I see ... sort of like a knife being "similar in performance" to a gun since they both can kill people.

 

Yes, I don't like incomplete and "leading" titles either. Editing it this time. Next time, I ask that the author be more descriptive.

 

- uh oh, here we go again..

 

sorry guys.

i wish there was a way to have a "constant boost" but woulden't installing a smaller pully per say 20 psi, eventually reach that 20 psi at redline? Although, it'll create more stress on the supercharger.

I was thinking similiar terms although since I have a FMIC I'm expecting boost loss but by upping the boost it'll compensate. I wonder how to build that up w/o blowing the motor. maybe theres a way to use a smaller pully but not be able to redline our cars. I don't know i think i'm confusing myself

 

I think with an centrifugal supercharger you can keep still the character of the S2000 (need to rev it to get power). I like this, so i choosed the supercharger on my setup to add about 100 hp.

On the other side a turbo will turn the s2000 in something different (powercurve changes way more).

 

Try this article - It briefly explains the differences between the three types (roots, cent, and screw):

http://www.automotivearticles.com/Supercha..._Choices_.shtml

 

[QUOTE=gernby,Dec 8 2004, 04:29 PM] I'm sorry for being an ass, but how is a turbo even remotely similar to a centrifugal SC?

 

A properly sized and spun roots SC will actually emulate the powercurve of the S2000 far more closely than a centrifical. You'll get the exact same rush to the redline, bulding HP all the way. The only difference is that you start out with more power down low.

 

The guy that I was responding to said a centrifugal SC is most similar in performance to a turbo. Unless you think that his statement is correct, why are you correcting my response? I agree that they are fairly similar in design, but they have extreemely different performance.

EDIT: Looking back, I see that I left the "in performance" out of my response... sorry.

 

I'm not trying to come off as someone who is "correcting you". This is just my humble opinion.

Actually, I'd still say the centrifical is the closest to a turbo in performance. Not that they are identical, just that they are more similar to turbos than Roots or Lysolm designs.

By performance, I mean

kind of performance
not
how much performance.

I've lurked on this board for years and always chuckled a bit at the SC vs. Turbo debates. The familiar quote was,"if you want low end torque, get a turbo". In regard to what was available for the S2000 (Vortech/Paxton/Turbos) this was true. But on almost any other car forum where Roots & twinscrew setups were available the argument is completely opposite. Turbos have more low end than Centrificals but Roots & Lysolm generally have more low end, by far, than turbos.