jorj7

Andy,

When I get my boost to 6.7 psi (or above) and my X-pipe, I'll plot the comparision. But again
I'm sure the twin screw with have more hp at low rpms, because of the higher boost at that
range. And if you limit the max boost of the cf to the same max boost of the ts, then
they'll probably have about the same max hp. I guess the real question will be how high
can either go, and how much the whole system (engine/drivetrain) can take.

jorj7

Andy,

Yes, I have some before data:



Pete,

Nice looking numbers. How's the baby? You going to get to come out and play
with us next season?

hacker-pschorr

So far 22psi is not posing a problem for any part of the drive train or motor (it's an auto) using a Paxton SC.
Only engine mods are the external cylinder sleeves and a cometic head gasket. The engine sleeve design can be seen here on Jim's motor. This is not the engine making 22psi, but the same design principles are being applied. This motor is not yet fully assembled, and will be a stroker with a SC.

https://rennlist.com/forums/928-forum/166901-i-would-like-to-share-my-supercharged-928-project-car.html

GoRideSno

Thanks for posting the chart Pete. Is that Tim's 8psi kit?


Jorj,
Th CF has slightly lower drive power and discharge temps. Therefore at a given boost level and everything else being equal the CF will produce slightly more power. However the CS can't make the same level of boost throughout the rpm range like the TS can. So the TS can actually make more net power i.e. more acceleration. I suppose one could spool up a CS so that it makes more boost down low then let the excess boost off up top but that would ruin the adibatic efficency, and cause excess wear.

Andy K

GoRideSno

BTW Jorj what program are you using for graph?
Andy K

jorj7

Andy,

I'm just using Excel, then use ScreenHunter to grap the chart and produce a jpg, which I crop and
resize with Irfanview.

jorj7

Also, here is a comparison of the dynojet and dynapack on my car. The dynojet run was
done on 6/16/03 and the dynapack run was on 10/01/03. No modification done to the
car between runs. Since I'm using Tom's dynapack for testing/tuning, I've only been using
those numbers in the previous comparisions.

GoRideSno

Jorj,
Possibly the dynojet is correcting for ambient conditions and the dynopac is not?



Pete's car compared to mine could be nearly an apples to apples comparison.
Cars are very similar, both autos, both have x-pipe. He just has nology wires and an rmb which should be good for a few HP but I don't know exactly how much so I'll ignore those. I see that he is running 8 psi from another post versus my 6.7psi

Pete.. 417 - 253 = 164RWHP gain 164/8psi = 20.5 So 20.5 RWHP per psi boost for the intercooled CS setup
Me.. 398 - 253 = 145 RWHP gain 145/6.7psi = 21.6 So 21.6 RWHP per psi boost for the intercooled TS setup

Andy K

BrianG

Andy, which blower is pictured in your avatar?

GoRideSno

Brian,
That's the Jag/Eaton M112. I need to change my Avatar.
Andy K

mspiegle

That should be my avatar

Carl Fausett

,,,this is bad information. It is only partially right, and misleads the reader to the wrong conlcusion.

Beautiful job, Tony, on your post and your documentation.

Pedro - I'm glad you posted your chart too!

IMHO - as noth the TS and the CS blower guys (including myself) get these dialed in, the differences between them are goiung to become less and less.

A purchaser can already rely that, when installed correctly, their choice of either a Centrifugal or a Twin Screw setup will work.

So, (IMHO) the decision will fall to: which kit has the simpler, easier-to-follow instructions? Which kit is the most complete so I do not have to go hunting for parts?

And, finally, which kit best matches their personal preference of whether they want a bolt-on solution from the outside of the motor or they prefer to remove their intake manifoild and mount the blower there. This last item, IN the motor or ON the motor, as it were, has no one-right-answer. That is why I called that a "personal preference" item.

BTW - Marc - everything we do is on 91 pump octane. That's "premium" in WI.
I have not done any tests or dynos on race fuel.

GoRideSno

Carl,
No No it's good information. If you want to prove it wrong it will be really easy,

just beat some of the acceleration times I've posted on the same maxboost.

Then you won't have to wast your time typing statements like the above and people won't have to waste their time reading them because I"ll quit making the claim of better acceleration. The problem is CS cant do it and you don't want to admit it.
Now if you want to see bad and misleading information take a look at the video on your website where you claim to be going 20-100MPH in the supercharged GT. There is no way you were starting out at 20mph in that video. If you read this and then claim that you were starting off at 20mph I'll make a video of a car going to mph and people will have something to compare it to.
I guess too that you could take a look at the dyno chart you use to sell Tim's kits on e-bay. You show the chart and then don't mention the other mods to the car. Which of Tim's customers has installed one of those systems and made that kind of power on 8psi as the kit is advertised at, Jorj, Don T, Pete, the GT, Gretch? nope... NOW THAT'S MISLEADING.

Carl you're quite a salesman

Andy K

Tony

mspiegle

lol