I CANT MAKE A DECISION!!! Jrsc or edelbrock.

[weederr33]

HKS

[86TOYO2k17]

If going JRSC why not just go turbo?

[milanojess]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

If going JRSC why not just go turbo?

Turbo lag? I think EB is more suitable for street and more immediate power. I am happy with JRSC for its more NA like snd that’s just me

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by milanojess

Turbo lag? I think EB is more suitable for street and more immediate power. I am happy with JRSC for its more NA like snd that’s just me

Seems like the reason to go SC would be low end torque, flat torque “curve”, and instant throttle response. In which case a positive displacement SC would be better then a centrifugal SC.

A well designed setup with a properly sized turbo can make the same power as a JRSC with practically no lag and stress the engine less. Or make 5-10% more power with minimal lag and stress the engine the same. Downside really only is heat management if tracking.

Just seems like what a SC excels at edelbrock/harrop/sprintex do it better.
And what the JRSC/HKS excels at in comparison, a turbo could do better.

Still not a bad option or setup none the less just my opinion.

[Irace86.2.0]

I have Harrop, so I would vote for them. Power is great, but all superchargers require you to rev them to get the power. Turbos have to deal with turbo lag and turbo threshold, but they typically hit more torque than superchargers down low if they are properly sized; that’s why manufacturers can claim full boost/torque at low rpms like under 2-3k. Superchargers hit peak boost at redline, so even a roots/pos displacement supercharger will still need to be rev’d out to make decent power. The torque down low will be better than a centrifugal supercharger, but not like a turbo could be.

I haven’t driven a JRSC’d car, but I would go with Harrop or Edelbrock. You still need to rev the car out to get the power (when you can’t downshift), but you will appreciate the low end torque. That low end torque puts more risk on the rods, so JRSC will be more reliable.

[Marcoscrdo]

obv turbo, but since its between jrsc/edelbrock i would choose the edelbrock bc trq and manifold. It will "feel" faster and pull harder if it makes more trq. With the manifold I am sure future upgrades and power boost will come in handy.

[Grady]

One of the reasons superchargers have lower TQ is because we are measuring at the wheels. The engine is still making the TQ and internal stresses are close. Remember some of the TQ is going out the front of the engine to run the supercharger.

With that a small turbo this engine that is sized for 300 to 400hp max, has little lag.

Ether supercharger will make you happy, or turbo they are all good. The key is proper tuning to keep from trashing your engine.

[strat61caster]

+1 talk to tuners you may use about UEL headers and E85 use and their experience, if that's not serious then you're just judging based on centrifugal vs. positive displacement. The canned tunes that come with them are fine (and what I'm basing my decision off of because emissions)

I like the JRSC because it seems they have better thermal management (track day bro) and none of the drivability issues the Edelbrock had early on which I think are mostly fixed now.

But the Edelbrock has that low end punch for traffic and cone dodging. I've waffled on the two for years and am probably still 3 years away from doing it. With no serious driving though and the fact that you probably spend 98% of your driving below 5k rpm I'd think the Edelbrock would be more satisfying.

[BRZ Guy]

HKS V3

Or...

SBD turbo

[86Tony]

None go turbo instead trust

[sroby]

Agreed the hks looks and operates cool JDM. But HKS,s us customer service blows in the US

[shr133]

I'm going to go to go with a edelbrock. The difference is the instant torque and better low rpm torque. The jackson makes better top end power but as a daily, I'm never really over 6000 very much. So I want the most low end torque and I have an auto...

[toast]

If you have an auto I would definitely say Edelbrock. My only complaint about it is the power delivery due to the vacuum actuated bypass valve. Throttle response just off idle is equivalent to stock with the AC running and then you give just a tiny bit more throttle and it is enough that the bypass valve cracks open and suddenly you have a lot more. Makes everyday driving a little more annoying, especially if the roads aren't smooth and a bump changes your throttle position by half a millimeter. Add in an aftermarket clutch that you are going to need and it gets even worse. With a slushbox this won't be an issue.

Edelbrock really needs either an electronic bypass valve or a vacuum one with an adjustable spring so that you can tailor it to your needs.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Seems like the reason to go SC would be low end torque, flat torque “curve”, and instant throttle response. In which case a positive displacement SC would be better then a centrifugal SC.

A well designed setup with a properly sized turbo can make the same power as a JRSC with practically no lag and stress the engine less. Or make 5-10% more power with minimal lag and stress the engine the same. Downside really only is heat management if tracking.

Just seems like what a SC excels at edelbrock/harrop/sprintex do it better.
And what the JRSC/HKS excels at in comparison, a turbo could do better.

Still not a bad option or setup none the less just my opinion.

Exact opposite. The quicker/earlier the turbo spools, the more load it puts on your rods and bearings, and the more you're stressing your engine.

No matter how well done the turbo setup is, turbo lag is a thing. It's just physics.