Sabbath

2bridges I hear you on that.

I use an AIC on my ranger - it auto compensates fuel using two injectors up to 21 PSI. Zero issues in over a year of use. So that should work on the 944. But SFR just uses a adjustable fuel regulator to increase fuel? I mean thats really simple. Like what the Mustang guys do with the FMU.

So if its that simple, I mean SFR wouldnt sell a kit that kills your car. So the AIC would be a step up and it doesnt require much tuning. Hook up a laptop and have at it. It also has controls for a Water Injection setup, but that wouldnt be needed.

I see it in my head clearly, supercharger or BDT + extra fuel and apprently not much to the timing at 6 PSI and you get a lot more power.

It seems simple. The only reason I half defend the BDT is cause it has the mounting stuff down, so I wouldnt have to fabricate jack as mounting systems go and I love the idea of being able to change stuff right there. I mean I have seen what happens to the belts inside a supecharger total carnage. This thing lets you change and inspect belts all the time. That has to have merrit and everything I read says that Heat is what helps kill those belts. The heat comes from being enclosed. So this thing means no inside belts.

So all that has to be done is pipes and supposedly they have those as well for the 944 and 924? But even if I had to do pipes and some kind of intercooler. That would be cake.

As for engine management, I cant get past SFR getting it to work with just a AFR. The AIC is even better. Plus its tune able. Add in the MAF or MAP conversion, and by the way I didnt know that a MAF conversion was so cheap. Lindsey has theirs for like 700 and change and this looks like the same thing, let alone the MAP setup. Seems to me like the solutions are their.

Anyone want to take up a collection so I can do this? I will be the volunteer if somebody wants to donate money hahaha.

Otherwise someone else please do this?!!

As for chip flashing oh man I dont want to think about that, thats something for Danno or someone else. No thanks. Let them do it, but even if that was an option, if you have an early DME what do you do? I mean they can only be chipped with a FR WILK thing right?

Is it possible to change to a late DME? With just sensor changes or do I already have a late DME in my 24S?

Ah well, its just a pipe dream aint going to happen on my budget right now, maybe if I get a bonus check and eat noddles in a cup for a few months. Hahaha.

Geo

Amen.

I have to admit that my own turbo project involved a very high quality plug and play remapped ECU specifically for what I was running.

I know engine management isn't rocket science, but I sure don't have the time to dink around with it at this point and mistakes can be VERY Costly.

Sabbath:

1) I highly doubt you'll get 220 whp. I don't even think you'll get 220 bhp. With a stock CR I'd guess 190 bhp would be healthy with a reasonable safety margin.

2) I am not sure what you are referring to by SFR. Maybe I missed it.

Geo

What's to prevent you from installing the same sort of thing that FRW does? I wouldn't be afraid of that. Mapping the chip and getting someone to burn it I think would be the hard part.

Sabbath

GEO: Speed Force Racing (SFR) they use just an Adjustable Fuel Regulator for their Supercharger kit for the 944. So if thats all they do and no intercooler, seems to me that it would work.

As for power you might be right.

Figuring 7% per PSI at 6 PSI = 42% 130 at the wheels + 42% = 184.6 That of course is using 7% gain, but according to some sites its not uncommond to see 10 hp per 1 psi which I think is what you mean by 190.

However working with several calculators on line I come up with between 190 and 220. So I guess it depends on tuning and what is used to calculate everything.

They where no specific on what all was done and they did say results depend on tuning. Who knows, but as we have discussed before, the more that is done to the motor the better before boost. Exhaust, etc.

So lets say its 190 at the wheels thats a gain of 60 hp or 42.6 per HP (figured at 2500.00) 190 at the wheels and 220 at the flywheel. Atleast thats what all these calculators show.

The problem with calculating HP that way is it doesnt allow for the particulars of a engines VE and how much of an improvement the Boost is over NA operation. So I dont know. I have seen those calculators calculate this and that and then seen a lot more on the dyno. Depends on how much of an improvement you get in VE. Of Course the IC and cooling effect would mean less boost getting to the engine.

I say for the money its reasonable, if it can be done cheaper, thats even better. But even for a 60 hp gain, the question remains well two actually. Will this BDT widgit work? & is 2500 a reasonable amount, its almost half what SFR charges?

Sabbath

Maybe Danno could do a decent chip, if I got the FRW thing. But wouldnt it be easier to change over to a late model NA DME? Or is that some kind of a head ache, I read on the FRW site that the later setup has better chips and programming is more common and all you do is plug in the chip, instead of installing some kind of daugther board?

Geo

The 190 I was talking about was at the crank (bhp). I think the 944 engine is hamstrung in enough areas that I wouldn't hope for much more than that, but it's purely a guess.

As for engine management, I can think of a lot of directions to turn. Again, that's the hardest part. I'm not so sure I'd just use and adjustable FPR. Heck, I think that's monkey tuning even for a NA although that will probably be the first step on my car.

Sabbath

I hear you. I do I just dont get why then a company like SFR gets away with that?

Just seems odd. Yea I know the 944 has its issues. Tuning will make the biggest difference.

190 at the crank? Impossible. Even I wouldnt buy it would be that low. Assuming factory ratings of 150-160 you are saying only adding 30-40 hp? I dont buy it.

The 944 Turbo head isnt that differnt from the NA and it makes 220 or whatever at the crank with what 9 PSI?

If a Supercharger, any supercharger runs cooler than the 951 turbo setup. Well seems to me it would make some decent power, add in exhaust and intercooler like recommended with the SC. So if the temp was near ambient? And you are pushing 6 PSI. Even low estimates of 40% to 50% increases.

If you have 130 + 40% = 182 130 + 50% = 195
Using 130 at the wheels as all the dynos I have seen.

If the car is supposed to have 160 at the crank then you get 224 (@ 40%) and 240(@ 50%)??

Dude I seriously dont know what the car will do with boost from a supercharger, but I do beleive that it cant be any worse than the thousands of other engines, especially with the inefficiencies of most current Centrifugal units. If this BDT widgit is more effiecent that means less heat and less HP draw.

I read up on the paxton, vortech and procharger, those things draw 3 times as much Hp as this is supposed to.

Which makes me wonder how legit it is. The thing is if it works, well damn.

I just dont know and their are no easy answers.

But I have to disagree about the power it could or would make.

Geo

Here is the first error in your assumptions. A properly sized SC (even a centrifugal) will be less efficient than a properly sized turbo. Compressor efficiency is defined by delta t, so that means the SC will run hotter, not cooler.

This thing IS a centrifugal SC. Don't buy the crap of being a belt driven turbo and that it's something special. It's just a centrifugal SC.

You talk about the power the 951 makes and are expecting this to make as much or more. That's a pipe dream. Your 944 will run higher CR and the SC is less efficient, and unless you go stand-alone you will be seriously behind the 8 ball on engine management. It all adds up that this would be a fair bit down on power compared with the 951. The very most I'd guess you'd get w/o serious engine management and serious dyno tuning is around 200 bhp.

944J

where is this blog and the dynos for this equipment on a 944? if I were to do a sc on a 944 it would have to be a whipple/kenne bell type.

Sabbath

Geo we had that discussion, yes a properly sized turbo vs. a properly sized SC in that other thread.

Which supposedly that is one of the advantages of this BDT widgit it is supposed to be better sized to smaller displacement motors. Which gives it an edge over most other Centrifugal units. That much I can understand, its like sizing a turbo. Most Centrifugal units are oversized like the paxton, etc and they just throw them at smaller engines and you give up a lot of efficiency.

So supposedly this widgit:
Is made from modern turbo wheels= so that gives it an edge.
Is sized to smaller displacement motors = gives it an edge.
Is supposed to take less power to drive = gives it an edge.
Is supposed to have an efficiency range of 75% or better = gives it an edge.

Dude again we had that discussion I know how efficiency is measured. I also understand that if a SC is for once acutally sized to the motor, these being designed for a 1-4 Liter motor, beats the heck out of slapping a v8 sc on a 2.5liter 4.

So if those things hold true, less power to drive, less heat, sized to the motor, etc. All these things that would make it more efficient, who cares what they call it.

I dont care if they call it the boostenator, I care about its function and performance, does it work?

For arguements sake if we say it works and those claims are not total BS, then it stands to reason it will smoke most SC and certainly perform better than the stock turbo as heat goes - delta rise.

Thats a simple fact if it has higher efficiency, serious think about what happens when you stick a big 1000cfm SC on a 2.5 liter motor, I can understant that, efficiency just left the building.

If on the other hand the unit flows less CFM, something more akin to what a 2.5 motor needs, then that means better efficiency, certaintly less heat.

Add to that less power wasted on heat and so less power consumed to drive the unit. It means more power available.

I dont know. Its like anything else, it sounds good, it sounds logical.

Sabbath

For the most part all current Centrifugal units are oversized for anything under 4 liters.

Bolting one on to a 2.5 Liter motor is like bolting on a catapillar turbo or some other monster turbo. If the CFM flow need is so far left of the surge line I mean come on. Then you are going way past overkill.

Engine management, I get that. But what I see is piggy back systems that they have in their other auctions, maybe they dont work, I dont know. I know my stuff on the ranger works fine. Works better than fine.

What I come full circle back to:

A big company like SFR with a positive rep as far as I can tell, sells kits for the 944, 944 s2 and 968 and they just use a adjustable fuel regulator, no engine management, nada.

And their kits are dyno proven to work even with that big C2 Procharger.

That unit is rated for up to 725 HP and flows 1100 CFM with a max PSI of 24. How the heck is that sized for a 2.5 Liter? The compressor wheel in that thing has a 4.25" size and the inducer size is 3.14" its a monster. So as much as it must suck efficiency wise. SFR sells it, it bolts on and the only thing you get is a AFR to give you more fuel. No engine mangement no chip, nada.

But this SFR kit doesnt kill cars.

So then if the SFR kit was better, if the SC they used was more efficient, better sized like your turbo statement, took less Hp to drive, produced less heat and you topped it off with using an Additioanl injector control instead of just adding more fuel pressure.

How the heck wouldnt that be better and make more power than some other kind of Centrifugal unit. It should in theory perform better than the stock KKK turbo. Certainly at the boost level claimed of 6 PSI. Otherwise people would never upgrade their KKK. If it was all that great.

The BDT people dont make claims about the SFR, I am just drawing that as a comparison, because its known for our cars.

Heck this widgit isnt even listed for the Porsche. But the people with the auction, supposedly have a kit for the 944 and 924? Regardless. I am more curious about how well it works and if it works than if it is available for the 944.

As I said I could get a used SC and mount it up to the 944, if all I have to do is follow SFR's lead and just use a AFR, that makes it to easy.

If the Alternator mounted unit is the way to go to make it work on the 944, well again that can be fabricated.

But where I get a burr in my saddle is at the idea of using a big inefficient SC. If thiers is more efficient or approaches turbocharger efficiency levels when properly sized and all that, that would make it special. Not the name but its performance.

Thats what has me raising my eyebrow!

Now again anyone want to take up a collection so I can test this out?

Sabbath

Geo:

Yea I know its a centrifugal SC, not saying its not. I am saying that from what I see, read and heard from doing some research. It is supposed to perform better than the others.

The name doesnt mean anything to me. Thats not what gets me thinking it could be better or is better. It's the logic behind the arguement.

It's like if you designed a SC. You said a turbo properly sized. Well if whoever took that to heart, especially someone with 30 years of experience in both turbos and superchargers and decided to properly size a SC and while he was at it, he used the most efficient turbo wheel design he could find. Well sounds like he is merging the two worlds.

If that can be done and was done, well then this is a hot little item. If it can't well then its not.

If it is, well then we are back to engine management. How the heck does it come down to stand alone, if SFR did it with a Adjustable Fuel Regulator?

(Scratching head)? A AIC would give tune ability and would handle fuel delivery based on the fuel maps, and boost levels. My unit on the ranger has 3d maps, fully programmable, etc...

maybe its a dumb discussion. I just cant get past how simple and expensive the SFR kit is and then looking at this BDT thing, makes me think well the 944 can certainly be done cheap, how well it works is something else. How much better this thing could be, I havent got a clue, I am well read, but I am no engineer.

Geo

It's just a centrifugal SC. It will not be more efficienc than a properly sized turbo. You're buying into this guy's BS.

Anyway, just buy it and tell us how you made out.

Sabbath

I dont care if it meets your definition of a properly sized turbo.

What I am trying to determine is if its a properly sized Centrifugal Unit.

If it is then it would be more efficient than other Centrifugal units. Thats either BS or its not. I dont know. But in theory it sounds like it was engineered that way.

I will never agree that a properly sized turbo is the end all. But we had that discussion. It will be better than one that is not. Will it be better than a Centrifugal unit, cant say. As I said in our other thread its not the same thing. You can't compare an orange to a grapefruit. Similar but not the same. Average Centrifugal unit has a 5" or bigger wheel, some have slightly smaller, but not smaller than 4.25" Big wheels and huge CFM.

You can compare a T3 or a K26 or K27 or hybrid to a T88, T100 turbo - worlds apart. Thats all a centrifugal unit is, one big wheel in a turbo style housing spun with a belt or whatever. All a turbo really is, a Turbine driven Supercharger. Thats why they where called turbo-superchargers.

Regardles for names. If you can size a turbo or a supercharger frome everything I read to an application you would have far better performance, less heat, etc.

In the case of a turbo, they are loosing their hold on high end boost, procharger is pushing the envelope with units capable of over 30 PSI. With new helix wheels. Something that Paxton and Vortech lack. Their wheel is better than it was do to the Novi, but it still isnt on par with modern turbocharger wheel design. Let alone some of the current Airfoil style wheels, so many new designs in compressor wheels, let alone bearing tech and the dual scroll turbos, etc.

So maybe they are full of it. The only thing a turbo gets away with is no parasitic loss from driving the unit, but it does effect back pressure and it does add heat. Discharge temps from any turbo have traditionally been higher than centrifugal units producing the same boost level.

The Delta rise as you so often refer to, well depends. Lets assume that both the turbo and the SC are sized to the application. If both had the same efficiency range, etc. then you would be stuck with either all the mess and underhood temps of a turbo install. Oil lines, maybe water lines(water cooled turbo) turbo header, down pipes, radiant heat from the hot side of the turbo, etc.

Vs. Centrifugal Supercharger parasitic loss to drive unit. Less heat generated in the production of Boost. So discharge temps are lower.

But lets say all that bunk, total BS. Almost every turbo car in production today, uses a general purpose turbo. Some are better sized for the application but most are not, most are compromises. The 951 Turbo is not the best or no one would bother changing it out.

I am not buying into anything. I am saying that the arguement he makes is sound. He may not be supplying what he is saying, but what he is saying makes a lot of sense.

Thats it in a nut shell.

944J

But will it be "just as" efficient?

Porsche concluded long ago that supercharges produced better performance on 944's.

http://pcarz.com/index.php?username=matthew72&phid=81

What makes this equipment special in my eyes is its apparent easy of installation.