Supercharging?

[tew photy]

I know this has been discussed before, and I searched on it, but I just wanted to run this idea past you guys. If I were to pick up a cheapo s/c off ebay, plus a starion i/c, 370cc injectors, walbro pump, and a z32 maf, plus engine management, would that be all I needed? What sort of engine management you think would be the best? just an idea..

[phrozen]

cheapo S/C? and how would u go about bolting it to the block? looks like u need a crashcourse on howstuffworks.com

[ryan hagen]

not all super charger bolt to the block, a voretech style looks like a turbo, and is spun by a pulley set up.....u could fab one up with some time, anda machine shop to make pulleys/ pulley brackets, make it to fit where the a/c compressor sits......

edit......i guess it does still bolt to the block but it wouldnt be hard...i w2as thinking u were refereing to a eaton roots style which would sit at the top of the intake manifold like on a gtp

[Ghettokracker71]

not all super charger bolt to the block, a voretech style looks like a turbo, and is spun by a pulley set up.....u could fab one up with some time, anda machine shop to make pulleys/ pulley brackets, make it to fit where the a/c compressor sits......

edit......i guess it does still bolt to the block but it wouldnt be hard...i w2as thinking u were refereing to a eaton roots style which would sit at the top of the intake manifold like on a gtp

Positive Displacement type Supercharger-AKA Roots-AKA Eaton Style-AKA GMC Style(Extremely common)-Mounts on top of the intake manifold/block and is very ineffecient for high boost applications,but is great for low boost applications(under 12PSI) because of the poor abiabatic effieciency.

Centrifugal Type Supercharger-The first of its kind was litterally a turbocharger with the turbine side removed,and a belt pulley put in its place. Mounts anywhere on the belt path,seeing boost at very low RPM's. The most effiecent supercharging system available currently.(See: Vortech,and Procharger.)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33741&item=2477080503&rd=1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33741&item=2477077704&rd=1

IMHO Its a great idea,but you might get a headache from trying to firgure out what size pulley to run,I wish there was a bolt-on kit...

[andrave]

I think you should get a cast or welded part that replaces the intake manifold and bolt on a roots style blower... jesus the torque would be nuts and I'm sure some frontier/pathfinder guys might be interested as well.
however, the ka has lots of torque, and plenty of room on the hot side of the bay for a centrifugal blower. that would help supllement the highend end breathing.
in fact if you could find a way to mount one, you could probably run 5psi non intercooled with a rising rate fpr and get a pretty linear power increase over stock.

[Ghettokracker71]

I think you should get a cast or welded part that replaces the intake manifold and bolt on a roots style blower... jesus the torque would be nuts and I'm sure some frontier/pathfinder guys might be interested as well.
however, the ka has lots of torque, and plenty of room on the hot side of the bay for a centrifugal blower. that would help supllement the highend end breathing.
in fact if you could find a way to mount one, you could probably run 5psi non intercooled with a rising rate fpr and get a pretty linear power increase over stock.

But if you mounted it on the hot side,you could get a silvia FMIC and run custom piping and have some super high boost numbers :boink:

[twitchy]

i think one way to do it would be to create a supercharger that doubled as an intake manifold, some kind of hybrid thing. Mercedes AMG does this, their supercharged V6 has the supercharger and intake manifold as one unit. It would be expensive but it could be made to fit, the little whipple charger style unit a la grand prix GTP would fit there nicely. And I'd be first in line to buy one..

[AlligatorBling]

i long for the day there is kit to buy... i know everyone says turbo is the way to go... but there is such big market potential for this idea.... if there was one on the market i would deff buy. anyone know of anybody that has actually put a sc on there ka?

[andrave]

twitchy, actually read the post next time...

[ryan hagen]

i think one way to do it would be to create a supercharger that doubled as an intake manifold, some kind of hybrid thing. Mercedes AMG does this, their supercharged V6 has the supercharger and intake manifold as one unit. It would be expensive but it could be made to fit, the little whipple charger style unit a la grand prix GTP would fit there nicely. And I'd be first in line to buy one..


what a revolutionary idea? i think it was brought up in the first like 2 posts..... way to have the heads up

[240sxconversion]

does the Xterra come with a supercharged V6, like the new ones, and anyway what u guys are talking about is a really good idea, has anyone ever seen the RB26DETTS, is a S/C twin turbo RB26, i s een a picture of it somewhere. The S/C would help spool the turbo, so that means u can run a larger turbo, and allow the S/C to do all the low end power and then allow the turbo to do the high end power. i will have to find that picture.

[sykikchimp]

The supercharged TT engine is pretty silly. The power it takes to turn a supercharger would negate much of the helpfull effects.

I would love to see a supercharged KA, but it's unlikely it will ever be made to a kit. Turboing is becoming so cheap (comparatively speaking), and turbo's are so much more efficient than s/c's...

Someone should approach Jackson Racing about it.

[240sxconversion]

ok so what, sikikchimp, u are saying the loosing maybe 1-2hp/trq at low RPMS like at idle isnt worth it?? If Jackson Racing is going to make a SC for the KA it is going to be one that mount as if it was the intake and SC together, not a SIde mount or Cintrificul ( spelling). I am talking about using power to beable to make more power, not just using the SC on the KA but a SC and a turbo setup.

[mellojoe]

THe idea of supercharging is great. I think there is a market for it...

BUT, when you compare the costs, side by side, a supercharger isn't worth it. A low boost, mild supercharger setup will set you back nearly 80% to 90% of a mild turbo setup. And a turbo setup is much more adjustable. If you want to go more boost, you simply turn up the boost. You'll have to go bigger injectors and fuel maps, sure, but that would be the same for more boost on a s/c system. Except to turn up the boost on a s/c system, you have to buy a different pulley set.

Now, on high horsepower drag applications a supercharger is excellent. On a drag vehicle, you pretty much run in a very limited RPM range. So you match your pully set to your power goals and your rpm range. And then you stand on it. You can get a lot of horsepower that way, with only a fraction of the lag of a comperable turbo setup.

I just don't see too many 240's as all-out drag vehicles to see a market for the high end supercharging systems.

So, that leaves turbos as a much more viable solution. The initial cost setup isn't too much more. You can run a low boost non-intercooled setup initially just like a s/c setup. If you go with an intercooled (aftercooled) supercharged setup, then the price is almost a wash for an intercooled turbo setup - just need some additional exhaust work.

So dollar for dollar, do you want to go with a low boost supercharger? Or a tunable turbo setup with potential to be upgraded easily in the future?

[Replicant_S14]

So dollar for dollar, do you want to go with a low boost supercharger? Or a tunable turbo setup with potential to be upgraded easily in the future?

Assuming the same cost (big assumtion on my part) I'll take a low boost roots supercharger set-up because I think it'd be an ideal boost configuration for auto-x. The ultimate potential of one or the other isn't really a factor for me.

I dunno, I've looked at it to the point where I know how I would do it and I'm pretty sure I could. It's just that it would take a huge time commitment that I just don't have...... Or truckloads of cash to get someone else to figure it out.

[Ghettokracker71]

After driving acouple of V8s,and a V6 or two....I've learned that low end power with high end power is the way to go. My moms maxima would be out of the gate before all the other traffic 90% of the time normal accel. to normal accel. and would beat almost all the the kinds of traffic that tried to race,at high RPMs. After getting into my 240sx and driving it around alot....I definitely miss that low end grunt,and that high-end screamer power. I think its :ghey: to have to gun it just go get around a car or something,my 240 isn't what you call quiet either....Turbos have the high-end,but don't offer that much for low-end...or if they do,your sacrificing your high end again :doh:

A centrifugal set-up offers full boost from just above idle in most applications.And will hold it as high as you can tach it. Which means for the KA engine you can still keep most of the amazing low/mid-range TQ while building HP throughout the entire RPM band.

Centrifugal is also easy to crank up the boost....just change a pulley:)

[gsracer]

ok so what, sikikchimp, u are saying the loosing maybe 1-2hp/trq at low RPMS like at idle isnt worth it?? If Jackson Racing is going to make a SC for the KA it is going to be one that mount as if it was the intake and SC together, not a SIde mount or Cintrificul ( spelling). I am talking about using power to beable to make more power, not just using the SC on the KA but a SC and a turbo setup.

actually more like 10 - 20 and ive seen even 30 hp to the wheels difference in switching from supercharger to turbo. Did you know it takes over 400 hp to turn the supercharger on top fuel dragster, and the losses are pretty much linear increasing up the powerband.

[gonzoes14k]

Like i was talking to Alligatorbling i just feel the cost/preformance it is too great on the turbo side to go supercharge. But i feel it whould be tight just to see what happens. Who knows?

[Var]

A centrifugal set-up offers full boost from just above idle in most applications.And will hold it as high as you can tach it. Which means for the KA engine you can still keep most of the amazing low/mid-range TQ while building HP throughout the entire RPM band.

Centrifugal is also easy to crank up the boost....just change a pulley:)


From what i've read this is a common misconception with cetrifigul units. IIRC it is only the roots blower that creates power right at idle because like you said the centrifugal unit is like a turbocharger but driven by a belt
IE: it still needs to spool. It will act like a turbo but wont have as much power. It takes power to turn the unit(not like a top fuel dragster-weak comparison)
A snail (centrigual) blower compared to a turbo IMO is no comparison. Turbo is way more efficient power wise, but creates more heat which can be taken care of. The roots blowers are good for low-rpm big displacement cars cause it will make power essentially all through the rpm range.

[Var]

www.cartech.net has good info in their tech articles

here is a part of the article pertianing to the E36 M3 but you get the point.. good reading



The Enthusiast’s Objectives
Your, and our, objectives for performance and reliability are virtually the same. Only the subtle difference exists that we provide and you use. With you as the user, take a minute and spell out the objectives you personally have for the M3 as equipped with forced induction. This paper will try to make the case that the turbocharger will meet those objectives very well. I at least hope to pique your interest to investigate these things further than just listening to the pitch of a supercharger salesman. Or us, for that matter.

We would like to suggest that most are looking for the best combination of the following facets of performance:

Power
Engine durability
System durability
Simplicity
Low speed response
Mid-range torque
Ease of maintenance
Max boost RPM
Drivability
Economy
Price

Our contention is that the turbo wins every category, hands down.

Why the Turbo?
For technical excellence and engineering judgment, we should all stick with the industrial leaders such as Rolls Royce, Porsche, Mercedes, Audi, Lotus, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Nissan, Saab, Volvo, and Ferrari. These guys are turbo adherents and lead the world in automotive engineering. Over the last 45 years, turbochargers have been essential in winning thousands of races with the diversity of Formula One, Indy Cars, and even the great endurance contests of Le Mans, Daytona and Sebring. Is the disparity between the abilities of the turbo and the SC that large? Yes it is, and here’s why.

Shape of the torque curve:
The centrifugal supercharger is fabled to offer huge low end torque advantages over the turbo. That is flat wrong, never had an inkling of truth. With a size compressor selected for, say 8 psi, the CS must turn at some specific speed at the engine redline to flow the air needed to produce that boost. It is necessary to understand that flow through these types of compressors varies with the cube of the shaft speed. In other words, doubling the speed of the shaft will produce 23, or 8 times the flow. Turn that around and clearly, the flow is 1/8 at half the engine speed that it would be at the redline. Basically, that means you have 1/8 the boost at half the redline. And that is about where it really falls, 1 psi boost at about 3300 rpm.

Please understand, that is what you get with the centrifugal blower, but we strongly suspect it is not what you either want or think you are getting with a supercharger. Wouldn’t it be a hoot if someone invented a way to let the same compressor wheel speed up relative to the engine so more low engine speed boost could be produced? Such a device exists and it is the turbo. The key to this great turbo performance benefit is that it can change speeds independently of the engine.

The net result is this: The turbocharger applied to the BMW M3 can produce all of it's boost by 3500 RPM.

Power
There is a very simple equation for calculating the approximate power output of a normally aspirated engine after a forced induction mechanism is applied. There is no need to solve anything here, but it is quite revealing to understand what the equation says. Five factors are involved:

Power = Po x PR x DC x Evol Ratio x PL

Where:
Po is the original rated horsepower: say 240 bhp

Boost + 14.7
PR is the pressure ratio, or ---------------------, at 7 psi this is 1.49
14.7

DC is the density correction due to heating of the air charge. This is directly proportional to the absolute temperature of the ambient air to the boost air entering the engine. At 7 psi these corrections are about .85 without an intercooler, and about .96 with the IC. Our systems operate at 8.5-9.0 psi, however we chose the lower boost number for comparison purposes.

Evol is the volumetric efficiency ratio of the blower to the engine. Since the CS and the turbo have the same Vol Eff, and the engine is the same, this factor can drop out. Assuming comparable compressors are available.

PL is the power loss correction due to the necessary power taken from the crankshaft to drive the blower. Here the CS takes about 5% of the engine power, whereas the turbo only robs about 1.5%. The reason for the difference is that the turbo is largely powered by the heat energy in the exhaust gas. Keep in mind that the heat energy lost out the tailpipe is about the same number of horses as the engine makes. Remember, of the fuel burned, 1/3 goes to power, 1/3 to heat in the cooling system, and 1/3 out the exhaust. Therefore the lost exhaust energy and the engine power are about the same. When was the last time you saw a 240 hp fan? That is what is made available to the turbo for a driving force without taping off the crank. We don’t need it all, but that’s what’s theoretically available. Enormous, eh?

So, plug the numbers in and see what they yield:

New Power:
Non-intercooled Centrifugal:

P = 240 x 1.49 x .85 x (1-.05) = 289 bhp

Intercooled Turbo:

P = 240 x 1.49 x .96 x (1 - .015) = 338 bhp

If you can do a back to back test on two real cars, those are very close to the numbers you will get. One wants to ask all the obvious questions of all the CS claims of 340 bhp at 5 psi without an intercooler.

Lets Talk Value for a Second
Value is the cost of a horsepower. Assuming everyone makes a nice component, of course.

Typical $6,500*
Value: Non IC CS = ---------------------- = $133 per horsepower
289 hp - 240 hp

Typical $8,500
Value: IC and Turbo = ----------------------- = $87 per horsepower
338 hp - 240 hp

* Some of the CS systems cost over $9,000, but the equation remains the same.

Notice the difference in power gained between the two systems. The CS gains 49 hp and the intercooled turbo gains 98 hp. That means the turbo gains 2 times the power the CS gains.

But I can’t stand the lag!:
Just answer one basic question. If you are cruising along at 3000 revs and decide to nail the throttle, would you prefer the zero boost the CS will offer, or the 7 psi that the turbo will reach in less than one second? If you are cruising at 5000 rpm’s where the CS can actually make some boost, but not yet its maximum, its response is no faster than the turbo. Rest assured, at a cruise of 5000 revs, you can’t get your foot to the floor and off again without the turbo reaching full boost. At 5000 revs, the CS will respond quickly too, but it won’t reach full boost. That number is reserved for the absolute redline.

Durability of the Turbo versus the Centrifugal Blower
With the ceramic ball bearing sections and a 5000 mile synthetic oil change interval, the turbo will live well past 100,000 miles (water cooled bearing sections also available). As an example, those 18 wheeler Diesels use approximately a 200,000 mile figure for overhauling their turbos. I doubt there is an 18 wheeler out there that is not turbocharged, and those things cruise under boost. As it is today for average lives, the turbo will last approximately four times as long as a centrifugal blower. This is not a small difference, rather, an absurdly large difference. We provide the ceramic ball bearing section, the oil quality and frequency of change is up to the owner of the M3.

The Turbo Heat Problem
Invariably a supercharger salesman will point to the turbo and flatly state that when it is glowing red hot, it will melt everything under the hood. The problem is knowledge, not the turbo. Iron and steel begin to glow red at around 11000 F. The stock exhaust gas temperature is in excess of that, thus the stock exhaust manifold glows when the car is driven hard. No damage is done in the stock condition and none will be done by the turbo.

Engine Safety
It is necessary to feel reasonably comfortable that one is not going to kill the jewel of an engine the M3 is blessed with by adding the forced induction system. To reach this understanding, it is urgent to come to grips with two fundamentals.

One: The power loads in the engine at the elevated output of forced induction are
not big enough to tickle its tummy. Cyclical (RPM) loads are commonly what hurts engines.

Two: Heat in the air charge entering the combustion chamber is the root of all evil.
Engine knock is the only killer of forced induction engines, and it is solely induced
by heat. Many things influence the heat, such as air/fuel mixtures, compression
ratio, boost, etc. Whether an engine dies a knocking death or survives to provide
great enjoyment is almost solely dependent on how well the designers handle the
heat in the intake charge and the A/F ratio.

When an SC salesman tells you his system is so well engineered that an intercooler is not worthwhile, its time to question his motives. While his argument may sound plausible by citing that the blower doesn’t make heat, or that intercoolers have bad side effects, this is simply not what physics bears out.

The engine safety of our system is well under control. The turbo and the CS generally share the same style compressor and are therefore, equal in efficiency, which means they produce the same heat in the air charge. The similarity stops right there. Our intercooler removes 88% of the 120 F added by the turbo, at around 7 psi. This intercooler is such a powerful influence on the temperatures, that the turbo could produce over 30 psi of boost before the air temperature exiting the intercooler would be the same as that exiting the centrifugal blower. Further engine safety is provided by the correct air/fuel ratios and the original factory knock sensing system, via our reprogramming of the DME. Follow the rules regarding fuel octane, standard premium grade, and the safety issue is a slam dunk.

Throttle Response
It is common for someone unacquainted with a turbocharged car to complain about the throttle response with the turbo. The SC salesman will try to convince you that nothing happens when you move the throttle, not even standard, normally aspirated response. Unfortunately, this misinformation persists, as the engine responds instantly to the slightest throttle position change. When the driver of the Turbo M3 applies throttle, there is actually a small amount of boost in the upstream tubes at that instant. With a small amount of boost available to push it's way into the manifold, rather than just atmospheric pressure, the driver will notice a small, but perceptible improvement in throttle response.

The Daily Driver
The substantial increase in engine power does not come about at the expense of the sweet driving nature of the BMW. All aspects of smooth, easy drivability are controlled by such factors as fuel injection calibration, compression ratio, camshaft profiles, and ignition timing. These items are carefully altered in the installation, therefore the drivability is also unchanged from stock. If one puts a rock under the throttle to eliminate boost, the driver would pronounce the vehicle as just another M3 with perfect drivability.

Mid-range pulling ability of large engines has always been their attraction. This characteristic now shows up in the Turbo BMW with its new found torque capability. We hope the idea of calling the M3 a low and mid-range torquer doesn't sound too preposterous. Before laughing and rejecting the idea, please accept and regard as fact, the Turbo BMW will pull harder in 5th gear at just 3000 rpm than the stock BMW can manage in 3rd gear, at virtually any RPM. Further along the same idea, 3rd gear under boost will accelerate over 10% faster than 2nd gear stock can manage. It sounds preposterous perhaps, but it is absolute fact, the Turbo BMW M3 will do exactly that with the equipment provided in our system. And it does so safely.

Along with the sheer fun and entertainment value of the huge power and torque increase, comes the capability to properly decorate your favorite strip of pavement with long black lines. This is particularly fun as the Turbo BMW M3 never looses its composure and accomplishes such feats with true grace and ease.

[mellojoe]

Great read, westboroughpimp.

There is one counter-point that I would like to make: the author assumes full boost of 8psi at redline vs. a turbo producing 8psi of boost around 75% redline, if I gather the numbers correctly.

While it is true that the boost of a supercharger is dependent on engine rpm, you can match a pulley set with your goals (ie, high-rpm drag or low-rpm cruiser). The dangers are that a supercharger does not STOP making boost at a certain point. A turbo can vent off excess exhaust gasses to keep from creating too much boost... so you can pick a set level. For a supercharger, you have to pick the MAXIMUM boost your engine can sustain and then match that with your maximum RPM. Then when you are at say 50% throttle you have less boost. make sense?

This author doesn't point out this point, and sort of misleads the reader by mating some slightly mismatched systems, in my opinion.

However, the author makes some good points: points that I readily agree with.

[Var]

Yes i also agree with you. I would just like to point out that in his tests, the turbocharger was more responsive, even with the additional displacement of an intercooler.

[crioten]

long but very good info...i learned something today!!! yay...and i pay how much to learn something at college? :duh:

[sykikchimp]

Great read, westboroughpimp.

There is one counter-point that I would like to make: the author assumes full boost of 8psi at redline vs. a turbo producing 8psi of boost around 75% redline, if I gather the numbers correctly.

While it is true that the boost of a supercharger is dependent on engine rpm, you can match a pulley set with your goals (ie, high-rpm drag or low-rpm cruiser). The dangers are that a supercharger does not STOP making boost at a certain point. A turbo can vent off excess exhaust gasses to keep from creating too much boost... so you can pick a set level. For a supercharger, you have to pick the MAXIMUM boost your engine can sustain and then match that with your maximum RPM. Then when you are at say 50% throttle you have less boost. make sense?

This author doesn't point out this point, and sort of misleads the reader by mating some slightly mismatched systems, in my opinion.

However, the author makes some good points: points that I readily agree with.


I'm not totally sure what your saying here.. throttle position does not affect boost on a supercharged car. RPM does. The only time boost drops on a supercharged car is if your off the throttle completely, and the boost is bypassed.

[sykikchimp]

ok so what, sikikchimp, u are saying the loosing maybe 1-2hp/trq at low RPMS like at idle isnt worth it?? If Jackson Racing is going to make a SC for the KA it is going to be one that mount as if it was the intake and SC together, not a SIde mount or Cintrificul ( spelling). I am talking about using power to beable to make more power, not just using the SC on the KA but a SC and a turbo setup.

seriously, a car with a supercharger and twin turbo's will make less power than a car with just twin turbo's at the same combined boost levels.

Most superchargers drag about 20% of the power they make to drive themselves.

[twitchy]

when all is said and done i think its more a matter of preference of other things than how much power each respective unit takes to make more power.

[Var]

when all is said and done i think its more a matter of preference of other things than how much power each respective unit takes to make more power.


:confused: i guess you're right in a sense. Not everyone takes logical steps towards a goal. You could spend more money for less power if it's your preference.

[Ghettokracker71]

:confused: i guess you're right in a sense. Not everyone takes logical steps towards a goal. You could spend more money for less power if it's your preference.

Hmm....you do have a point,but not everybody has the "MORE POWER:rolleyes:" thing going on. Plenty of people would rather sacrifice a little power for driveability.

[twitchy]

its not necessarily more expensive or harder to do. In some cases im sure it is, in some im sure it is not. I have nothing per say against a turbo setup but its not my preference. Ive driven a few of them. Supercharged ones too. Fact is, in my experience the supercharger delivers more seamless power, less noisy and less noticeable. I dont like the whining spooling, BOV sounds and I dont like lag. Superchargers dont have any of these problems. Im not about to solve equations for horsepower and delivery and RPM loads, but for MY car, it will be a supercharger.

I dont see how you consider that to be illogical.

[Var]

its not necessarily more expensive or harder to do. In some cases im sure it is, in some im sure it is not. I have nothing per say against a turbo setup but its not my preference. Ive driven a few of them. Supercharged ones too. Fact is, in my experience the supercharger delivers more seamless power, less noisy and less noticeable. I dont like the whining spooling, BOV sounds and I dont like lag. Superchargers dont have any of these problems. Im not about to solve equations for horsepower and delivery and RPM loads, but for MY car, it will be a supercharger.

I dont see how you consider that to be illogical.


The superchargers that make big power also make crazy annoying noises at idle. They sound like crickets on crack. ANyways. In some cases you are absolutely right..the charger is the way to go. An example is a mustang. for 4000 dollars, you can buy a bolt on kit from Vortech that needs absolutely no additional tuning and it adds a hair under 180 horsepower to the crank. That's worth it. But with a little more patience and another 1000 bucks, you can get like 300-500 extra horses depending on the internals with a turbo kit. SO like i said. If you have a power goal, and you decide to go the logical route, then it's all good. FOr japanese cars it seems more logical to go turbo. One thing is though, that i used to think that the sr20 swap was the logical thing to do, but now i disagree with myself, so i'm not saying you're wrong. it's just my opinion. ANd ghettocracker, i didnt mean to make it seem like ownage, cause it wasnt.

[mellojoe]

I'm not totally sure what your saying here.. throttle position does not affect boost on a supercharged car. RPM does.

Thats exactly my point. Yes. RPM is directly related to boost levels on a supercharged system. A turbo is not directly affected by RPM, but by exhaust velocity which is a function of RPM.

[sykikchimp]

exhaust velocity is not a function of RPM. It's a matter of Throttle position.

[Var]

. I dont like the whining spooling, BOV sounds and I dont like lag. Superchargers dont have any of these problems.



I was too busy trying to be nice in my last post and i didnt notice you posted this.

Superchargers whine LOUDER than turbos, they do spool(slower than turbos unless your turbo is an oversized drag turbo), BOV would only lengthen the life of your supercharger and some people run them when running high boost, and lag?? See spooling.

[Ghettokracker71]

I was too busy trying to be nice in my last post and i didnt notice you posted this.

Superchargers whine LOUDER than turbos, they do spool(slower than turbos unless your turbo is an oversized drag turbo), BOV would only lengthen the life of your supercharger and some people run them when running high boost, and lag?? See spooling.

every supercharged car I've ridden in/driven has had NO lag...hit the gas feel the power while watching the boost gauge climb at the same rate your foots dropping :boink:

[twitchy]

and neither supercharged car i drove was as loud as a turbo

[deviousKA]

Heres a couple R rated engines for ya, supercharged l and z series nissan/datsun sohc I4. Very similar to both ka24e and de.

http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wMzg4NzkxNnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg

http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wMzE2NDcwNnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg

[berngtr]

i have the pic of the RB26DETTS but it says its 2 big to attatch but its a sick looking motor.

never leave boost that would be sweet. i wonder how well it really works though

[240sxconversion]

depending on what S/C u use, there are some that are louder then a turbo, look at darius' datsun with the s/c LS1

[bkfill]

aw i thought this was gunna be a post of a SC, HONESTLY! I'd try it WHY NOT!
Something new won't hurt, but a dream like he had SC, TT is just a little to much
if its done usualy its for SHOW, cause its a big waste of money

[Ghettokracker71]

and neither supercharged car i drove was as loud as a turbo

I've heard plenty of loud ones...lol....go listen to an 871 on top of a 454SBC...

[sykikchimp]

superchargers are great for track cars. I've often tossed around the idea of s/cing my car, but the expense due to no direct aftermarket support is what has always turned me off.

One of the big problems is that the S/C outlet is on the opposite side of the belts, and there isn't really a good way to route piping around the engine bay for it. Specifically for a centrifugal s/c. A roots type like the jackson racing units with a custom intake mani would be the cleanest install. Both way will require a LOT of custom metal work and engineering to do them properly.