I got my TL about a month ago; Everyday I only have to travel about 2 miles to get to work and home. Don't do much driving outside of that aside from errands here and there and an occasional cruise on a nice weekend day.

What would be the 'safer' option? I wouldn't mind forging the engine and doing some tranny upgrades down the road but right now Im looking to run on stock internals.

I used to have a mustang that had a vortech supercharger and had no problems running on stock interals at 8psi. Would that be safe to run on the stock interals of an 07' base model TL or would i have to lower it to around 3-5?

Also how much would i be looking cost wise on a turbo kit? I know the comptech superchager is about $4500 online.

 

and apparently i dont know how to spell internals this morning.

 

we have a great turbo thread that outlines the trials of going turbo.
https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-112/turbo-kit-acura-tl-04-08-a-718808/

What you need to do is read and figure out whats BEST for you.

we can sit here and "spend your money" for you all day long
"go turbo!
No, go supercharger!
no, I said turbo"
etc.

Also with hondata dropping their flash tune for us; you're in for a great advantage for F/I.

How do I know ALL of this stuff, because I take the time to read the on going threads.


Here is a supercharger build going on:
https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-112/2012-supercharger-jr-ecu-build-841336/

there are countless threads on this subject; turbo or supercharger.
research more and figure out what route is you want to take.
then start your own build so that others can learn from you.

 

that thread is 149 pages; that would take days to read thru. lol

 

your loss.

 

here's the thread on Hondata:
https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-tl-performance-parts-modifications-112/hondata-flash-pro-07-08-base-tl-07-08-tls-876146/


I gave you some links, all you have to do is read.

 

In the end the turbo kit is gonna cost close to $10k maybe more depending on supporting mods.

Just wondering why you want to spend $5k+ on either kit for a car that you "Don't do much driving outside of that aside from errands here and there and an occasional cruise on a nice weekend day."

 

Buy Hondata Flashpro as your first upgrade. Where you go from here will require extensive work. Esp turbo. Will cost you $8K - $12K depending on your supporting mods. This will require you to do some fab work. Superchargers will cost you roughly right around $6K installed. With an engine management available, expect PSI to be 10 max on superchargers. Turbo's a different story since the bigger the turbo, you can tune 16 psi and still have a conservative tune. 8-12 psi's would be max from stock internals though.
If you don't mind tranmission work, you'll need $5K for additional upgrades once you are reaching those high numbers. Total work price: $19,000 for top notch products. Going custom may another option.

Enjoy your TL a bit more before you decide to dump some money in here. You might want to get a different platform to work with... I personally would love RWD.

 

^a little wrong info there.

the supercharger is limited to 6-8psi because of the blower.
mp62 is VERY underdriven for the 3.2l engine.

upgrade the blower to the mp90 and get more psi!!


this is why i've told the OP to read threads.
its just too much info to give cliffs.
if he wants to know more about a certain subject he can further research.

Also 9psi is almost at 500 horsies with the turbo, Bouncer.

 

It's not a matter of how much boost stock internals can handle, boost is irrelevant. How much hp they can handle is what you want to look at. The turbo TLs have no problem with 400whp as long as there's no detonation. Detonation will kill these engines at 300whp.

The turbo uses up zero hp from the engine. The supercharger eats up to 40hp. So if the turbo setup is safe to 400whp, the supercharged setup is safe up to 360whp.


Methanol injection is a must with the supercharger and highly recommended with the turbo to keep the engine alive. The pros/cons have been gone over many times so I'm not getting into that.

 

Supercharger: cheaper; easier/faster installation; less power but still pretty bad a$$...

Turbo: Faster; kinda expensive but & you'll be a pimp a$$ baller...

I'm sure there both pretty reliable with engine management software; just like anything just don't over do it & do some research...

Your lucky your a noob or you might have meet Justin in in not such a pleasant way ...lol...

 

Wants to go FI, spend 5-10k in order to do so, runs the risk of blowing motor if not done properly, yet not willing to take a few days to research and educate himself.


Seriously?

 

It really depends on what your goals are for hp/tq and how you want the power delivered. Give me a call at 203-483-6100 if you have questions still. It's too long to type.

 

^^^ Gotta Love A~zine ^^^


I believe the OP found the right site!...

 

IMHO, the existing threads are useless coming in new. There is so much conflicting and irrelevant information in 99% of the threads. Mods really should consider treating this as a technical forum and delete non-technical banter. Then it won't become a 200 page mess.

OP, I am by no means an expert but have hands on experience so PM me if you have any specific questions.

 

It would be nice to have a dedicated technical discussion area. Educated opinions are ok but off topic not allowed.

 

((boost psi / 14.7) + 1) x motor compression = effective compression.

The effective compression formula allows a supercharged motor to be compared to a normally aspirated motor. For the most part, a supercharged motor with the same effective compression as a (similar) normally aspirated motor with the same static compression should have about the same overall power. The main advantage of the supercharger is that it allows for a moderate compression level during normal driving (off boost) while allowing for very high compression levels when needed. Obviously a high compression motor of about 14:1 makes a lot of power, but it would never survive daily driving. A lower compression motor is great for daily driving, but greatly reduces the potential for power. The supercharger allows for higher compression levels than could be used without a supercharger, while still offering the benefits of a standard compression motor. Many street supercharged systems will go beyond 18:1 effective compression under peak boost. Under race conditions, many supercharged race motors will go well beyond 25:1 effective compression. Both of these levels are far beyond what could be done reliably or cost effectively without a supercharger. Anyone who has looked into supercharging has heard that you need a low (static) compression motor. This may have been true once upon a time, when roots type (positive displacement) superchargers and carburetors ruled the land, but it's not so necessary now. The problem with a low compression motor is that it relies heavily on the supercharger for its power. An 8:1 motor is definitely not going to be a power house. Sure, you can throw 18 lbs of boost on it and get some real power, but why? A higher compression motor of 9:1 or even 10:1 will have much more power without the blower. Then, with less boost you could easily have the same overall power - only it would be much more usable. Both of the motors (8:1 with 18 lbs boost and 9.5:1 with 12 lbs boost) will have almost the same effective compression and about the same peak power. The big difference will be where you see the power, and how much of a demand will be placed on the supercharger. Obviously, the 9.5:1 motor is going to have far greater torque and low end power as the boost is only starting to come in. It is also going to be much easier to find a blower to survive at only 12 lbs of boost -vs- one that would have to put out 18 lbs of boost. It is now very easy to see why a higher compression motor with lower boost is becoming so popular.
In my opinion, anything less than 8 lbs of boost is a waste of a supercharger. With a good motor compression, add as much boost as is safe for your particular application. Decide on a final effective compression, and work your way back through the formula to find your maximum boost level: ((effective compression / motor compression) - 1) x 14.7 = boost. With the proper fuel system and related engine components, an effective compression of 16:1 to 18:1 should be more than workable. Technology has come a long way and modern day supercharging should take full advantage of this.

Now comes the math part on PSI's. If you have a 3mm head gasket 10psi on 11:1CR equals 16psi at 9:1CR.

For people who think you need to lower your compression for more boost... it's not really needed. Lowering compression via thicker headgasket will reduce cylinder pressure. This allows you to boost more on pump gas, without breaking things.

The lower compression will make less hp/lb boost, but you can run more lbs boost, so it will make more hp *IF* the turbokit can flow well enough.

As to Justin on the 9 psi to 500 whp, it's all turbo efficiency and you are correct on the level of a turbo JnR uses for the TL.

 

I'll tear that one apart as soon as I have my coffee. My 8.5:1 engine does ok at 602rwhp which is over 700 at the crank as most new cars are measured. Effective compression is only one factor. I'll be back in a few after I get on the road.

 

The compression ratio from the factory will be different for naturally aspirated engines and boosted engines. Then there's the engine size difference and there is no single correct answer for every application.

 

I'm interested to see what IHC has to say. I'd like to know what effective CR is. After the boost has forced a metered amount of air/fuel into the cylinder and the valves close, how can it have an influence on the CR? This will be educational for me.

 

I didn't expect to end up in la today so I'll be short since I'm on the phone. Static compression is easy, it's the amount of squish, how many times smaller the volume of air in the cylinder is compressed. Effective or dynamic compression is after volumetric efficiency is factored in.

We all know that holding the throttle open produces higher numbers during a compression test because you're getting a higher volume of air in the cylinder on the intake stroke....you're starting with a larger volume of air. The mechanical or static ratio doesn't change but you still have a higher cylinder pressure. Same with rpms. More rpms up to a point will produce higher compression numbers because less compression is bled off during valve overlap. Both of these are increasing VE.

So now you take your glorified air compressor and shove another atmosphere of pressure and volume in the cylinder you're starting with twice the volume of air and fuel. Mechanical compression never changes (as long as we don't talk about rod stretch and such.

I'll have to finish later.

 

Yeah, I get that. The CR doesn't change because that is a mechanical/fixed equation. But depending on the volume of 'stuff' in the cylinder at the time it is sealed the pressures will be different. I didn't know that was called effective CR.

Thanks.

 

I'm just getting started but I'm at the doctor and kept getting interrupted so I had to give up for now. More to come.

 

Ok, now that I've mostly forgotten about that terrible day I can finish.

So there's the difference in mechanical or static compression vs dynamic or effective compression. The compression does help to make more power and better fuel economy not that you would notice under lots of boost.

However, while compression will raise power, the additional dynamic compression of a supercharged or turbocharged car is a tiny factor in the additional power production. What one of the above posts failed to take into account is the significantly higher air and fuel volume present which is the main contributor to the big bang.

An 18:1 dynamic compression ratio caused by 15psi boost will make MUCH more power than an 18:1 mechanical compression ratio with all else being equal. Or in other words you can't simulate what an engine will make with 14.7psi of boost by calculating power with twice the compression.

The additional compression is one of the main reasons the engine needs to run richer under boost and timing has to be retarded.

Direct injection has really brought out the potential of turbo engines, we're going to see more and more smaller turbo engines that can run 14psi on 87 octane with a "naturally aspirated" mechanical compression ratio. The trend is already there. Some are using the technology to have a small engine make the same power as a large engine for better mpg and some are using it to make a ton of power.

As most know, the less intake manifold vacuum you have (all else being equal) at cruise or during normal acceleration, the better the mpg. That's why smaller engines can get better mpg, the throttle is cracked open more so the engine is more efficient due to less pumping losses (the vacuum in the intake manifold, there's friction and all of that but that's not the point here). Make a weak (small) engine with the turbo to bring it back up to normal power levels and you have a throttle that's open even farther at cruise and normal acceleration, meaning less manifold vacuum. I've seen some where they're nearly in boost at normal cruise which is equal to full throttle without the turbo.

At 1/8 throttle my turbo car is leaving everything behind with some serious acceleration even though rpms hold steady around 2,500rpm. It seems to make a ton of power at very little throttle until you look at the boost gauge and see it fluttering between 0-3psi boost. So while I'm not giving it much throttle, it's accelerating hard because it's already in boost, or making more power than it would at full throttle without the turbo. You're going to have less manifold vacuum with a turbo car for a given amount of throttle and power and rpm, giving it better mpg.