it create momentum to spool up the turbo. Whether your car is 130 HP or 300 HP w/o the turbo, if the car can produce exhaust then it can power the turbo. I tend to call the turbo "The Great Equalizer". The turbo is only limited by how much horsepower the bottom end can handle before buckling. The main downside to turbos is that they take time to spool up. The bigger the turbo, the longer it will take. Turbos are more efficient for mid-high rpm hp & torque.

Both systems create heat and must be monitored carefully for detonation. So, basically, what it comes down to is where do you want the power most, down low, or up high, (i.e. fast launch or superior overall momentum all the way to the redline)?

Oh yeah,

Since you have a B16 which is a VTEC motor, I am inclided to recommend the supercharger to complement the high horsepower VTEC system with good low-end grunt. However, if you had a non-VTEC engine like a B18B LS motor, I would recommend a turbo to complement the B18B's good low-end torque with high horsepower momentum

I tend to agree...with the supercharger you could have the low end power and not have to wait for a turbo to spool up.

its all preference, take the Old One from ENDYN, he has a supercharged Si that has like 480 HP (of course no one else can get the SC for now, but eventually :))

alot of people talk about superchargers for b16s in EFs but i hardly ever seen any of these setups.

i see so many b16 turbo setups. must be for a reason. :2cents:

i see so many b16 turbo setups. must be for a reason. :2cents:

yea b16's are cheap and everyone wants a turbo, i dont agree with turbo b16's unless they are fully built, their compression is too high and any b16 we get for an ef obd0...im sure had seen its share of lead foot drivers and vtec wompers and im sure they are beat in some how some way and couldent hold much boost without failure

if you have a b16 and want to go forced induction i would say supercharger or nitrous but why not just go all motor if you already have a high compression high revving motor?

this taken from homemadeturbo.com forums.....

1991 Honda Crx SI
Turbo B16a w/ ITR Pistons (stock/stock)
ITR Intake manifold
ITR Cams
JG Cam Gears
Custom Turbo setup running 14psi
T3 .60/.63
2.5DP w/ 3 exhaust / 2.5 charge pipes
Custom Coach IC
RPS Turbo Clutch
Hondata

277whp / 211tq

thats pretty impressive if you ask me.

There was a guy around here who had a 4g CRX with a b16 and jackson's racing supercharger. Never got to see him run or anything but id imagine it'd be pretty quick. Clean lookin car and he sold it and was askin like 15k, too much if u ask me even though he had kit and all that shit.

2nd gen rex

CSC = Centrifugal SuperCharger.
SC = SuperCharger
Turbo = Turbo.

OK, good. Let's start with efficiency...

Both turbos and superchargers compress the air and force it into the engine. In doing so, they heat the air, and this is the measure of efficiency- the less heat, the more efficient. There are several design factors that affect the thermal rise of the charge air- internal aerodynamics of the compressor (I'm referring to turbo, SC, and CSC), internal surface area, and the number of direction changes the air has to make. Hands down, a centrifugal compressor (turbo and CSC) wins this contest. It has less internal surface area, the air has to make less turns (it really only makes one turn), and due to the design, it is FAR more aerodynamic. Roots type compressors like the JR units will never see more than 55% efficiency. Centrifugal compressors can have efficiencies as high as 80%. The less heat you make, the higher the detonation threshold is. The higher the detonation threshold is, the more boost you can run. The more boost you run, the more power you make. With the Roots compressor and its lower efficiency, it feels slower because it's making less power. What do people do? They turn up the boost with different pulleys. What does this do? It makes more heat. What is a not so obvious consequence of heat in a Roots compressor? Decreased clearances between the rotors and the housing, as well as thermal expansion of the rotors themselves. The rotors can expand to the point of cracking and shedding their ceramic coating, as well as grinding away some aluminum from the housing. Guess where all this stuff goes next? Even if this didn't happen, you're limited to about 12 PSI in an unmodified Roots compressor due to thermal rise. Above 12 PSI, you have to add so much fuel and retard the ignition so much to overcome the heat- induced detonation, that you start to lose power. The cost of modifying a Roots compressor to achieve power above 12 PSI outweighs the actual gain in HP.

Now let's talk about lag...

Yes, turbos have lag. This is not bad, however. First off, though, let's look at why they have lag and why the lag is good. Turbos have lag because they are not an RPM based device. That is, they are not confined to a set speed dictated by crank RPM like an SC and CSC is. Why this is good is that it'll only give you the boost when you need it. The SCs are boosting all the time, constantly drawing power from the engine. The reason you don't see boost at partial throttle is because they have diverter valves to bleed off the boost when the engine VE doesn't need it. Basically, you're making power and throwing it away without using it. Kinda like buying gas and then dumping it out on the ground. At partial throttle, the turbo is spinning along, but not fast enough to make boost because it's a CFM dependent unit. The more air the engine can move through itself, the faster the turbo will spin. Off boost, you retain stock drivability and gas mileage with a turbo. With an SC, you gain a touchy throttle and wasted energy. Another great thing about the turbo and it's lag, is that you're less likely to have traction problems right off the line, and in a light FWD car, this is paramount to performance. With the advent of modern aerodynamics and ball bearings, turbo lag has pretty much been eliminated above 2000 RPM with the proper setup. Sure, the JR unit boosts 2 PSI at idle, but who drives around at idle? I don't. Do you? With a proper, thought out turbo setup, you can have little lag and haul ass top end, and virtually zero lag from the midrange on, and when you're racing, this is where the performance counts.

Now, if you'll noticed, I haven't mentioned the CSC at all in this part. Why? Because it combines the worst of both worlds- the parasitic drag of a supercharger, and the turbo lag of a grossly mismatched turbo. Now, since it's a supercharger, the compressor RPM is a fixed value of the crank RPM, meaning, if the crank is turning X RPM, the compressor wheel is turning Y RPM. It is a linear relationship and never changes. Since the CSC uses a centrifugal compressor like a turbo, the boost pressure and CFM rate increases proportionate to compressor RPM. That having been said, the faster the compressor spins, the more boost it makes. Since you don't want to over boost the engine (let's say for the sake of argument, the max. boost pressure is 10 PSI), the maximum boost pressure RPM is reserved for absolut engine redline. If it were set for 4000 RPM, the engine would overboost above 4000 RPM and blow up. Now, since the boost pressure is only achievable at absolut redline, the boost pressure rise is a function of the square of the crank RPM, that is, at half RPM, you'll be making one fourth of your maximum boost pressure in the case of a B16 set to run 10 PSI, that comes out to 2.5 PSI at 4000 RPM. Compare this to a modern turbo that will make 10 PSI by 3000 RPM, and I'm sure you'll see why Vortech superchargers havn't taken the import world by storm. I'd rather wait a second for full boost, than to wait 'till redline.

Cost vs. HP...

For this comparason, I'm going to use a D16Z6 in a 5th gen hatch because this is where my personal experience comes in.

I spent around a grand on a budget turbo setup for my '93 Si hatch and ran 10 PSI. I saw positive pressure as low as 2000 RPM, full boost by 2700 RPM, and above 3300 RPM, I had instant full boost when I floored the pedal. A friend of mine had an '89 base Civic hatch with a Z6 and a JR SC in it, for which he spent about $2600 on just the blower. We were both running FMUs, and he was running 10 PSI as well. He had a weight advantage of about 300 lbs. Off the line, he had me. For about 10 feet. By the time I was at 4000 RPM in 1st gear, I was next to him, and by redline, he was at my rear bumper. By 100 MPH (roughly a 1/4 mile for me), he was a good 30 yards behind me. I have no idea what this equates to in HP difference, but a 90' lead at the end of the 1/4 mile is considered a solid trouncing.

Conclusion...

SCs have their place- low RPM, high torque applications such as two stroke diesels found in cranes and graders. Turbos do too- under the hood of a car owned by anyone that's serious about going fast. CSCs have a place too- the Dumpster.

This article was posted by LOCO MONKEY in the Hondaswap.com forums who is a VETERAN when it comes to this stuff. He knows his ! If you got any questions or comments talk to him....and be prepared to feel dumb as hell.

lol sorry bout that it was a 4g hatch...idk why i said crx.

this taken from homemadeturbo.com forums.....

1991 Honda Crx SI
Turbo B16a w/ ITR Pistons (stock/stock)
ITR Intake manifold
ITR Cams
JG Cam Gears
Custom Turbo setup running 14psi
T3 .60/.63
2.5DP w/ 3 exhaust / 2.5 charge pipes
Custom Coach IC
RPS Turbo Clutch
Hondata

277whp / 211tq

thats pretty impressive if you ask me.
1989 Honda Civic Si
D16A6
Endyn Modified Eaton M-62 supercharger (27 psi)
1.70:1 rod length to stroke ratio
de-stroked and overbored displacement from 1.6 to 1.54 liters
11.2:1 static compression on pump gas
61mm throttle body
modified OEM cam
stock valve springs
modified Kamikaze 4-1 header
stock 5-speed transmission with Quaife LSD
aluminum Clutchmasters flywheel
dual-Kevlar disc clutch

29.3 mpg

11.04 seconds at 134 mph
487 hp @ 7,300 rpm /tq, a whole hella lot, thats all i know

slightly more impressive in my eyes:)

oh, and it looks stock (sleeper style baby)
http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/22838/index.html