View Poll Results: Which year to build a SC for
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 104. You may not vote on this poll
To build a supercharger kit or not?
12-20-2004, 06:00 PM
#32
Instructor
Join Date: May 2001
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida USA
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes air to water intercooler, back right, Eaton M90 supercharger mid left. my mechanic had to shorten the brace on the intercooler, and today i heard there is new software coming.
12-20-2004, 06:14 PM
#33
Rennlist Member
1) Ok, I'll ask the dumb question: where does the "water" in teh "air to water intercooler" come from? Does it require some sort of circulating water system? Ugh, sounds like a PITA.
2) If Stephen is talking about ATI then I assume he's looking at centrifugal compressors, which are very different from the TPC Eaton (roots?) compressor. The pressure from a centrifugal SC increases with RPMs, so it won't give much/any boost below 3k rpm. The upside? Cooler outlet air temps (thus a simpler/cheaper IC) plus better gas mileage plus less drivetrain stress at low RPMs. This is just an educated guess.
2) If Stephen is talking about ATI then I assume he's looking at centrifugal compressors, which are very different from the TPC Eaton (roots?) compressor. The pressure from a centrifugal SC increases with RPMs, so it won't give much/any boost below 3k rpm. The upside? Cooler outlet air temps (thus a simpler/cheaper IC) plus better gas mileage plus less drivetrain stress at low RPMs. This is just an educated guess.
12-20-2004, 07:05 PM
#34
Eric,
I agree with your comments about the centrifugal type blower, not sure about gas mileage though. Here's a great link to blower comparisons. BTW, the TPC blower is an Eaton M90 which is essentially a Root's type.
http://www.sandsautomotive.com/whipp...son-chart.html
I agree with your comments about the centrifugal type blower, not sure about gas mileage though. Here's a great link to blower comparisons. BTW, the TPC blower is an Eaton M90 which is essentially a Root's type.
http://www.sandsautomotive.com/whipp...son-chart.html
12-20-2004, 07:16 PM
#36
Instructor
Join Date: May 2001
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida USA
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-20-2004, 08:20 PM
#39
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-20-2004, 09:04 PM
#40
Race Car
The advantage of the centifuge blower is that it can move more CFM than the eaton. (At least the Eaton units I have used). There IS boost at ALL engine speeds as long as you are at WOT or accelerating rapidly enought to lose vacuum. Cruising at any speed is like driving a stock motor because all boost is bypassing the intake. Highway gas mileage is increased by about 10%. Open the throttle and the boost is immediately in the cylinder. The centrifuge SC with a proper aftercooler will keep the intake air at about 20 degrees F above ambient temperature so heat is not a concern.
The about of boost is directly related to the RPM of the blower. A boost of 6 psi at 7,000 RPM will be reduced to (the square of 6) 2.5 psi at 3500 RPM and is linear in between. The power curve is smooth and even.
Having used both, I prefer the centrifuge blower because of the power curve and the amount of air it can compress compared to the Eaton.
The about of boost is directly related to the RPM of the blower. A boost of 6 psi at 7,000 RPM will be reduced to (the square of 6) 2.5 psi at 3500 RPM and is linear in between. The power curve is smooth and even.
Having used both, I prefer the centrifuge blower because of the power curve and the amount of air it can compress compared to the Eaton.
12-20-2004, 11:54 PM
#42
Rennlist Lifetime Member
Thread Starter
That is a pretty common L/A intercooler. We use something similar for the 996 stuff. You simply run a small row cooler and a catch tank with a pump in it. It just cycles the water.
"If you built it. They would come..."
Hmm, I have heard that before and still have a room of unwanted product
I think the goal here is simply clarify who really would do this and who wouldn't. I have had one person who is willing to throw a deposit into the project and commit. Please email me if you are in this group. I would really like to start something after Xmas if possible.
"If you built it. They would come..."
Hmm, I have heard that before and still have a room of unwanted product
I think the goal here is simply clarify who really would do this and who wouldn't. I have had one person who is willing to throw a deposit into the project and commit. Please email me if you are in this group. I would really like to start something after Xmas if possible.
12-21-2004, 07:12 AM
#43
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have more confidence to put a deposit if you would have answered my other posts. No disrespect intended here, but your posts have numbers that don't jibe, and when that isn't resolved, it raises a red flag for me. This is a lot of money. I'd rather see it working first, for those reasons.
12-21-2004, 10:16 AM
#44
Rennlist Lifetime Member
Thread Starter
Robert,
None taken. I am use to this, it comes with the territory. These calculators are not accurate because they do not know what the VE of the motor is and they don't take in account volume. You make HP on a motor two ways, with boost pressure and volume. If you take two identical systems that make X amount of boost and do nothing more than change the volume of that blower or turbo you make more HP. Everyone always thinks it is about boost. They go hand in hand. It also doesn't take into account heat saturation and how much above ambient the system runs. It also doesn't know what the over spin and heat saturation is for the blower.
Unless this goes into production I will not disclose all of the toys I have for this setup. Nor will I explain exactly what technology we are using for a blower. No offense meant here, but to many can't make things like this work right. Why hand them the recipe?
The last factory is the fuel management. You have no idea how much more you can run on a system when mapped properly. There is no substitute for it and bottom line there isn't anyone really doing it. So there are still a lot of unknowns to accurately say that my numbers don't jive
Like I said I am use to it. They said the CIS 930 head couldn't make more than 450HP, yet we received a dyno from Sweden that we did the head on. It made 600HP. No one had done it in 25 years! Didn't mean it couldn't be done, just wasn't. I was told the K27 couldn't make more than 500HP without a K29 hooked to it. 2 years ago we brought out a K27 that was making 550+HP without a K29 section. I was told that K16s couldn't make 600HP, yet we have made 562RWHP and that is well over 60HP at the crank. The list goes on. I understand your concern, if you know me then history tells you that I always deliver results and real world numbers.
Hopefully this helps.
None taken. I am use to this, it comes with the territory. These calculators are not accurate because they do not know what the VE of the motor is and they don't take in account volume. You make HP on a motor two ways, with boost pressure and volume. If you take two identical systems that make X amount of boost and do nothing more than change the volume of that blower or turbo you make more HP. Everyone always thinks it is about boost. They go hand in hand. It also doesn't take into account heat saturation and how much above ambient the system runs. It also doesn't know what the over spin and heat saturation is for the blower.
Unless this goes into production I will not disclose all of the toys I have for this setup. Nor will I explain exactly what technology we are using for a blower. No offense meant here, but to many can't make things like this work right. Why hand them the recipe?
The last factory is the fuel management. You have no idea how much more you can run on a system when mapped properly. There is no substitute for it and bottom line there isn't anyone really doing it. So there are still a lot of unknowns to accurately say that my numbers don't jive
Like I said I am use to it. They said the CIS 930 head couldn't make more than 450HP, yet we received a dyno from Sweden that we did the head on. It made 600HP. No one had done it in 25 years! Didn't mean it couldn't be done, just wasn't. I was told the K27 couldn't make more than 500HP without a K29 hooked to it. 2 years ago we brought out a K27 that was making 550+HP without a K29 section. I was told that K16s couldn't make 600HP, yet we have made 562RWHP and that is well over 60HP at the crank. The list goes on. I understand your concern, if you know me then history tells you that I always deliver results and real world numbers.
Hopefully this helps.
12-21-2004, 10:59 AM
#45
Banned
Stephen, your response is understandable but could you at least tell us whether it is a centrifugal or positive displacement type which you intend to use? The power delivery can be quite different between the two types and I doubt that many would feel happy to pay a deposit without having this basic information. The peak power figure is quite separate - I accept your word on that.