Still no SC for V6 eh?

[jagan323]

lol, in my desperation to find a supercharger for the LLT, I came across Ebay's Electric supercharger. LOL... Have you guys seen that? It's funny lol.

Hook a fan up the to car battery, and it sucks in air at 40,000 RPM 1/10 of a second. Apparently gives 3psi boost. lol... looks hilarious.

On a side note, is it possible to go Super turbo charged? Is that like way to expensive? lol

[seanm@stillen]

Originally Posted by jagan323

lol, in my desperation to find a supercharger for the LLT, I came across Ebay's Electric supercharger. LOL... Have you guys seen that? It's funny lol.
On a side note, is it possible to go Super turbo charged? Is that like way to expensive? lol

The electric fans, are not a good idea. Most of the time they are not designed for a harsh environment like a engine compartment. They may move "some" air, but an engine moves a very good volume of air, and we could do the math, but at a point, the fan becomes a restriction to flow.

Super- turbo charger? The actual early name for a turbocharger is a superturbocharger.

From Wikipedia - "Early manufacturers of turbochargers referred to them as "turbosuperchargers". A supercharger is an air compressor used for forced induction of an engine. Logically then, adding a turbine to turn the supercharger would yield a "turbosupercharger". However, the term was soon shortened to "turbocharger". This is now a source of confusion, as the term "turbosupercharged" is sometimes used to refer to an engine that uses both a crankshaft-driven supercharger and an exhaust-driven turbocharger, often referred to as twincharging."

Now, twin charging. Its been done. Its interesting. Expensive and complicated. They are interesting design exercises , but honestly not worth all the hassles.

I was in the US Navy for 6 years, and I worked on control systems for Detroit Diesels. 16V149T. Those are 16 cylinder in a V configuration , 149 cubic inches per cylinder , turbo charged. Actually they were twin supercharged, and quad turbocharged. Two superchargers feeding each supercharger. 2 stroke, noisy, nasty thing that Detroit. It did make about 1700 hp, and turned right on about 1800 rpms to make 1000 kW of power. They work, they are common, but complicated.

[Dyk-NO]

I think there's a twincharged build thread here somewhere? Hmmm

[seanm@stillen]

Originally Posted by Dyk-NO

I think there's a twincharged build thread here somewhere? Hmmm

Heres the thing with twin charging a non factory supercharged car.

$7000 for a supercharger
$7000 for a turbo setup

$14,000 for a very complicated setup. Yes it can work. You have to be pretty eccentric to want to run it.

I did just see a twin charged Mustang in the current issue of Hot Rod Magazine. http://www.hellionpowersystems.com/i...article&id=140

[SDCamaro10]

Originally Posted by seanm@stillen

The electric fans, are not a good idea. Most of the time they are not designed for a harsh environment like a engine compartment. They may move "some" air, but an engine moves a very good volume of air, and we could do the math, but at a point, the fan becomes a restriction to flow.

Super- turbo charger? The actual early name for a turbocharger is a superturbocharger.

From Wikipedia - "Early manufacturers of turbochargers referred to them as "turbosuperchargers". A supercharger is an air compressor used for forced induction of an engine. Logically then, adding a turbine to turn the supercharger would yield a "turbosupercharger". However, the term was soon shortened to "turbocharger". This is now a source of confusion, as the term "turbosupercharged" is sometimes used to refer to an engine that uses both a crankshaft-driven supercharger and an exhaust-driven turbocharger, often referred to as twincharging."

Now, twin charging. Its been done. Its interesting. Expensive and complicated. They are interesting design exercises , but honestly not worth all the hassles.

I was in the US Navy for 6 years, and I worked on control systems for Detroit Diesels. 16V149T. Those are 16 cylinder in a V configuration , 149 cubic inches per cylinder , turbo charged. Actually they were twin supercharged, and quad turbocharged. Two superchargers feeding each supercharger. 2 stroke, noisy, nasty thing that Detroit. It did make about 1700 hp, and turned right on about 1800 rpms to make 1000 kW of power. They work, they are common, but complicated.

The electric ones, GARBAGE. PLEASE do not buy one of those. I have a buddy that actually tried to put one of those on his old '88 civic.. destroyed his engine. Something broke on start-up, went right into the engine and destroyed it.

@Sean- 7 years, still active, Navy. Those diesels are somethin else. I'd like to see an LM2500 powered Camaro, haha.

[seanm@stillen]

Originally Posted by SDCamaro10

@Sean- 7 years, still active, Navy. Those diesels are somethin else. I'd like to see an LM2500 powered Camaro, haha.

Last I heard they were swapping the Detroits for Cats. The Detroits were nasty things. When I was in, they were positive crank pressure, leaked oil like a sieve.

Cool. I was a gas turbine electrician , GSE, on a frigate ,1991-1997 . I worked on the control systems for the LM2500's. Spent most of my time in CCS, changing light bulbs.

So back to superchargers, and V6's, anything is possible, but there has to be the de$ire there by the V6 owners.

[jagan323]

Hmm, well thanks for all the information. It was very educational. I've heard Turbo setups have more problems along the way though, is that true?

I guess in 5 years time, I'll see what FI options are available for the V6... i just wished there was at least 1 SC set out there on the market.

[mike25]

I'd be more than willing to bet the demand for a roots style supercharger is there. I'd be in

[seanm@stillen]

Originally Posted by jagan323

Hmm, well thanks for all the information. It was very educational. I've heard Turbo setups have more problems along the way though, is that true?

I guess in 5 years time, I'll see what FI options are available for the V6... i just wished there was at least 1 SC set out there on the market.

All the pieces and parts are more or less the same. The turbo is exhaust driven, so you have exhaust concerns. The supercharger is belt/engine/jackshaft driven, so you have those mechanical concerns.

The piping, intercoolers, bypass valves, couplings, hoses are all more or less the same. A turbo car runs a wastegate to control boost, a supercharger uses engine speed/gearbox/pulley size to control boost.

The "problem" with turbochargers is you can easily crank the boost up. Its not a mechanical change, its a twist of a knob, adjustment of a wastegate, or an up on the boost controller. Most peoples thoughts are, if a little is good, a lot more is a lot better.

They continue to crank it up, and crank it up, until they find the breaking point. Rather than blame their understanding of the system, they blame the system. Its like nitrous, its easy to keep jetting it up, but you will find that breaking point. Do it wrong, and it can cost a lot of money.

[jagan323]

Originally Posted by seanm@stillen

All the pieces and parts are more or less the same. The turbo is exhaust driven, so you have exhaust concerns. The supercharger is belt/engine/jackshaft driven, so you have those mechanical concerns.

The piping, intercoolers, bypass valves, couplings, hoses are all more or less the same. A turbo car runs a wastegate to control boost, a supercharger uses engine speed/gearbox/pulley size to control boost.

The "problem" with turbochargers is you can easily crank the boost up. Its not a mechanical change, its a twist of a knob, adjustment of a wastegate, or an up on the boost controller. Most peoples thoughts are, if a little is good, a lot more is a lot better.

They continue to crank it up, and crank it up, until they find the breaking point. Rather than blame their understanding of the system, they blame the system. Its like nitrous, its easy to keep jetting it up, but you will find that breaking point. Do it wrong, and it can cost a lot of money.

Interesting... yea i read an article on the differences between Turbo and Superchargers. I think the concept behind both are very cool. Made me start wondering what other ways there are to give FI. I'm talking like other ways of powering the FI lol. Obviously it's not as simple, otherwise there would be other options for FI =p

So turbo chargers are relatively the same... what about superchargers? I hear there are different types of superchargers all together. I guess the different types mean different ways of powering them.

[seanm@stillen]

Originally Posted by jagan323

So turbo chargers are relatively the same... what about superchargers? I hear there are different types of superchargers all together. I guess the different types mean different ways of powering them.

The short version:

Two main types for cars. Procharger, Vortech, Paxton all use a centrifugal type supercharger. They are very similar to a turbo, however instead of being exhaust driven, they are driven off the crankshaft. Boost pressure is linear, and follows engine RPM. The higher you rev, the more boost you make.

Positive displacement/Roots - Magnuson, Eaton , Edlebrock , etc. These use rotors/screws to compress the air. They are also driven by the crank, but the difference is they actually put out a significant amount of airflow and boost at low RPM.

The long version - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superchargers

So, what would people want for their V-6? Positive displacement, or Centrifugal? Turbo? The varieties of people, the varieties of choices, again all have to make sense when you are looking at a product like forced induction.

[CamaroDreams07]

This was a good read for me:

http://www.superchargersonline.com/content.asp?id=5

[jagan323]

Thanks for the information guys =)

[mike25]

Originally Posted by seanm@stillen

The short version:

Two main types for cars. Procharger, Vortech, Paxton all use a centrifugal type supercharger. They are very similar to a turbo, however instead of being exhaust driven, they are driven off the crankshaft. Boost pressure is linear, and follows engine RPM. The higher you rev, the more boost you make.

Positive displacement/Roots - Magnuson, Eaton , Edlebrock , etc. These use rotors/screws to compress the air. They are also driven by the crank, but the difference is they actually put out a significant amount of airflow and boost at low RPM.

The long version - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superchargers

So, what would people want for their V-6? Positive displacement, or Centrifugal? Turbo? The varieties of people, the varieties of choices, again all have to make sense when you are looking at a product like forced induction.

I have seen alot of requests for a roots style charger setup personally...the only real issue i see would be a new intake manifold of some sort, and depending on belt direction etc...maybe a couple new pieces of equipment there in addition to the standard heat exchanger and all necessary lines hoses etc. Twin screws are some of the priciest blowers on the market, but they are pretty efficient..im not sure if theres a cost effective blower out there to produce a well priced(4-5.5k) to undermine the turbo application..but its worth a look in my, as well as many others opinions.