SuperChargeing b18c

[Felix]

Has anyone here supercharged a B18C? Specifically a vtir ?
If so what did it cost in total? Just curious, thinkin about it as an option.

[BLKCRX]

tuned them... they work very nicely... cost around 4500$ for the supercarger plus injectors + ecu

Regards James

[DC2108]

would it be better to supercharge or turboing it ?
money - power ?

[Spunkymonkey]

its very similar costs and gains from what I've read.

[kronjp]

What power increases are we talking for $4500?

[2NTICN]

if u want power ur probably better of going turbo, supercharger will only give u low end power where as turbo will give u much more top end, for an integra id recommend turbo over supercharging.

[saxman]

its very similar costs and gains from what I've read.
hp maybe, but I'm yet to see a supercharged honda make near the torque of a similarly equipped turbo'd honda

[Civic Type R]

remember the end result is only as good as the tuner. Most engine builders claim they can do it but usually end up building something that will blow after a month or two. I see it every time, so be carefull and chose wisely ;)

[joonix]

if u want power ur probably better of going turbo, supercharger will only give u low end power where as turbo will give u much more top end, for an integra id recommend turbo over supercharging.

Peak power.

What about drivabillity? The low end torque of a supercharger would provide a very nice experience.

[Felix]

Peak power.

What about drivabillity? The low end torque of a supercharger would provide a very nice experience.


Thats what i'm after. Low down torque.

[saxman]

Peak power.

What about drivabillity? The low end torque of a supercharger would provide a very nice experience.
go compare torque numbers between a s/c'ed honda and a turboed one.

turbos make way more torque

supercharger make more torque up to about 2500 rpm(obviously this will vary with a lot of things, but the point is they have the advantage to a very low number)

[string]

go compare torque numbers between a s/c'ed honda and a turboed one.

turbos make way more torque

supercharger make more torque up to about 2500 rpm(obviously this will vary with a lot of things, but the point is they have the advantage to a very low number)
That just doesn't make sense....

At any given RPM, if a S/C engine and T/C engine are both making the same power, they are producing the same ammount of torque.

"Turbos make way more torque" is the dumbest thing i've heard all day. Please don't go around spreading false information.

[smoknhothonda]

If you reread Saxmans post he said a supercharger makes more Torque up to 2500 RPM, but higher into the rev range a turbo will ultimately produce more torque in a Honda.


But hey Im no expert!

[string]

If you reread Saxmans post he said a supercharger makes more Torque up to 2500 RPM, but higher into the rev range a turbo will ultimately produce more torque in a Honda.


But hey Im no expert!
This may be true in some situations, but claiming that a "turbo charger will produce more torque" is a flat out lie.

[saxman]

This may be true in some situations, but claiming that a "turbo charger will produce more torque" is a flat out lie.
not really...

take a 200hp turboed b16 powered honda and a 200 hp s/ced b16'd honda, and I'd be willing to bet, unless under rather unusual circumstances, the turboed honda would make SIGNIFICANTLY more torque.


I suppose technically the s/c and the turbo do make about the same amount of torque, you're just using a lot of it up turning the s/c

[joonix]

take a 200hp turboed b16 powered honda and a 200 hp s/ced b16'd honda, and I'd be willing to bet, unless under rather unusual circumstances, the turboed honda would make SIGNIFICANTLY more torque.


That's an incorrect blanket statement.

It's a moot point anyway. What really matters is where in teh rev range torque is made.

The advantage of the supercharger is that it makes torque low in the rev range, potentially improving standing accelleration and everyday drivabillity moreso then a turbocharger setup typically will.

Peak power matters to dyno queens, not street cars (or the majority of track/drag cars).

Given unlimted funds, I'd choose a SC setup. Being the frugal person that I am, I find it very hard to pass up a turbocharged configuration.

[string]

not really...

take a 200hp turboed b16 powered honda and a 200 hp s/ced b16'd honda, and I'd be willing to bet, unless under rather unusual circumstances, the turboed honda would make SIGNIFICANTLY more torque.


I suppose technically the s/c and the turbo do make about the same amount of torque, you're just using a lot of it up turning the s/c
Why don't you break down the power losses even more.

I could say that my engine makes 120kw or so, but thats if you don't include the few kw turning the alternator, a few kw for compressing the air/fuel, a few kw for internal resitances on bearings and sleeves, a few kw for valve train.

If your measuring power output, at the wheels, or flywheel; Then no matter what you have done to your engine, any two engines at the same rpm and same power level will be producing the SAME AMMOUNT OF TORQUE.

POWER IS A FUNCTION OF RPM AND TORQUE

Supercharges usually give a lower power/torque output that turbo charged applications due to the work required in the compression process.

If you have a relatively low powered turbo setup comparing against a reasonable supercharged setup, producing similar peak powers, they will produce similar peak torques (assuming same engine).

[yourfather]

i suppose, the way I see it, is that turbo's use waste products of combustion process, while superchargers run like a leech directly with the combustion process, therefore, it's better to utilise the waste, rather than run it directly off the drive train...

plus, turbo's sound a lot nicer. :)

[saxman]

let me simplify what I'm trying to s ay by using real life examples

two jdm del sol SiR's in the UK. One I turboed, the other the guy supercharged using a vortech charger with an aftercooler. Both are running stock internalled B16as. Both are running about the same amount of boost. (we won't mention the supercharger cost about 4 times as much)

The turbo charged SiR dynoed at about 215whp/200ftlbs
The supercharged Sir dynoed at about 210whp/160ftlbs

whp output was about the same, torque was significantly more in the turbo.

true, it's a blanket statement, true, it's not always going to be that way, true, superchargers make their torque lower, true, their torque curves are much flatter

but in the situation of a turbo'd b series, I'm yet to see a supercharger make near the torque of a turbo, and in situations where a smaller sized turbo is used, I'm yet to see a supercharger b make significantly more torque down low as well.

[Fattony]

A big misconception that yous seem to be having is that you figure the only style of charger available will only give you low down torque ect, (this is called a positive dispacement charger) this is where the charger displaces a certian amount of air per revolution, and are what the jackson racing kits are made of. Though there is another variant of charger called a centrifical charger, which the boost level is proportional to throttle and rpm devoloped so only at WOT and high rpm will you get full boost, kinda like a turbo aint it. These kits are called a vortech and can be purchase through www.capa.com.au though come at a price. Though yes due to the high reving nature of the vtec motor a charger with legs is way better than a positive displacement charger which has no legs just bottom end.

[string]

i suppose, the way I see it, is that turbo's use waste products of combustion process, while superchargers run like a leech directly with the combustion process, therefore, it's better to utilise the waste, rather than run it directly off the drive train...

plus, turbo's sound a lot nicer. :)
The thing is, when you attach a turbo to your exhaust, the gasses no longer become waste.

You have added a huge restriction in the exhaust, so on the exhaust stroke, you are fighting to push the gasses out and over the turbine blades.

[yourfather]

yeah thats why you increase the diameter of your exhaust to reduce the amount of back pressure.

[cleary]

...If your measuring power output, at the wheels, or flywheel; Then no matter what you have done to your engine, any two engines at the same rpm and same power level will be producing the SAME AMMOUNT OF TORQUE.

POWER IS A FUNCTION OF RPM AND TORQUE
...


I always wondered what the relationship between torque and power was mathematically - do you have the exact formula?

googled: power(W) = torque(Nm) x 2pi x angular speed per unit time

Comparing a larger capacity engine (eg a 3.6L v6 commie engine) with a 2.4L accord euro engine which produce roughly the same peak power output at the flywheel - why is it that the larger capacity engine is able to make more torque? I always figured the engine capacity had to feature in the relationship somewhere ...
...or is this completely wrong and some kind of myth that's been perpetuated through generations?

ok working through a little more - torque is proportional to force and distance to the centre axis, so a larger capacity engine would (I assume) have a larger distance to the axis (camshaft?) and be able to exert more force to move the camshaft by having larger volume cylinders... heh, interesting :)

So getting back to the turbo making more power than a supercharger argument: the only thing the forced induction changes is the Force vector in the calculation of the torque, so provided you can get the same compression out of a supercharger as you can out of a turbo then they can make the same peak torque, and hence the same power, however the things that you need to take into account are what rpm range the increased torque is applied over (+ for the supercharger), and the extra losses you get from having to drive the turbo/sc (+ for the turbo I would guess) ... fascinating stuff :)

so the final decision would come down to the application of the engine, do you require a (possibly) lower peak torque (at the wheels) over a greater rev range, or do you want the (potentially) higher peak torque (at the wheels) applied over the smaller rev range?
heh - I've been wondering about all that stuff for a long time - glad I finally got it :)

[saxman]

A big misconception that yous seem to be having is that you figure the only style of charger available will only give you low down torque ect, (this is called a positive dispacement charger) this is where the charger displaces a certian amount of air per revolution, and are what the jackson racing kits are made of. Though there is another variant of charger called a centrifical charger, which the boost level is proportional to throttle and rpm devoloped so only at WOT and high rpm will you get full boost, kinda like a turbo aint it. These kits are called a vortech and can be purchase through www.capa.com.au though come at a price. Though yes due to the high reving nature of the vtec motor a charger with legs is way better than a positive displacement charger which has no legs just bottom end.
the del sol I was referring to is equipped with a vortech supercharger. I have a friend with a jrsc'd sol and the story is the same.



I always wondered what the relationship between torque and power was mathematically - do you have the exact formula?

googled: power = torque x 2pi x angular speed per unit time

Comparing a larger capacity engine (eg a 3.6L v6 commie engine) with a 2.4L accord euro engine which produce roughly the same peak power output at the flywheel - why is it that the larger capacity engine is able to make more torque? I always figured the engine capacity had to feature in the relationship somewhere ...
...or is this completely wrong and some kind of myth that's been perpetuated through generations?

HP=(Torque x RPM)/5252






and yes, a turbo will require some engine work to make it well, work. However, the power usage to turn a turbo is SIGNIFICANTLY less than the parasitic drag of a supercharger

[HondaLva]

hmmmm......what about decompression? Do u have to decompress the engine say a B18c2...with a Supercharger or is it more important with turbo charging?

[saxman]

turbos and superchargers do the same thing... you're shoving more air into the engine


you don't have to lower the compression for either, and anyone who says you must shouldn't be trusted with your car