Anyone near Mississauga area got a supercharged s2k?
04-24-2012, 07:49 AM
#11
04-24-2012, 09:30 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the essence of the s2000 is totally lost with a turbo, the entire point of the car is to keep the engine screaming and live in that high strung power band. If you want low end performance maybe the S2000 wasn't the right choice?
It's my belief that mods to the s2000 should enhance what Honda gave us not change the entire nature of the beast. At the end of the day thats your call on what you want to do but the SC approach compliments the S way better than a turbo especially for your power goals.
Not to down play the hard work of people who TC their cars, it just isn't for me.
It's my belief that mods to the s2000 should enhance what Honda gave us not change the entire nature of the beast. At the end of the day thats your call on what you want to do but the SC approach compliments the S way better than a turbo especially for your power goals.
Not to down play the hard work of people who TC their cars, it just isn't for me.
04-24-2012, 09:32 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-24-2012, 09:34 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ludeboye1' timestamp='1335240273' post='21637040
[quote name='FluKy15' timestamp='1335237088' post='21636905']
What are your goals with your car? Track, autocross, power, straight line speed?
What are your goals with your car? Track, autocross, power, straight line speed?
[/quote]
The S/C are pretty weak under 4-5k, you won't notice a difference, as boost builds linear with RPM. There are a million online arguments regarding the two, but my personal opinion is that I prefer the predictable power curve of the S/C, also how much time do you spend below 4k on a track? Low end is important, but our cars are geared so short that I really find it a non issue.
04-25-2012, 09:30 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 668
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya that's a tough call, I just went SC because of the linear power (you wont spin as easy on the track) as well as less bugs and a little better reliability of the tranny and diff.... but turbo is sweet because for the same dollars spent you can have a WAY better power-band (like 50-120whp difference at lower rpms)
so really if you have some spare coin in case shit breaks and want a more straightline/ street glory car then go turbo, if not SC is the way to go.
so really if you have some spare coin in case shit breaks and want a more straightline/ street glory car then go turbo, if not SC is the way to go.
04-25-2012, 04:57 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FluKy15' timestamp='1335240912' post='21637077
[quote name='Ludeboye1' timestamp='1335240273' post='21637040']
[quote name='FluKy15' timestamp='1335237088' post='21636905']
What are your goals with your car? Track, autocross, power, straight line speed?
[quote name='FluKy15' timestamp='1335237088' post='21636905']
What are your goals with your car? Track, autocross, power, straight line speed?
[/quote]
The S/C are pretty weak under 4-5k, you won't notice a difference, as boost builds linear with RPM. There are a million online arguments regarding the two, but my personal opinion is that I prefer the predictable power curve of the S/C, also how much time do you spend below 4k on a track? Low end is important, but our cars are geared so short that I really find it a non issue.
[/quote]
Cant you run a smaller pully to have higher boost at lower RPM, then to keep the power under control have a BLV for the top of the rev range so you dont go past say like 14 psi ?
04-25-2012, 06:54 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not pointless, getting higher power earlier in the rev range seems like a great reason. From the research ive done SCs run cooler and have less problems in the long run than turbo setups. You're not really losing power just limiting how high the boost can go so it plateaus instead of continuing to build up as the revs rise.
04-25-2012, 08:23 PM
#19
Originally Posted by FluKy15' timestamp='1335406064' post='21643776
You could... But pointless no? If that was the goal, then just go turbo. Losing power up top sucks though.
Not pointless, getting higher power earlier in the rev range seems like a great reason. From the research ive done SCs run cooler and have less problems in the long run than turbo setups. You're not really losing power just limiting how high the boost can go so it plateaus instead of continuing to build up as the revs rise.
04-26-2012, 05:47 AM
#20
Originally Posted by Reapur' timestamp='1335408898' post='21643928
[quote name='FluKy15' timestamp='1335406064' post='21643776']
You could... But pointless no? If that was the goal, then just go turbo. Losing power up top sucks though.
You could... But pointless no? If that was the goal, then just go turbo. Losing power up top sucks though.
Not pointless, getting higher power earlier in the rev range seems like a great reason. From the research ive done SCs run cooler and have less problems in the long run than turbo setups. You're not really losing power just limiting how high the boost can go so it plateaus instead of continuing to build up as the revs rise.
I don't get why people say turbo changes the character of the car if Honda made a S3 with the same power band down low everyone would be on it. Turbo is definitely better power delivery but I think I am going with a supercharger for now just to get use to a it and then later upgrade to a turbo when I feel more confident doing work on these.