just wondering if anyone can tell me if it would be better to put a turbo or supercharger on my 03 v6 accord and why.

 

i dont know WHY, but ive always seen accords with turbos and not superchargers. for me, the turbo is more of an import thing and the supercharger is more muscle but thats a dumb answer lol i dont know why mechanically.

 

The reason is not really mechanical, its personal choice... Superchargers are usually a little harder to find, and are usually above $3k... Turbos are easily found and can be as cheap as 900 dollars and even some high end kits are only 2k, so it is cheaper and easier to just go turbo...

 

so there wouldnt be a substantial power difference if i chose one over the other?

 

Superchargers can absorb up to one/third of the total crankshaft power of the engine and in many applications are not as efficient as turbochargers.

There are three main categories of Forced induction:
Centrifugal turbochargers are driven from exhaust gases.
Centrifugal superchargers are driven directly by the engine via a belt-drive.
Positive displacement pumps such as the Roots, Lysholm, and TVS blowers.

The thermal efficiency, or fraction of the fuel/air energy that is converted to output power, is less with a mechanically-driven supercharger than with a turbocharger, because turbochargers are using energy from the exhaust gases that would normally be wasted. For this reason, both the economy and the power of a turbocharged engine are usually better than with superchargers. The main advantage of an engine with a mechanically-driven supercharger is better throttle response, as well as the ability to reach full-boost pressure instantly. But with the latest in turbo technology, throttle response on turbo cars is nearly as good as with mechanically-powered superchargers, but the existing lag time is still considered a major drawback, especially considering that the vast majority of mechanically-driven superchargers are now driven off clutched pulleys, much like an air compressor.

Turbochargers suffer to a greater or lesser extent from boost lag, in which initial acceleration from low RPMs is limited by the lack of sufficient exhaust gas pressure. Once engine RPM is sufficient to start the turbine spinning, there is a rapid increase in power, as higher turbo boost causes more exhaust gas production, which spins the turbo yet faster, leading to a belated "surge" of acceleration. This makes the maintenance of smoothly-increasing RPM far harder with turbochargers than with engine-driven superchargers, which apply boost in direct proportion to the engine RPM.

 

Turbos make a lot of backpressure for the exhaust, so they DO have a hit on efficiency. It's not "FREE" energy. To make 3psi of boost you take a lot more than 3psi of exhaust backpressure. Still, it's an advantage for power. Not always an advantage for efficiency depending on how it's controlled.

 

This makes me think about the complications of having a turbo and supercharger. Lag time would be erased, but would the added air from the turbo make up for the energy loss on the crankshaft from the SC? Lets say could you save money and have better pros to cons ratio by doing a dual build vs buying a bigger costlier single one?

 

If your going to think about saving money, then don't do neither one . Both are going to cost you Money, Gas usage and other parts that you will need to go with after and during your install.
If you like to hear something cool, then go with the supercharger..it sounds much heavier..

WheelBrokerAng

 

My buddy lets me drive his F-150 Lightning from time to time, and man I looooove the sound of the SC!!!!!