[removed satisfying but inflammatory reply]

You say I'm taking your statements out of context. PLEASE define your context as it's not obvious to me. It appears that you're trying to speak in absolutes. The world doesn't work that way. Gimme that Honda engine, I'll break it off just as nastily as I could a turbo or NOS engine.

If one builds an engine from the outset to deal with the stresses expected, it will last a LONG time, turbo or whatever.

 

I just did! And your taking things completely out of context. The reason turbos and nos wear on engines heavier is because of TOO much stress on the internal components. For example lets take things to extremes A dragster has to be rebuilt after every run BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING PUT UNDER SOOOOOO MUCH STRESS and hondas they practicley never have to be rebuilt if left stock and maintained properly etc because they have practicly NO STRESS ON THEM

So if im still confusing you SluttyCoxfest or watever your name is; if you turbo or add Nos to a stock engine it will significatly reduce the life of your engine

there is said!

Banned for one week for flaming.

 

Well, i and some of the guys over at club-honda.no were discussing the amount of air a B16A2 engine sucks in in a second... here is whet one of the guys came up with:

En bensinmotor operer med blandingen i en 12.5:1 ratio (ca). 12.5 deler luft og 1 del bensin. Grovt estimert blir luftforbruket:

Hvis motoren forbrenner 1 liter bensin, som ca veier 0.9 kg, da må luftforbruket være 0,9 * 12,5 = 11,5 kg luft.

En kubikkmeter luft veier ca 1.24 kg, ergo vil motoren forbruke 11,5/1,24= 9,3 kubikkmeter luft.

Bruker du 1 liter bensin pr mil i 80km/t så har du brukt denne literen bensin på 7.5 minutter, eller 450 sekunder.

Luftforbruket er da 9300/450 = 20,7 liter luft/sekund

(thanks to Hondaen)

well.it`s in norwegian. anyway, the deal is that even a 1.6 litre engine scuks in over 20litres of air per second and it would be significantly more for a 2.7litre Legend engine. Check what the electric thingie can flow. if it is more than the engine sucks, it should work... right...?

Oh. and as far as i have experienced, turboengines use less gas than N ones, but that is if you are carefull with the trottle.. also, isn`t it the turbo that usually wears out first and not the engine itself..?

thanks

 

As long as you can increase VE more than you increase parasitic power loss, you should do okay.

Still, I can't understand why anyone would comprimise the inherent simplicity of a turbosupercharger by piggy-backing a heavy electric motor onto it with the attendant wiring complexity issues.

If instant boost is the goal without using nitrous or a mechanical supercharger, look WAY out of the box. As all things, balanced comprimise is the driver and, in my opinion, this aint the way to get it. Low-rpm nitrous seems the best to me.

Of course, this could just be an amusing engineering exercise, like solar-powered racers. Precisely stated goal, precisely stated techologies to use, totally unusable as a replacement passenger vehicle for use by the masses. There will be some useful automotive technology that trickles out of the program but I think it's headed the wrong direction.

 

Don't waste your money on these. I was thinking about getting an electric supercharger too, but it looks like these things don't do crap. I was reading this supercharger article, and it looks like these things don't work at all

 

Very interesting article, I remember I paid $40 once for one of these on Ebay and didn't do crap

 

there are only 4 ways to get power
-build motor
-turbo (a real one)
- supercharger
-and spray nos

 

How much will you be willing to pay for a supercharger kit for the Gen. 2 legend, which will be using a twin-screw supercharger?