Comments on: Supercharged Honda VFR800

By: The Phantom

The Phantom — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:06:45 +0000

You never know… you can send a message to Dan here:

http://www.aaperf.com/contact.html

By: paul

paul — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:12:09 +0000

is this bike for sale by any chance? love to buy it! let me know if it is?

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:52:10 +0000

Superchargers are actually less efficient than turbos. They represent an omnipresent drag on the engine as any other crank driven accessory does, and that drag increases exponetially as the rpms go up. Although the power benefits greatly offset the parasitic losses, they are less efficient than an appropriately sized turbo.

Pumping losses are negligeable on a turbocharged engine versus the drag of a supercharger. And the restriction at lower rpms actually helps low end torque, right where you need it when the turbo hasn’t spooled yet (while not providing a torque increase as instantaneous as a supercharger would).

I’ll take whatever’s available for my VFR (namely this kit which to my knowledge is the only one of its kind for the moment), but if I had a choice, I’d go for a turbo kit rather than a supercharger. A bike’s engine is meant to be reved at high rpms and in terms of exhausts flow, that’s were turbos feel right at home. Don’t need the drag when you’re coasting.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:21:37 +0000

Awesome. How do we contact you?

By: JC

JC — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:20:30 +0000

“turbos hurt low RPM fuel efficiency. The turbo vanes are an exhaust restriction and there is actually some mechanical loss due to pumping restrictions as well.

Turbos can be more easily adapted to existing engine design since there is no requirement for external drive trains.

Both can be made to work well with the same results.”

Very good points Todd! The first one is a good reminder is that a turbo isn’t gaining something for nothing! The exhaust isn’t free, as too much back pressure reduces horsepower when you aren’t making boost.