Belt Drive Turbo
05-27-2006, 03:24 PM
#46
Advanced
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geo: you are focused on that properly size turbo thing arent ya? 
hahaha. I agree to a point.
Your knowlege or opinion comes from your friend right? That guy that tests stuff?
Well Mine is mostly reading and leg work and talking to guys in both sides of that arguement. I am skeptical of absolutes, they often fail to prove to be absolute.
So lets say you find your properly sized turbo, how much does it cost? To replace your turbo on your turbocharged car?
I mean some turbos cost in excess of 1k?
Now if we are adding a source of boost to a NA car, 944 or otherwise. Then we have a choice, turbo kit or supercharger kit and you can bet your last dollar that turbo isnt properly sized, like the honda kit that was mentioned earlier, they use a general purpose, in the right range turbo. Not some perfectly sized setup. They also use cheaply made parts.
Lets look at the Callaway kit for the 944, it used a RayJay turbo, can you say T3?
Turbos are pretty forgiving as that goes, A/R and all that, they will make boost, how efficiently is like you said relative to sizing and design, wheel, housing, scroll, header, etc...
Brings us back to the Centrifugal unit, you get better efficiency with an improperly sized SC than you do with a compromise turbo. Less heat.
Power levels, Well cant say their is that parasitic loss issue, but then the less heat with a SC.
Not to mention what radiant heat does to hoses, pipes, header, etc... heat kills engines and engine parts.
No one in the history of Centrifugal Superchargers has really ever focused on small displacement motors, some motors here and their, but nothing enduring.
Especially not 4 cyl. or even 6 cyl. It has almost always been about V8 performance. Slowly units have been adapted and are now offered for smaller motors, but they are just using the bigger units on smaller motors, and the Surge and inefficiency, comes from oversizing.
But that is changing, more and more companies like Procharger and other newer companies are focusing on smaller displacement motors, especially do to gas prices and a need for power and economy in the same package. Look at the trends companies are chasing superchargers more than turbos, VW with its twin charger, The Ecotec family of engines getting superchargers and roots at that. Why? Well even with their lower efficiency they can be sized to the application. Eaton has picked up business so much they built a new plant. And they suck compared to other units. But they do offer units sized for smaller motors.
Another problem for Centrifugal units size... like mounting a big oversized Alternator or A/C compressor. They just dont fit.
With the auto industry liking to fit things in neat packages, the Eaton wins again, it can be and has been cast with the intake in a one piece for various motors, even the northstar, being destroked to work with the latest one piece intake+eaton setup.
If Centrifugal units would fit the bill they would be used. As for screw type units, again compromise they cost way to much.
As for traditional Roots setups, lots of companies are now even doing new rotor designs with differen lobes, etc. to improve efficiency.
Superchargers are coming on hard and the industry is taking notice of the demand. From a OEM point of view, turbos are not the way to go. Only dodge (being the largest producer of production turbocharge cars in history) is still doing turbo motors, becuase they have a winning platform. The evolution of the 2.2 and 2.5, the new 2.4 Turbo, like in the NEON SRT4, like in the Caliber, like in a few other vehicles they are coming out with. It works it makes good power and they have it down to a science and not 215, the caliber will be pushing 300 in its RT trim. Then jeep is getting similar treatment.
The other car makers are using superchargers or Twin charger setups.
Whatever... maybe thats all media hype, turbos rule for high output boost, but you have other issues like some form of lag, heat and complexity.
Lower boost under 1 bar their are better more affordable solutions.
My questions just hover around has these guys done it, have they built a better Supercharger.
hahaha. I agree to a point.Your knowlege or opinion comes from your friend right? That guy that tests stuff?
Well Mine is mostly reading and leg work and talking to guys in both sides of that arguement. I am skeptical of absolutes, they often fail to prove to be absolute.
So lets say you find your properly sized turbo, how much does it cost? To replace your turbo on your turbocharged car?
I mean some turbos cost in excess of 1k?
Now if we are adding a source of boost to a NA car, 944 or otherwise. Then we have a choice, turbo kit or supercharger kit and you can bet your last dollar that turbo isnt properly sized, like the honda kit that was mentioned earlier, they use a general purpose, in the right range turbo. Not some perfectly sized setup. They also use cheaply made parts.
Lets look at the Callaway kit for the 944, it used a RayJay turbo, can you say T3?
Turbos are pretty forgiving as that goes, A/R and all that, they will make boost, how efficiently is like you said relative to sizing and design, wheel, housing, scroll, header, etc...
Brings us back to the Centrifugal unit, you get better efficiency with an improperly sized SC than you do with a compromise turbo. Less heat.
Power levels, Well cant say their is that parasitic loss issue, but then the less heat with a SC.
Not to mention what radiant heat does to hoses, pipes, header, etc... heat kills engines and engine parts.
No one in the history of Centrifugal Superchargers has really ever focused on small displacement motors, some motors here and their, but nothing enduring.
Especially not 4 cyl. or even 6 cyl. It has almost always been about V8 performance. Slowly units have been adapted and are now offered for smaller motors, but they are just using the bigger units on smaller motors, and the Surge and inefficiency, comes from oversizing.
But that is changing, more and more companies like Procharger and other newer companies are focusing on smaller displacement motors, especially do to gas prices and a need for power and economy in the same package. Look at the trends companies are chasing superchargers more than turbos, VW with its twin charger, The Ecotec family of engines getting superchargers and roots at that. Why? Well even with their lower efficiency they can be sized to the application. Eaton has picked up business so much they built a new plant. And they suck compared to other units. But they do offer units sized for smaller motors.
Another problem for Centrifugal units size... like mounting a big oversized Alternator or A/C compressor. They just dont fit.
With the auto industry liking to fit things in neat packages, the Eaton wins again, it can be and has been cast with the intake in a one piece for various motors, even the northstar, being destroked to work with the latest one piece intake+eaton setup.
If Centrifugal units would fit the bill they would be used. As for screw type units, again compromise they cost way to much.
As for traditional Roots setups, lots of companies are now even doing new rotor designs with differen lobes, etc. to improve efficiency.
Superchargers are coming on hard and the industry is taking notice of the demand. From a OEM point of view, turbos are not the way to go. Only dodge (being the largest producer of production turbocharge cars in history) is still doing turbo motors, becuase they have a winning platform. The evolution of the 2.2 and 2.5, the new 2.4 Turbo, like in the NEON SRT4, like in the Caliber, like in a few other vehicles they are coming out with. It works it makes good power and they have it down to a science and not 215, the caliber will be pushing 300 in its RT trim. Then jeep is getting similar treatment.
The other car makers are using superchargers or Twin charger setups.
Whatever... maybe thats all media hype, turbos rule for high output boost, but you have other issues like some form of lag, heat and complexity.
Lower boost under 1 bar their are better more affordable solutions.
My questions just hover around has these guys done it, have they built a better Supercharger.
05-27-2006, 03:24 PM
#47
Advanced
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think about it. How is using turbocharger parts not a good thing. Takes advantage of your "supposedly superior turbocharger efficiency".
What gets me is the idea of a Large Wheel with a small inducer, that means a higher ratio between inducer and exducer, which will increase efficiency, and reduce max cfm output. The size of the inducer impacts CFM output. Well the whole A/R. Inlet vs. outlet and exducer vs. inducer.
So this is a forum. I am just asking questions, not saying buy the thing, just saying if they have done it, done what they say, then they do have something innovative.
Who am I to say it is or it isn't, but if we forget the ebay add. If we look just at Thomas Knight, the guy has been doing this stuff since the 70s. I have found mention of him all over the place. Let alone patents and prototypes. Goodness the guy has designed and built some of the kits that the big three Centrifugal companies are selling.
I cant just dismiss him as a flake or fraud.
So yea sure the BDT is a Centrifugal unit, so what, is it better? Is it designed better, does it perform better, is it sized to small displacement motors?
What gets me is the idea of a Large Wheel with a small inducer, that means a higher ratio between inducer and exducer, which will increase efficiency, and reduce max cfm output. The size of the inducer impacts CFM output. Well the whole A/R. Inlet vs. outlet and exducer vs. inducer.
So this is a forum. I am just asking questions, not saying buy the thing, just saying if they have done it, done what they say, then they do have something innovative.
Who am I to say it is or it isn't, but if we forget the ebay add. If we look just at Thomas Knight, the guy has been doing this stuff since the 70s. I have found mention of him all over the place. Let alone patents and prototypes. Goodness the guy has designed and built some of the kits that the big three Centrifugal companies are selling.
I cant just dismiss him as a flake or fraud.
So yea sure the BDT is a Centrifugal unit, so what, is it better? Is it designed better, does it perform better, is it sized to small displacement motors?
05-27-2006, 03:35 PM
#48
Advanced
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
if you look at images 1 - 6 frpm that link, makes for a good read and nice diagrams.
09-01-2006, 03:22 PM
#51
The concept is sound. Back in 2000 there was a guy on VWvortex that was running the cold side of a T03 from a belt on his 8V VW....
As long as you can step up the drive and get it spinning fast enough, you're good to go.
Its pretty interesting. Someone with a decent mill/lathe and a couple hours could probably make something similar for a lot less money. The hardest part would be making a step-up drive to over speed the turbine.
Pretty neat concept. If it were 1/2 the cost I would buy one to put on my S10 daily driver.
J
As long as you can step up the drive and get it spinning fast enough, you're good to go.
Its pretty interesting. Someone with a decent mill/lathe and a couple hours could probably make something similar for a lot less money. The hardest part would be making a step-up drive to over speed the turbine.
Pretty neat concept. If it were 1/2 the cost I would buy one to put on my S10 daily driver.
J
09-01-2006, 06:17 PM
#53
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Fredericksburg VA
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is 2 cents nobody asked for....
My highschool buddies built a super turbo back in 1985. Belt driven turbo that aslo was used to scavenge the exhaust. Needed hella big pulleys to get the RPM where we wanted. End result 3 burned heads on 3 different chevy 350 trucks.
Uhmmmmm I don't know if somebody is sleeping at the patent office but his design is been there done that. The only thing unique is the alternator drive. But since people have already created starter/alternators I am sure they figured a way to do that as well.
As long as weight isn't a prime concern you can take an 18HP (20 pounds ETEK) electric motor and drive a regular supercharger with an electronic speed control and literally tailor your boost. (done that too). It is a little hard on the battery so you need a 140 amp alternator and recovery time or two 140 amp alts at least....... but the cool thing is you can get max boost at any rpm range and then hit the (Explode my engine) button and spin it beyond god speed and really add something towards the top.
by mapping the speed controller (PWM golf cart controller actually similar to my battle bot) to a pressure sensor you can slow the rpm almost fastenough to not need a safety blow off valve . (rapid deceleration, lifting the gas at full acceleration etc..) (we also used electronic boost reduction valve) the only thing is the torque created by the super charger at high RPM when you slam the electric feedback braking circuit will twist and break mounts and possibly the SC.
This device is similar to my ex brother in law , "the clown", that took his air pump from his emission controls and tried to make a very poor mans SC in 1978.... Just burnt his valves with little or no power gain...
My highschool buddies built a super turbo back in 1985. Belt driven turbo that aslo was used to scavenge the exhaust. Needed hella big pulleys to get the RPM where we wanted. End result 3 burned heads on 3 different chevy 350 trucks.
Uhmmmmm I don't know if somebody is sleeping at the patent office but his design is been there done that. The only thing unique is the alternator drive. But since people have already created starter/alternators I am sure they figured a way to do that as well.
As long as weight isn't a prime concern you can take an 18HP (20 pounds ETEK) electric motor and drive a regular supercharger with an electronic speed control and literally tailor your boost. (done that too). It is a little hard on the battery so you need a 140 amp alternator and recovery time or two 140 amp alts at least....... but the cool thing is you can get max boost at any rpm range and then hit the (Explode my engine) button and spin it beyond god speed and really add something towards the top.
by mapping the speed controller (PWM golf cart controller actually similar to my battle bot) to a pressure sensor you can slow the rpm almost fastenough to not need a safety blow off valve . (rapid deceleration, lifting the gas at full acceleration etc..) (we also used electronic boost reduction valve) the only thing is the torque created by the super charger at high RPM when you slam the electric feedback braking circuit will twist and break mounts and possibly the SC.
This device is similar to my ex brother in law , "the clown", that took his air pump from his emission controls and tried to make a very poor mans SC in 1978.... Just burnt his valves with little or no power gain...
09-01-2006, 06:43 PM
#54
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the damage here is from improper tuning of the combustion and has nothing to do with the SC or turbo other than you need to retune/map things when using it.
Originally Posted by NeoRules
Here is 2 cents nobody asked for....
My highschool buddies built a super turbo back in 1985. Belt driven turbo that aslo was used to scavenge the exhaust. Needed hella big pulleys to get the RPM where we wanted. End result 3 burned heads on 3 different chevy 350 trucks.
Uhmmmmm I don't know if somebody is sleeping at the patent office but his design is been there done that. The only thing unique is the alternator drive. But since people have already created starter/alternators I am sure they figured a way to do that as well.
As long as weight isn't a prime concern you can take an 18HP (20 pounds ETEK) electric motor and drive a regular supercharger with an electronic speed control and literally tailor your boost. (done that too). It is a little hard on the battery so you need a 140 amp alternator and recovery time or two 140 amp alts at least....... but the cool thing is you can get max boost at any rpm range and then hit the (Explode my engine) button and spin it beyond god speed and really add something towards the top.
by mapping the speed controller (PWM golf cart controller actually similar to my battle bot) to a pressure sensor you can slow the rpm almost fastenough to not need a safety blow off valve . (rapid deceleration, lifting the gas at full acceleration etc..) (we also used electronic boost reduction valve) the only thing is the torque created by the super charger at high RPM when you slam the electric feedback braking circuit will twist and break mounts and possibly the SC.
This device is similar to my ex brother in law , "the clown", that took his air pump from his emission controls and tried to make a very poor mans SC in 1978.... Just burnt his valves with little or no power gain...
My highschool buddies built a super turbo back in 1985. Belt driven turbo that aslo was used to scavenge the exhaust. Needed hella big pulleys to get the RPM where we wanted. End result 3 burned heads on 3 different chevy 350 trucks.
Uhmmmmm I don't know if somebody is sleeping at the patent office but his design is been there done that. The only thing unique is the alternator drive. But since people have already created starter/alternators I am sure they figured a way to do that as well.
As long as weight isn't a prime concern you can take an 18HP (20 pounds ETEK) electric motor and drive a regular supercharger with an electronic speed control and literally tailor your boost. (done that too). It is a little hard on the battery so you need a 140 amp alternator and recovery time or two 140 amp alts at least....... but the cool thing is you can get max boost at any rpm range and then hit the (Explode my engine) button and spin it beyond god speed and really add something towards the top.
by mapping the speed controller (PWM golf cart controller actually similar to my battle bot) to a pressure sensor you can slow the rpm almost fastenough to not need a safety blow off valve . (rapid deceleration, lifting the gas at full acceleration etc..) (we also used electronic boost reduction valve) the only thing is the torque created by the super charger at high RPM when you slam the electric feedback braking circuit will twist and break mounts and possibly the SC.
This device is similar to my ex brother in law , "the clown", that took his air pump from his emission controls and tried to make a very poor mans SC in 1978.... Just burnt his valves with little or no power gain...
09-01-2006, 07:00 PM
#55
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Fredericksburg VA
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed... but when they were doing it we were carburated and had to build a box around the carb to keep the float working properly and to keep the air pressure equal all the way around and in the carb. We were young... ahhh the good ole days....
The scavange would sometimes pull raw fuel into the exhaust and you know what happened next?
The scavange would sometimes pull raw fuel into the exhaust and you know what happened next?
09-01-2006, 11:32 PM
#57
09-02-2006, 12:43 AM
#58
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
except for a flimsy bracket, this should work fine assuming it fits. you should be able to run 5psi with no intercooler. if you look at the 928 supercharger kits, the engine management is quite simple involving basically some kind of rising rate fuel pressure regulator.
09-02-2006, 01:18 AM
#60
Administrator - "Tyson"
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally Posted by Geo
Better factor in the engine management.
Tim Murphy & Carl Fausset have sold over 40 supercharger kits for 928's - the only modification to the management system is a basic Vortech FMU. Tim's personal car took a 317hp S4 to over 600hp with 100% stock computer. This is at 15psi with lower compression (dished pistons). His stage 1 kit brings a stock S4 to 400rwhp using the FMU. Porsche rated these engines at 10:1 compression. Is this ideal? That discussion is for a different thread. Fact is, it works.
Once my 944S is back on the road, I'm going to find a way to boost it. I'll be keeping my eye on this setup since placement is a real PIA on a 944 vs a 928. I'll keep the boost modest, 6psi or so with an intercooler.