to each his own. we have yet to see a 200+ hp turboed fit from tr1 that is driveable on the streets. (same goes for the kwsc i know).

you could get it tuned, but the base map for the kw is easier on the wallet. tuning = time which is money and it also = money in general.

how do you figure the kwsc will be making such low torque?

at any rate, i'll take driveability and linear powerband over peakiness. just the way i roll. maybe if i was m/t i'd consider the turbo more closely,but the l series is no b series, and i think the low stress of the rotrex just suits it better.

 

from the dyno charts we've seen, the kwsc does make low torque, at least in comparison to the t1r. jdmchris was making 145whp 125 tq while the base for the t1r was 145hp 140tq, and all the way up to his 185hp he still made 180tq

and the turbo isn't necessarily peaky ;-P have you ever ridden in a turbo car? daily driving(in a... mild mannered way, lol) you rarely even spool the turbo above a couple psi, and the fit has plenty of power from 0-2500 rpms, besides, if you wanted linear power with a turbo, just launch from high RPMS, after that it's all the same as the SC when you're racing at least, just with more power. both gain boost as rpms go up, so the linearity is there.

also, the whole purpose of tuning is to make the forced induction easy on the motor, so I believe that -- if properly tuned -- the t1r kit will be just as reliable and give just as much motor life as the kwsc

 

i dunno if i'd still say that a turbo is linear. and yes i've ridden in plenty of turobcharged cars. from stock to small aftermarket, to huge intricate set-ups.

running an a/t, so launching at high rpms probably wouldn't be the best thing for me. (or if your m/t imo.)

both kits are good, one does a better job of acting like you just shoved a bigger engine into your fit, with no real weight penalties. and thats what i'm going for.

 

at the track all the A/T guys launch by holding the brake and putting the rpms up, then dumping the break like you'd dump a clutch, it works well :-D

and as for an MT, there's no racing without clutch wear :-P

but you're right, both kits are good, the supercharger I would say is good for someone who, like you said, wants to feel like they have a bigger engine in their fit, making the car more fun to drive and maintaining the same feel as the car had before, just with more power, while...

the turbo charger is good for someone who wants to max out on power, taking the intricacies of their engine into perspective in order to produce great amounts of improved performance, great for a daily driver, but better for the speed freak.

 

Yes, because do you know what power braking does to your torque converter? Power breaking is a good way to shit them that's what. You may be fine for awhile, but it won't be long before it goes.

Reliability is all in the tune. Supercharger, or turbo, the concept is the same. Out of the box kw is more reliable. But if you're willing to spend 4k on a turbo/sc setup, why not tune it, or spend $300 or so to get it tuned? Seriously, base maps are garbage, and always will be. No car is the same, so who's to say you aren't running rich as hell and putting a ton of carbon build up on your valves and in your ports? Not to mention what too much fuel can do to your rings. Running rich can be just as detrimental to the motor as running lean.

 

Most turbo to s/c cars/trucks etc....that do upgrades are usually on the richer side....I mean how do they shoot fireballs? I would think un burnt fuel....meaning running rich no?

tonyd

 

You need to run richer than all motor of course, but base maps are going to run even richer, as to make sure you don't come close to leaning the motor out. Determining A/f ratios depend on alot of different variables.