Turbo vs. Supercharger comparision - Dyno graphs inside!!

[CarterRace.com]

We have had the privilege to work with Jason (Picketeg) over the last couple of years - first tuning his JRSC LS setup and now tuning his new PeakBoost turbo setup. The motor is a pistons / rods LS with 10:1 compression on stock sleeves, ported head and the regular bolt ons. The new turbo kit works MUCH better then the old JRSC. The difference in the supercharger and turbo are very apparent in the following graphs. SUPERCHARGER - 12PSI TURBO - 9PSI So, with less boost on the same exact motor and setup you get the following results. To most people, this is a known fact - but I still like posting real info that compares the to forms of forced induction. The turbo car is on less boost and makes tons more power and tq. I like the graph becuase it really blow the whole "yeah but while your spooling..." arguement out the water. Amazing isn't it?

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Honda-Tech!

[95jeremie]

good info
thanks

[Sr420Det]

Yeah who races below 3500 rpms anyways.

[hctahrsg]

true that

[JRSC01GS-R]

looks like it was a nice upgrade

now lets see what she does with more boost

[spets]

I thought Pickleteg has a Synapse kit, not a peakboost?

Anyway, nice numbers.. makes me think about dropping my JRSC setup as well and going turbo.

[Nichelson_Performance]

turbos sound sweeter too

[SpoolnG2]

What size turbo are we looking at with 9psi? Wow, thats a lot of boost on a JRSC too. Cool comparison though ...

[rdssk8rcs1]

did the jrsc kit have any type of intercooler?

[rmcdaniels]

Wow, 200 whp on 12 PSI of boost, that's just sad. I made almost 300 on 8 PSI of boost, are superchargers better now?

Way to compare two completely different compressors and come to the wrong conclusion

The differences in the turbo and the supercharger are very apparent to anyone who knows how to plot lbs/min of air on a compressor map. Comparing a tiny compressor running way out of it's efficiency range with a properly sized compressor running in its efficiency range will always yield these kind of results, regardless of whether it's a turbo or SC.

[Runnerdown]

Its a synapse kit, not peakboost.

[Urban_Indian]

Originally Posted by rmcdaniels

The differences in the turbo and the supercharger are

that superchargers on hondas are gay.

end of story, end of discussion. Why waste that kinda money on a supercharger if you make >300whp.

[rmcdaniels]

This subject always brings out the dumbasses.

[I CRX I]

yea...graphs are nice and all, but anybody ever run a 250HP jrsc'ed b series vs a 250HP turbo'd b series on either the strip or road course? that would be interesting! from what ive seen, the goal of a JRSC was never to yield astounding dyno sheets but rather to yield a pretty mean, reliable, b-series motor and anything over 280 on a stock motor can be made reliable with the right tuning but the key words are "Right Tuning" which can be costly and hard to obtain. a SC, which can be had for $2100 nowadays brand new, is pretty reliable right out of the box. but i must say, i love both and would take which ever came to me first at the cheapest price.......oh wait, i already did.....

[street dream gsr]

a SC revolution in the making...

http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1997913

[CarterRace.com]

To the supercharger guys - Relax. Superchargers don't actually suck, they just aren't as good as turbos

[CarterRace.com]

RMC - Please don't think I am just comparing this one situation...we build tons of cars here at the shop and this is years worth of experience. I know that a supercharger can make good power, but the torque delivery and free power of a turbo are tough, if not impossible to beat.

[LastGenEK]

[quote=I CRX I]yea...graphs are nice and all, but anybody ever run a 250HP jrsc'ed b series vs a 250HP turbo'd b series on either the strip or road course? that would be interesting! from what ive seen, the goal of a JRSC was never to yield astounding dyno sheets but rather to yield a pretty mean, reliable, b-series motor and anything over 280 on a stock motor can be made reliable with the right tuning but the key words are "Right Tuning" which can be costly and hard to obtain. a SC, which can be had for $2100 nowadays brand new, is pretty reliable right out of the box. but i must say, i love both and would take which ever came to me first at the cheapest price.......oh wait, i already did.....
QUOTE]

I Think you would have to try to de tune any B to make 250hp turbo on any b series

and jrsc would be maxed haha

[rmcdaniels]

Originally Posted by CarterRace.com

RMC - Please don't think I am just comparing this one situation...we build tons of cars here at the shop and this is years worth of experience. I know that a supercharger can make good power, but the torque delivery and free power of a turbo are tough, if not impossible to beat.

Yeah, it's just that comparing the performance of an M45 compressor that's being operated way off the top right side of it's map with a properly sized turbo isn't really valid as far as a "Turbo vs. Super" comparison. Then you get the H-T dumbasses that chime in with "SC's are gay" or "you would have to try to de tune any B to make 250hp turbo on any b series" after you just posted a dyno of a tuned B-series making 250. Any compressor (turbo or SC) is going to perform generally in accordance with it's map or thereabouts; JDogg and I pushed the hell out of a GT28RS on my old B16 and it kept delivering to 400 WHP (and that was on crappy B16 cams), but I think that's an exception to the rule. I know a guy with a 600+ WHP supercharged setup that he drives daily and the torque delivery is almost flat from just off idle. When he hits the gas it scares the crap out of you. Of course it's not an M45 (or a B-series), but pushing more than a few lbs/min with an M45 isn't really anything that anyone should be trying anyway. My modified M90 has been mapped on a blower dyno at 80% efficiency pushing 45+ lbs/min of air at a 2.2 pressure ratio, which compares favorably with about any turbo that you can find. The big advantage of a turbo is that the power transmission from the engine to the compressor is fluid (not literally fluid, but fluid dynamics fluid), so you just need a pipe, and the pipe can be pretty much any shape (log, top-mount, Squire's setup, etc) as opposed to the mechanical transmission mechanism of a SC that needs a properly aligned and rated belt, tensioner, pulleys, etc. There are some tradeoffs to that coupling mechanism though, if I close the throttle plate then I instantly lose all of the volume that drives my turbine, while a SC keeps it's momentun as long as the engine is spinning. That results in some torque delivery advantages when rolling on the throttle coming out of a turn, but that's a legitimate benefit/advantage discussion based on an intended application. Even the dyno graph that you posted has the SC on top under 3800 RPM, which is most of the time in daily driving, it just loses out if you wind it up. For the listed application I think that the turbo is a much better fit for a B18A/B that a JRSC kit, the JRSC kit has a seriously undersized compressor for that motor, but that doesn't mean that turbo/super.

[HiProfile]

Roger you talk about racing like the racer uses a setup that's not even close to conditions, and therefor substitutes with throttle response/linear power delivery. You also look at cars in terms of throttle possition being #1, but with a turbo you should only think about shaft speed as #1, with throttle possition simply being a way to change it. BTW with 99% of turbo setups, 0% throttle means the WG slams shut, and all exhaust gas (despite the lower flow) is used to keep the turbine moving. There's also that physical law that dictates shaft decelleration...

Roger I know you've 'done it all' with a Honda and probably some awd/rwd vehicles, but I'm starting to doubt you've done with with a smaller turbo as well. You talk about compairing a big turbo to an undersized SC, how about a small turbo to a small SC? With the right mods, both will have crazy response, and both will make decent power to redline. This goes neatly with your praise of SC's, as most OEM's use turbos to supplament lowend torque, rather than increase max output.

Conversely, with the right electronics, you can do what rally cars do and 'pwn' any supercharger - run very low vacuum idle (deactivate cyls to maintain rpm) and use anti-lag to keep the turbo spooled during shifting/etc. From a purist standpoint, designing an EMS from the ground up with those functions is as easy to implament as anything else. It just so happens that cutting, grinding, and welding a huge supercharger to fit is far easier than coding an entire EMS.

BTW I won't even get into sequential setups with a small & big turbo, or SC/turbo combos such as you designed. Thats a whole other can o' worms

[Urban_Indian]

Originally Posted by HiProfile

I Have Uncontrollable Knowledgeablilities

+1

[CarterRace.com]

NA = acronym for 'lost potential'

LOL!!

[rmcdaniels]

Those are some good points, and I've only taken a couple of turbo setups to road courses, a GT28RS and a GT3071R, both on 8.4-8.5:1 B16's pushing 20+ PSI of boost for around 400 WHP, and both of those setups are susceptible to the kind of throttle response and non-linear torque delivery that I really don't like.

I have talked to people who have run higher CR motors with bigger cranks and lower boost for a much flatter torque ramp than I had and they are great cars, they just don't have the ridiculous top end that I like (I know that's unreasonable, but it's what I like), although Cody Loveland's turbo S2000 looked really good:




As far as comparing turbo vs SC, I'm just saying make a comparison of properly sized setups before passing judgement on the merits of either. If the engine requirements plot roughly across the center of the map then I think that it's a fair comparison. Otherwise the problem isn't the nature of the FI device, it's the application that you're using it on. Practically speaking turbo wins that comparison on a Honda because of the availability of a much greater range of turbo setups, but that's not really a turbo vs. SC discussion, it's a matter of logistics.

If the big blower setup doesn't work out then I told JDogg that I'm going to say [freak] it put a SC61 on the car since I already have all the electronics for gear-dependent boost control and traction control. I don't know if I'll use anti-lag, I've tried it before and dumping fuel into the exhaust manifold does keep the turbine spooled, but it's pretty rough on the plumbing. I've also got a NA K24 setup that I've been thinking about assembling, but that's a last resort.

[PickleTeg]

WOW! Looks liek you started a shit storm CarterRace LOL. Really though guys...the M45 LS can only do so much...this is proven...I know I lived it. I just got greedy and wanted more power. If I coulda made 275 WHP in my JRSC setup I would have kept it...instead I traded it for a paint job and some body work.

For those " Superchargers suck" guys...well I liked mine very much...just got greedy is all....

Thanks Carter Racing for the tune and help with my "issues".

[Blown90hatcH]

Originally Posted by rmcdaniels

This subject always brings out the dumbasses.

+1