Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Vararam
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Forced Induction - V8


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-12-2013, 10:49 AM   #1
880
 
880's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 Z06, 2004 Cobra, 1991 MR2Turbo
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Delaware
Posts: 472
smaller supercharger at high boost vs larger supercharger at low boost

Just curious about these setups. Let's say 2 superchargers create the same power, but do it differently.

One is smaller displacement at high boost vs another is larger displacement at low boost.


I'm thinking that the smaller displacement is creating more stress for the engine and the supercharger itself and also adding more pressure and heat? The larger one is more efficient?

Anything wrong? Any other thoughts?
__________________
880 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2013, 10:57 AM   #2
Rcfiddy1
Sold car...
 
Rcfiddy1's Avatar
 
Drives: 2010 Rally Yellow 2SS/RS #37115
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Manalapan, New Jersey
Posts: 2,019
I think the only stress factor is amount of boost. The engine doesn't know how it's created, only that 10 psi is 10 psi in the cylinders. The extra boost created in the cylinder on the compression stroke is the stress factor. All superchargers are just air pumps. Larger pumps mean more boost so you can create more boost if needed. But 2 superchargers at 10 psi will create the same power. Unless you take into account heat and power it takes to spin the s/c. So I would think it takes a little more power to spin a bigger blower. Also, PD blowers are prone to heat soak while centris are less prone. I'm no expert and could be wrong.
__________________
Build Thread
ECS Novi 1500 Supercharged, LS3 conversion, Small blower cam, Alky Meth injection, 3:45 rear, BMR Suspension parts, 1LE Sways, Billy Boat ZL1 dual mode exhaust.
Rcfiddy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 05:58 PM   #3
east TX Muscle cars
 
east TX Muscle cars's Avatar
 
Drives: 2x 05 Vettes/65'AC cobra/68 camaro
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: LONGVIEW, TEXAS
Posts: 845
your pretty much dead on. but the bigger, lets say 2300 over a 1900, will make more power at same psi cause it will be working less to make that psi. So less heat is created.

600 hp is 600 HP the motor doesn't know the difference. what it does know is PRESSURE on the pistons, heat on them, and RPM to make the power, and those things are harder on the motor.
east TX Muscle cars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2013, 07:07 PM   #4
old motorhead

 
Drives: Maggie blown LS3 vette
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SE TX
Posts: 1,490
If you're wanting more boost than a small blower is capable of making, sure, the bigger one will be better. If you're wanting a tiny amount of boost that a small blower will easily make, a bigger one won't be quite as efficient. But, probably hard to measure. At a boost level that both blowers are comfortable with, there isn't enough difference to even argue about.

The old "you need to go with a smaller TVS at under 8 (or pick your number) psi is BS. 8 or 7 or 6 psi takes very similar power from either blower to produce the boost. If you only want mild boost, you can save a few bucks with the smaller blower. That's about the only advantage I can see. If you know you'll eventually want more, the smaller blower makes little sense.

Regarding the OP's first post....boost is boost. 8psi from a big blower will make similar power vs 8psi from a smaller one. As long as you're not talking about an enormous blower spinning way too slow vs a tiny blower spinning way too fast.
old motorhead is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.