Supercharger? [Merged 11-8] NOT electric superchargers

[Redmachine]

Team R.I.P.P. would be the closest you could find that would make a SC for our cars. They have them for the 3G's , but havent had any customers come to them with interest of making one for a 2G. They did state that they would have no problem doing it, just need to see the car in person to fab out the design.

Over at boosthead.com
Thomas knight has a eaton setup working puttin around 225 Horse on a stock block. You have to use the vehicle select menu but its there pics and all. Someone ran this setup already(with proper supporting fuel mods) and put 8.90's down in the 1/8th they said thats high 12 low 13

 

[ambratton]

wondering if i can out a supercharger on my eagle talon. or what kind of turbocharger i can put on without doing an engine swap.

 

[dustyb]

....if you didn't know a supercharger and a turbocharger are two different things anyways, if you want to upgrade, use a turbocharger because it robs a lot less HP from your engine to produce all that power whereas a supercharger uses about 10x more power to create the power. plus a supercharger doesn't really make a lot of sense on a 4 cylinder car....

 

[leakyfaucet]

plus a supercharger doesn't really make a lot of sense on a 4 cylinder car....

Explain why a supercharger makes less sense on a 4 cylinder than, say, an 8 cylinder.
Only thing I can think of is that it would be a waste of effort trying to make a weak engine powerful when you can start with an engine that already is powerful. Is that what you were thinking?

 

[mavisky]

first off our cars are designed to breathe at higher rpms and make very little torque on the bottom end so something along the lines of a turbocharger or centrifugal supercharger help magnify the upper rpm ranges for us. something like a roots style blower (what's used on top fuel cars and production cars like the grand prix gtp or 2003 stang cobra) work really good to bolster the midrange power but can fall a little short on the top end of things.

your easiest option is to go and get the turbo setup off of another 1g and keep it at low boost. there's a write up out there by xhypno on how to do this.

 

[hkdl]

Heres is the write-up

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55459&highlight=xhypno

 

[IceDragon]

Do they even MAKE a supercharger for our 4g63 cars??? if they do... I'd love to know who and how much

 

[Defiant]

There's this, but I can't fathom anyone wanting it:

http://www.boosthead.com/home.php

 

[TimG]

There was a supercharger which was custom made with the help of a tig and mig welder in PEI Canada. This was all done in early 2001.

Use and Eaton M90 charger. Customs install. Aluminum sheet metal intake. Tensioner. 11 psi supercharger pulley. Modified rear engine mount. Custom water injection kit for cooling (no IC).

Lots of work was done and it built 10psi at 800rpm. Didn't pull extensively but did make for a fun project.

PIC: http://www.ecanfix.com/~mdhamilton/images/talon/blower.jpeg

Just for planting ideas in the turbo hater's heads.

 

[HokieDSM]

Neat, although I think at 10psi, I would want an intercooler in that system. Making the charger a part of the intake manifold doesn't make that very doable.

 

[Amazin' Wasian]

what are the advantages and disadvantages of having a supercharger? can u run higher boost on a turbo or is it the same?

 

[Defiant]

You aren't really trying to do this here, are you?

Both impart extreme loads on an engine. Turbochargers do it mostly through thermal loading, superchargers add in a direct mechanical load. If an engine is designed to live with it, they can last for distances comparable to normally-aspirated ones. Usually, they have less room to do any performance "tweaking" with than NA engines.

 

[hewhoisknot]

superchargers use power to make power, turbos make power out of exhaust gases

 

[Mackzero]

If you are even considering putting a supercharger on your car get ready to spend a lot of money doing it right. Complete waste of time. You have a DSM, an eclipse at that, just swap out the motor, etc. and call it good.

 

[Denji]

If you are even considering putting a supercharger on your car get ready to spend a lot of money doing it right. Complete waste of time. You have a DSM, an eclipse at that, just swap out the motor, etc. and call it good.

Alright, swapping the motor for a 4g63 is right up there with the supercharger, they are both equally retarded ideas. You should know that!

 

[Just Nasty]

Yes, good turbo setups are capable of boosting a lot higher than SCs.

 

[joe039]

one good thing about superchargers though, is that 'cause it gets the power directly from the crank (i think... im probably wrong), there's no lag, so you dont need to worry about spool time.

 

[smokey90gsx]

one good thing about superchargers though, is that 'cause it gets the power directly from the crank (i think... im probably wrong), there's no lag, so you dont need to worry about spool time.

There is always spool time. It may not take as long with a roots supercharger for example, but there is always an amount of time that it takes for the supercharger to make full boost.

 

[totalburnout]

one good thing about superchargers though, is that 'cause it gets the power directly from the crank (i think... im probably wrong), there's no lag, so you dont need to worry about spool time.

That equates to good low end torque which is good for a big displacement motor, this is why SC are seen on domestics.


The belt the turns the SC from the crank also equates to a parasitic loss of power because its added force that needs to be turned. This equates to less power than a turbo charger in the higher rpms.


Basically for a street application in an import, the better decision is a turbo charger.


There is or was an article on www.hondaswap.com (some of the mods got in a tiff and I think it may be deleted now) that explained the two kinds of superchargers available in comparison with a turbo charger. The turbo charger was 'proven' to be more efficient and a better application.

 

[FusionTalon]

a sc is safer on a V8, it will tear the little 4 banger apart. The turbo is a bit easier, crankshaft wise, but it still puts strain on the engine. The plus with with a sc is that it doesnt need time to spool up, remember its hooked up to the engine its always running, and it has an insane kick at low rpm, which it holds through the high rpms. The turbo, u need some revv to get it spooling and a much higher revv to get it going at optimal speed for high psi, the turbo is like a power band on a 2 stroke dirtbke.
Down fall for the supercharger is that its alot heavier fully equipt. And the turbo is lighter
A 4 banger would perfer a turbo, v6-v12 its better to supercharge them. Ive seen old ass heavy cars like 1967 Shelby Mustang GT500 with a supercharger murder eclipses with thier happy little EVOIII 16G turbo and awd, becasue as soon as the light turns green, the GT500 is pushing 600-700+ hp at the rear wheels, the eclipse is pushing what ever the 2.0 can push at the 1k-2k range when it takes off, if u rev it then drop the clutch u geta bounce but u lose psi because the cars weight slows the engine down and the turbo looses a shit load psi on that.

 

[suicidal2af]

Supercharged cars also have a very linear powerband. The only inherent problem with blowers is that you need to sacrifice power to make power. In a setup like hours, this would yield little to no gain. But in a, say, 454 BBC, you'll be looking at some pretty massive gains to be had.

The other advantage, and one of the reasons you'll *never* see turbo'd top fuels, is that a turbocharger is a very large restriction in the exhaust. Eventually you'll get to a point where you're flowing so much air that it's more of a restriction than a help...with a blower, you can just run open headers and be done with it.

A supercharger is also going to impart a bit more wear on the vehicle, as anytime you touch the accelerator, you're going to be boosting...you can keep a turbo'd car in vac all day long.

 

[Jehu]

one good thing about superchargers though, is that 'cause it gets the power directly from the crank (i think... im probably wrong), there's no lag, so you dont need to worry about spool time.

Not necessarily true.

There is always spool time. It may not take as long with a roots supercharger for example, but there is always an amount of time that it takes for the supercharger to make full boost.

Not necessarily true either.

You need to make the differentiation between a positive displacement vs a centrifugal supercharger before you can qualify those statements. A roots type supercharger moves a certain CFM of air at a certain RPM. It is fixed. It will be set-up such that it always moves more air than the engine can consume, hence it will make boost. If the engine's pumping losses decrease with RPM, then boost will tend to drop with a positive displacement supercharger, as is usually the case.

A centrifugal supercharger is more like a turbocharger in the way it imparts energy to the air, except that it is powered by the engine via a belt/gear drive. There will be less lag compared to a turbocharger, but it will not be as responsive as a roots type blower.

Suicidal2af, your statement isn't true. You can always size your AR such that you have acceptable pressure drops at higher flows rates. The problem is the routing and the packaging.

After reading through the replies on this thread, there are many posters with misconceptions on supercharging and even turbocharging. I would suggest, Wasian, that you do your own research...

 

[samoz3]

what about nitrous? :laugh:

 

[Fattie92]

A supercharger is also going to impart a bit more wear on the vehicle, as anytime you touch the accelerator, you're going to be boosting...you can keep a turbo'd car in vac all day long.

For some newer cars, this is false. Some manufactures, such as Mercedes, use a magnetic clutch to turn the supercharger on and off.

 

[suicidal2af]

Suicidal2af, your statement isn't true. You can always size your AR such that you have acceptable pressure drops at higher flows rates. The problem is the routing and the packaging.

Acceptable? When you're looking at a car like a rail, *no* backpressure is acceptable. No restriction will be good. It will slow you down. And if you manage an A/R large enough to not pose a big restriction, it'll spool as you are deploying your chute, if even then.