95 Accord vs. 99 civ si
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 268
From:
RE: 95 Accord vs. 99 civ si
Well, superchargers<turbos more than 90% of the time imho. There is more power loss from a supercharger and it also wears your engine down faster. They also tend to be less compressor efficient. I kinda think theres a reason that the major 4cyl. forced induction cars (STI, EVO, STR4) are all turbocharged. I don't know whey chevy went with a supercharger...
As far as the civic, as everyone else has said, hes definitely got you because it weighs so much less. You could always throw a nitrous kit on there and take him down though
.
As far as the civic, as everyone else has said, hes definitely got you because it weighs so much less. You could always throw a nitrous kit on there and take him down though
.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 268
From:
RE: 95 Accord vs. 99 civ si
Don't know man, don't you think that something running off a pulley right on the crank may cause more harm/stress than something running off the exhaust gases? I certainly could be wrong, but I know that a properly done turbo setup will last the engine 90% of an engine's life compared toif the enginewere n/a. Also keep in mind the supercharger is running 24/7 (I know there are a few expensive exceptions), whereas a turbo onlyprovides its power when you pass the boost threshold.
Unregistered
Posts: n/a
RE: 95 Accord vs. 99 civ si
Well turbos are WAY more efficient than superchargers. Turbos use the exhausts wasted engery to create more power, while superchargers use the engines power to create more power. So in theory you are getting free horsepower. Go turbos!!!
