Supercharger Discussion Forum
05-15-2015, 01:54 PM
#41
I thought I read that past 7200rpm on a 10 psi (I think it was 10psi) pulley it would overspin the shaft, Please correct me if that is wrong!
Yeah I don't plan to put the supercharger on for a while, this is all probably a year or so away so I can hold-off, what will be better about the Jackson Racing and TDR kit? Kraftwerks kit has been around for a while now and is proven to work?
Yeah I don't plan to put the supercharger on for a while, this is all probably a year or so away so I can hold-off, what will be better about the Jackson Racing and TDR kit? Kraftwerks kit has been around for a while now and is proven to work?
On my set up, I'm running a 85mm pulley and seeing 9.5psi at 7100RPM and the blower is well under it's redline.
Reply
0
0
05-18-2015, 05:28 AM
#42
Newb
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Total Cats: 2
With the stock crank pulley (130mm IIRC) you can run a 75mm pulley producing 12psi peak at 7200RPM. At this point you are also redlining the C30-74 but not over spinning.
On my set up, I'm running a 85mm pulley and seeing 9.5psi at 7100RPM and the blower is well under it's redline.
On my set up, I'm running a 85mm pulley and seeing 9.5psi at 7100RPM and the blower is well under it's redline.
Reply
0
0
05-19-2015, 02:14 AM
#43
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 3,468
Total Cats: 365
that sounds good. I think I saw somewhere that if I were to run a 94 it would actually have less power in the bottom of the power band than the 74 (I need to try find this graph again so i can confirm what i saw). If I were to get a 94 and then bleed the excessive boost off would it essentially build all the boost then power "taper" off when it reaches full boost till redline?
Essentially, what you describe, yes. There are a couple of ways to bleed the boost - put a wastegate onto the intake manifold, or put a blowoff valve into your piping somewhere.
Reply
0
0
05-19-2015, 07:14 AM
#44
Newb
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Total Cats: 2
The 94 should be moving more air at all speeds, period, so you should have more lower end and a faster rise to peak boost compared to a 74. I'm not sure what dyno plot you're thinking of that shows differently.
Essentially, what you describe, yes. There are a couple of ways to bleed the boost - put a wastegate onto the intake manifold, or put a blowoff valve into your piping somewhere.
Essentially, what you describe, yes. There are a couple of ways to bleed the boost - put a wastegate onto the intake manifold, or put a blowoff valve into your piping somewhere.
Reply
0
0
05-19-2015, 11:11 AM
#46
Elite Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,642
Total Cats: 36
Just to toss this out there on the original subject.....
The real issue is that you have serious **** to handle on these drivelines before 300WHP, which is sort of sad compared to most other platforms.
So most people basically want the most power before hitting diminishing returns on their $$. And like most platforms, that means the most power on stock bottom end and transmission. Which is low 200s ish WHP on these. Or at least that the conventional wisdom. Frankly I think that's pessimistic, but since I'm not exactly pushing the envelope over here I cant talk trash about it.
So if you are going for low 200s WHP, what's the most economical way to get there?
DIY-esque Turbo. This is not really debatable.
And while throttle response is cool no doubt, consider the absolute **** TQ curves of many cars that are hailed as 'drivers cars' of whatthefuckever the hard parker magazine term is now. The Toyobarus are great fun, I have driven one many times. Its just plain entertaining. It also has a TQ band that looks like a drunk with a twitch drew it on the dyno chart. Doesn't seem to ruin the experience for people. I like driving it.
So, as you sit there with your ~4K car and you want more power, how inclined are you to spend 5K on supercharger stuff to hit high 100s WHP with most off the shelf solutions when you could spend the same or possibly/likely much less for low 200s WHP, in a car that will be even more incredibly fun to drive than it is now?
Now if you can get a reliable supercharger setup that has no custom guess work, makes low 200s WHP easily, and does not cost 5K, you have a real competitor. That's not so easy. The JR/949 looks promising. CP's used setup is maddeningly tempting, but that's not a deal you see all that often.. Superchargers are generally a road less traveled with a lot of pot holes in it.
The real issue is that you have serious **** to handle on these drivelines before 300WHP, which is sort of sad compared to most other platforms.
So most people basically want the most power before hitting diminishing returns on their $$. And like most platforms, that means the most power on stock bottom end and transmission. Which is low 200s ish WHP on these. Or at least that the conventional wisdom. Frankly I think that's pessimistic, but since I'm not exactly pushing the envelope over here I cant talk trash about it.
So if you are going for low 200s WHP, what's the most economical way to get there?
DIY-esque Turbo. This is not really debatable.
And while throttle response is cool no doubt, consider the absolute **** TQ curves of many cars that are hailed as 'drivers cars' of whatthefuckever the hard parker magazine term is now. The Toyobarus are great fun, I have driven one many times. Its just plain entertaining. It also has a TQ band that looks like a drunk with a twitch drew it on the dyno chart. Doesn't seem to ruin the experience for people. I like driving it.
So, as you sit there with your ~4K car and you want more power, how inclined are you to spend 5K on supercharger stuff to hit high 100s WHP with most off the shelf solutions when you could spend the same or possibly/likely much less for low 200s WHP, in a car that will be even more incredibly fun to drive than it is now?
Now if you can get a reliable supercharger setup that has no custom guess work, makes low 200s WHP easily, and does not cost 5K, you have a real competitor. That's not so easy. The JR/949 looks promising. CP's used setup is maddeningly tempting, but that's not a deal you see all that often.. Superchargers are generally a road less traveled with a lot of pot holes in it.
Reply
0
0
05-19-2015, 11:18 AM
#47
Superchargers can be cool, turbo's can be cool. We always bust each other's chops with smack talk towards the junky supercharer setups, and the guys with cool supercharger setups return the favor in every thread they can by talking smack towards the turbo guys. It goes round and round.
Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's drama, sometimes it's......
Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's drama, sometimes it's......
Reply
1
1
05-19-2015, 01:44 PM
#48
Eh. I think the arguments are fairly solid.
Turbo:
* More torque
* Have to wait for spool (Anyone who says they have a no-spool setup gets punched in the junk)
* Cheaper, due to massive proliferation of used kits
Supercharger:
* Less torque
* Get it right now, linear throttle response, just behaves like a bigger motor instead of a turbo motor
* More expensive setups
Anything past that is opinion and dickwaving. Not that there's not a place for that.
Personally, for a daily driver, and for an autocross car, supercharger is absolutely where I'll go, because the drivability and linear throttle response is paramount. For a track/road race car, I'd likely go turbo because it's just easier to get more power out of it, there's less moving parts to break/deal with, and I can set up my gearing to never be out of the turbo's powerband.
You just can't do that on the street/autocross course. Bundy's car is about as close as you can get, with a small turbo, but when you have a 25mph pin turn, that still puts his motor at 2800 rpms in second, which is way out of the powerband. If you downshift to first then you'll light up your tires madly with the ridiculous torque at the wheels and then shift back into second after getting the car pointed the right way again. If he can get spooled coming out of a corner though, he'll have more torque than I would. So, there's lots of places he'll be faster than I will with an SC as well.
The nuance to these discussions are important. You can't just say "turbos are better" or "scs are better". If you want to wave your dyno ***** around and only have 2k$ to do it with, go with a turbo. You'll do fine. If you have more nuanced needs, then there's a discussion to be had. Again, on the street, I'll take an SC any day, because you're always in your powerband, and I don't really like the vario-torque of a turbo as much. But you'll never get the silly kick-in-the-nuts as your big turbo spools either, which some people really like. It's really an opinion game for the vast majority of cases.
Turbo:
* More torque
* Have to wait for spool (Anyone who says they have a no-spool setup gets punched in the junk)
* Cheaper, due to massive proliferation of used kits
Supercharger:
* Less torque
* Get it right now, linear throttle response, just behaves like a bigger motor instead of a turbo motor
* More expensive setups
Anything past that is opinion and dickwaving. Not that there's not a place for that.
Personally, for a daily driver, and for an autocross car, supercharger is absolutely where I'll go, because the drivability and linear throttle response is paramount. For a track/road race car, I'd likely go turbo because it's just easier to get more power out of it, there's less moving parts to break/deal with, and I can set up my gearing to never be out of the turbo's powerband.
You just can't do that on the street/autocross course. Bundy's car is about as close as you can get, with a small turbo, but when you have a 25mph pin turn, that still puts his motor at 2800 rpms in second, which is way out of the powerband. If you downshift to first then you'll light up your tires madly with the ridiculous torque at the wheels and then shift back into second after getting the car pointed the right way again. If he can get spooled coming out of a corner though, he'll have more torque than I would. So, there's lots of places he'll be faster than I will with an SC as well.
The nuance to these discussions are important. You can't just say "turbos are better" or "scs are better". If you want to wave your dyno ***** around and only have 2k$ to do it with, go with a turbo. You'll do fine. If you have more nuanced needs, then there's a discussion to be had. Again, on the street, I'll take an SC any day, because you're always in your powerband, and I don't really like the vario-torque of a turbo as much. But you'll never get the silly kick-in-the-nuts as your big turbo spools either, which some people really like. It's really an opinion game for the vast majority of cases.
Reply
3
3
05-19-2015, 01:46 PM
#49
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
but when you have a 25mph pin turn, that still puts his motor at 2800 rpms in second, which is way out of the powerband. If you downshift to first then you'll light up your tires madly with the ridiculous torque at the wheels and then shift back into second after getting the car pointed the right way again. If he can get spooled coming out of a corner though, he'll have more torque than I would.
Reply
0
0
05-19-2015, 01:49 PM
#51
At 2800 rpms, there's just not the mass air flow required to spool the turbo. Antilag can't make your engine push more air than it's capable of, it can just make your turbo spool as if you were floored even when you're not. You'll be floored at that 2800 rpms, but nothing real will happen until the motor gets up to 3500-4000. Antilag is much better for things like rally, where the motor is at 5k RPMs and you just want to keep the turbo spooled even when you're off throttle.
Reply
0
0
05-19-2015, 08:04 PM
#52
And while throttle response is cool no doubt, consider the absolute **** TQ curves of many cars that are hailed as 'drivers cars' of whatthefuckever the hard parker magazine term is now. The Toyobarus are great fun, I have driven one many times. Its just plain entertaining. It also has a TQ band that looks like a drunk with a twitch drew it on the dyno chart. Doesn't seem to ruin the experience for people. I like driving it.
Reply
0
0
05-19-2015, 08:45 PM
#55
Elite Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,826
Total Cats: 67
At 2800 rpms, there's just not the mass air flow required to spool the turbo. Antilag can't make your engine push more air than it's capable of, it can just make your turbo spool as if you were floored even when you're not. You'll be floored at that 2800 rpms, but nothing real will happen until the motor gets up to 3500-4000. Antilag is much better for things like rally, where the motor is at 5k RPMs and you just want to keep the turbo spooled even when you're off throttle.
You can build unusable amounts of boost with enough fuel, air and ignition retard at 2800rpm.
Dann
Reply
1
1
05-19-2015, 10:34 PM
#59
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
At 2800 rpms, there's just not the mass air flow required to spool the turbo. Antilag can't make your engine push more air than it's capable of, it can just make your turbo spool as if you were floored even when you're not. You'll be floored at that 2800 rpms, but nothing real will happen until the motor gets up to 3500-4000. Antilag is much better for things like rally, where the motor is at 5k RPMs and you just want to keep the turbo spooled even when you're off throttle.
Reply
0
0
