02 si: turbo vs supercharger?

[miscreant]

heya.... i got a 2k2 civic si, mods currently are only an aem intake and a comptech exhaust. as i save up money, i'm wondering what i should be saving for: supercharger or turbo?
from what i've heard, k20's run with a lot of turbo-lag when a turbo is applied, but i figured i might get a few more opinions rather than toss the idea out the door entirely

thx much

[Ace$nyper]

well why not go all motor? Also i'm wondering what S/C would you get?

[hondaracer]

[quote=miscreant]heya.... i got a 2k2 civic si, mods currently are only an aem intake and a comptech exhaust. as i save up money, i'm wondering what i should be saving for: supercharger or turbo?
from what i've heard, k20's run with a lot of turbo-lag when a turbo is applied, but i figured i might get a few more opinions rather than toss the idea out the door entirely

This is what you gotta do.... Swap out that k20 and put in a k24. Lots of potential in that engine, seen it done to a 2002 si project car. Than they went all motor and damn..... thats all I can say cuz you can't say anything else when your in awe.....

[miscreant]

although swapping a crv engine for my civic engine sounds in the least "interesting", i think i'm gonna have to stick with my current engine due to a tight budget.
as far as the s/c goes i think jackson is abt the only supercharger manifold on the market? correct me if i'm wrong plz...?

[whtteg]

Just my Jackson racing super chargers suck for hondas and all other small displacement motors, I have seen too many JRSC tegs get thier a$$'s handed to them by N/A GSR's Just my opinon though and I think the turbo route would be better b/c you could build your own kit which will come out being a better kit in the end. But you could buy it peice by peice untill you have everything.

[miscreant]

very true. i just don't know how the engine will handle the turbo apparently not too many people have thrown 'em into '02+ si's, and that viscious rumor about the engine bogging down worse with the turbo than without has me a bit cautious.

[racespecialists]

sup,
SC kit is not bad but i would do a turbo kit. there is alot more you can do with a turbo kit.They are giving a free ecu upgrade with the kit also. let me know if you need a hookup for it.
mp

[SleeperCivic]

Hands down, a turbo makes more power at the same boost level than a S/C does. Don't beleive it, go to Hot Rod Magazine.com and check the past 3 months worth of titles. It's a major tech article called: Centrifugal vs Roots vs Turbo

Guess who wins??

[PWMAN]

Originally Posted by SleeperCivic

Hands down, a turbo makes more power at the same boost level than a S/C does. Don't beleive it, go to Hot Rod Magazine.com and check the past 3 months worth of titles. It's a major tech article called: Centrifugal vs Roots vs Turbo

Guess who wins??

That comparison was an out and out waste of time. Those stupid morons, they compared an intercooled turbo system to non-intercooled SC's. Hello? They were running like 6 more PSI on the turbo version than the SC'd comparisons. Of course it's going to win.
Anyway, JRSC's really suck big time. whtteg is right, roots don't do good on small displacement engines. Plus they are non-intercooled, plus roots SC's create the most heat therefore you can only run very little boost. if you go to jackson's website, they have dyno charts. And I find it hilarious, nobody that buys one has looked at these charts. They are only like 40 HP increases. And they claim ''from off-idle to max RPM'' which is a bunch of BS because even their own charts show NO increase until 3K RPM. And from 3K on up the HP increases by 10 per 1K RPM. So you do the math. An intercooled centrifical is the best way to go, as there is no turbo lag and gives nearly as good of results. The advances in supercharger technology is astounding, they are creating SC's with barely any loss due to the crank pulley. I'm talking it's so small, a 300 HP integra was loosing like 15 HP due to the pulley loss, and take into the consideration of turbo lag the SC'd car is going to be faster because the turbo car is going to be playing catch-up. And since most races only last about 10 seconds, that 1 second of turbo spool-up is really detrimental, I know because I have a turbo dodge daytona and my worst enemy on the street right now is turbo lag. It's like one of the most annoying things ever on a car.

[SleeperCivic]

Originally Posted by PWMAN

That comparison was an out and out waste of time. Those stupid morons, they compared an intercooled turbo system to non-intercooled SC's. Hello? They were running like 6 more PSI on the turbo version than the SC'd comparisons. Of course it's going to win.

That's B.S. Did you READ the article? They were all tested at 9.7psi. And, of course, they used an intercooler. Who wouldn't? Can you use one on a roots S/C? NO. Yeah, you can buy one for the Vortech, but then you've spent $4k. Not worth it in my book.

[PWMAN]

Originally Posted by SleeperCivic

That's B.S. Did you READ the article? They were all tested at 9.7psi. And, of course, they used an intercooler. Who wouldn't? Can you use one on a roots S/C? NO. Yeah, you can buy one for the Vortech, but then you've spent $4k. Not worth it in my book.

Well it was awhile ago. 4K? How much do you think the turbo kit costs for a V8? More than that. And you can get carbureted intercooled centrifical supercharger kits from Procharger for 2500-3000 dollars.
BTW, what is the website? It's not hodrodmagazine.com, I tried that.

[SleeperCivic]

Originally Posted by PWMAN

Well it was awhile ago. 4K? How much do you think the turbo kit costs for a V8? More than that. And you can get carbureted intercooled centrifical supercharger kits from Procharger for 2500-3000 dollars.

I was talking about the one for the Si. I'll find the article(s) and post them up. It was HotRod.com.

[boosted331]

Originally Posted by PWMAN

That comparison was an out and out waste of time. Those stupid morons, they compared an intercooled turbo system to non-intercooled SC's. Hello? They were running like 6 more PSI on the turbo version than the SC'd comparisons. Of course it's going to win.
Anyway, JRSC's really suck big time. whtteg is right, roots don't do good on small displacement engines. Plus they are non-intercooled, plus roots SC's create the most heat therefore you can only run very little boost. if you go to jackson's website, they have dyno charts. And I find it hilarious, nobody that buys one has looked at these charts. They are only like 40 HP increases. And they claim ''from off-idle to max RPM'' which is a bunch of BS because even their own charts show NO increase until 3K RPM. And from 3K on up the HP increases by 10 per 1K RPM. So you do the math. An intercooled centrifical is the best way to go, as there is no turbo lag and gives nearly as good of results. The advances in supercharger technology is astounding, they are creating SC's with barely any loss due to the crank pulley. I'm talking it's so small, a 300 HP integra was loosing like 15 HP due to the pulley loss, and take into the consideration of turbo lag the SC'd car is going to be faster because the turbo car is going to be playing catch-up. And since most races only last about 10 seconds, that 1 second of turbo spool-up is really detrimental, I know because I have a turbo dodge daytona and my worst enemy on the street right now is turbo lag. It's like one of the most annoying things ever on a car.

You're saying a CENTRIFUGALLY blown car has less "lag" than a turbo. That's retarded. Ever actually driven a car with a vortech, procharger, or paxton? No, didn't think so. They don't make full boost till right at redline. Even something as big of a T76 on a smaller V8 like a 302 will be making atleast 12 pounds of boost by 3000 RPM's, so if you're racing from a stop it gives you enough lag to get you out of the hole then it'll hold boost all through the gears, and if you're racing on the highway you downshift and you have full boost PERIOD. With a centrifugal you slowly ramp up boost till redline. Yeah, you're right. Centrifugals do have less lag

[PWMAN]

Originally Posted by boosted331

You're saying a CENTRIFUGALLY blown car has less "lag" than a turbo. That's retarded. Ever actually driven a car with a vortech, procharger, or paxton? No, didn't think so. They don't make full boost till right at redline. Even something as big of a T76 on a smaller V8 like a 302 will be making atleast 12 pounds of boost by 3000 RPM's, so if you're racing from a stop it gives you enough lag to get you out of the hole then it'll hold boost all through the gears, and if you're racing on the highway you downshift and you have full boost PERIOD. With a centrifugal you slowly ramp up boost till redline. Yeah, you're right. Centrifugals do have less lag

Actually it was a Powerdyne SC in an 88 5.0 mustang running 9 PSI non-intercooled. Instant throttle response, when you tromp it your eyes get sucked to the back of your head.
And I own a turbo car, so don't give me that crap about having instant boost on the highway. You have about an instant 4-5 PSI, but thats about what you would have with the SC too.
And BTW, some centrificals have BOV's so you can put a better pulley on and have full boost by whatever RPM you want, then it just stays there because the BOV in acting like a wastegate.

[edman24]

why are you people so insistent on instant throttle response? am i the only one here who doesnt like to sit at the light and spin their tires? with my sc i cant even go 75% throttle in first or 100% in second or ill spin my tires like crazy. i wish i had a turbo instead so i could get off the line then build power. and it does not take a second for boost to come on. we're talking a fraction of a second and then the turbo boosts. please do not bring american cars into this. they are completely different and irrelevant in this case. you will only confuse the guy asking the question.

go turbo man, sc should be saved for v8's