Honda and Acura Car Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Sup fellas !
i have 97 2.2 CL 5spd which is same thing as 97 Accord EX
onnesly i m just looking into these 2 things
what are segestions what is better for daily driving ......... i m looking for more power but i m not gonna downstrip my car and drag race it . I just want it to be qicker.
and what kid on $$$ i m looking at ?
Any opinoin would help !
Thanks
 

· Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
They're both pretty much correct, though turbo lag is an overplayed issue. For daily driving (mainly street driving), the SC is much more practical than the turbo as its power delivery is instantaneous. If you do alot of hwy driving, you might prefer the turbo as it pulls harder (than the SC) at midrange and topend, AND is more tuneable.

However, this Turbo vs. SC debate is a moot point when it comes to Accords as there is no SC avail for the F-series Honda motors; just Turbo kits. If there were such SC kits, I would have purchased it by now. :D

f23a4
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
I woud go supercharger because they are more reliable, and they provide max boost from very low rp 's compared to turbo's which gives you more torque...good for daily city driving. A typical kit would probably run around $1500-$2500 depending on type of supercharger. I really don't know about labor though.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
2JZBoost said:
I woud go supercharger because they are more reliable, and they provide max boost from very low rp 's compared to turbo's which gives you more torque...good for daily city driving. A typical kit would probably run around $1500-$2500 depending on type of supercharger. I really don't know about labor though.
but like f23a4 said, there isnt a sc kit out for the f-series engine.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,213 Posts
i like the idea of a turbo CL. it'd be different and a big sleeper too.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
I don't know. From what I have read, superchargers are really bad on your engine when you push them hard. But keep them at a safe boost and superchargers are good. I guess the same goes for turbos though. I drove the turbo beetle today. damn, its pretty quick. Lates
 

· Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
SohcVtecTurboHB said:
i like the idea of a turbo CL. it'd be different and a big sleeper too.
yeah thats kinda what i was looking wor ............. there are some CL's with turbo and Nos <-----i really dont want that stuff.
But yeah it would be deffenetly different.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
F23A4 said:
They're both pretty much correct, though turbo lag is an overplayed issue. For daily driving (mainly street driving), the SC is much more practical than the turbo as its power delivery is instantaneous. If you do alot of hwy driving, you might prefer the turbo as it pulls harder (than the SC) at midrange and topend, AND is more tuneable.

However, this Turbo vs. SC debate is a moot point when it comes to Accords as there is no SC avail for the F-series Honda motors; just Turbo kits. If there were such SC kits, I would have purchased it by now. :D

f23a4
Thanks a lot man ! Well overall i really dissapoint to find out that they dont make one for ride ! :(
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top