PanzerAce Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 So, other than the obvious ease and low cost of doing a turbo build on our L series engines vs. fabbing a mount for a SC, is there any other reason NOT to go with a centrifugal supercharger over a turbo? For some reason the more I look at them, the better an idea it seems, especially if it was mounted on the right hand side of the engine, since there would still be plenty of room for it, then a FMIC could easily be run... So, any ideas on this? Anyone done a centrifugal SC before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_hunt Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 IMO they both make good power, the SC probably has an edge for street use due to the lack of turbo lag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockerstar Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Lack of lag, extremely low parasitic loss, easily run in the same manner as a turbo (piping, intercooler, bov, etc.), can be run at high boost easily, retain the ability to run full length open headers. The list goes on and on, the only drawback is the cost. I'd love to see one set up on a high HP L-series Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 fast z Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 If you take a turbo with 20lbs of boost, and a super with 20lbs of boost, the turbo motor will always make more power, if the turbo is sized correctly. You should look at some graphs of how much horsepower it takes to drive a supercharger, compared to the HP loss of a turbo. Supers can draw hundreds of HP in certain apps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cockerstar Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Have you looked at the percentages of centrifugal superchargers compared to traditional "blowers"? Their compressors are extremely efficient in comparison. I have seen numbers as low as 2% of the total output to drive them! iirc, a roots style blower is in the 35-45% range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 fast z Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Yes, I have. I have looked and talked to alot of very experienced people and for HP to HP a turbo will make more power. Sure you give up some low end to do it, but will make more power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_hunt Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I think what he is getting at is a broader tq range with the sc than with the turbo, which in most cases is true depending upon turbo selection. It is hard to have your cake and eat it too. IMO either would be fine and both have pro's and cons, the sc is probably easier to install although not cheap. It is going to cost money to go fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(goldfish) Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 Pros: Ease of install and packaging Cons: Less power than turbo No low end to mid rpm boost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Scott Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 The centrifugals give you a non-adjustable boost curve. Going up or down in boost requires changing pullies, and often the belt. The low end lack of boost is really a benefit on the street as you'll shred the tires as soon as it hits. Of course, a higher stall or clutch dump solves that issue. Regardless, I still think they're a great power adder, and sound nasty. I love my current set up but some days I really miss the noises and feel of my old Procharger. Sorry wasn't an L series. I still wonder about running a reverse rotation (Ford) unit with a custom bracket for the V8. The air inlet would be facing the front of the car for IC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustin280zx Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 I can't find the write up right now which the dyno sheets where in but a guy tested how much horsepower it took to run an F1-r. He took off the belt and ran the motor NA and put the belt on and dynoed the motor and there was 140hp difference. That was wheel horsepower as well. Obviously the bigger the supercharger and the rpms you turn it the more power it will take to turn it. Steve Morris who is a big Procharger guy just switched over to turbos not too long ago because of the huge amount of torque they can produce over the superchargers. Like dr. hunt said as well, superchargers are not cheap. I wanted to put an F2 on my next blowthrough motor until I found out the front mount systems are around 6 grand. Then if something happens to them it's around a 1000 fix at minimum and you HAVE to send them to procharger, where as any GOOD diesel shop can repair your turbo. I'm going with a s480 for the new motor and will have alot less than 6 grand in the WHOLE motor. Turbos can get just as expensive though if you don't know what you're doing and have to pay someone to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerAce Posted November 19, 2008 Author Share Posted November 19, 2008 Thanks for the info guys. It seems that (generally) everyone agrees that I'd make less power (how much is up to debate) over a turbo pushing the same PSI, but that the easy of packaging and routing of piping could make up for that. John: What setup are you running now? Turbo(s) on that same engine? I don't suppose you happen to have more info about that build, or a dyno sheet for it? 1fZ: A quick (very quick, writing papers at the same time) yielded no hard information about the difference b/w turbo and SC running the same boost. Do you have a specific site in mind that you could link me to? Edit: In case it changes how you guys respond to this, this isn't going to be a drag car or anything, but a DD/AutoX/etc car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustin280zx Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/index.php?topic=74644.0 You'll find a couple guys compare supercharger vs. turbo at same boost, same engine, ect. It does take SOME power to run a turbo, but not near as much as a supercharger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Scott Posted November 19, 2008 Share Posted November 19, 2008 John: What setup are you running now? Turbo(s) on that same engine? I don't suppose you happen to have more info about that build, or a dyno sheet for it? I wish!! Currently n/a V8. If I had the $$ no question I'd go turbo over s/c. Procharged V6 was built in '96. Inexpensive build, 7.5 forged pistons, custom blower grind, cleaned up but restrictive stock heads. Eventually made way more boost, (18 psi) than heads/ engine could ingest, but around 14 or so power was nice and reliable on pump gas. No great power maker, but loads of fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-rib-73-240z Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 what about twin screw supperchargers? i dont know much about superchargers and the differance in types, but i know the company i work for makes crazy power off little boost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-rib-73-240z Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 Lack of lag, extremely low parasitic loss, easily run in the same manner as a turbo (piping, intercooler, bov, etc.), can be run at high boost easily, retain the ability to run full length open headers.The list goes on and on, the only drawback is the cost. I'd love to see one set up on a high HP L-series im fairly certain your talking about the turbo when you say piping intercooler bov, supperchargers have bypasses, and internal intercoolers and no piping.. atleast whipples dont have bov's yea i understand there basicly the same thing bov's and bypasses yea i know what you mean about the price, i wanna do a intercoolers carbed radial kit from my work but i think even for me with the whole employe discount or w.e id still be paying 5 grand i think.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc052685 Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 im fairly certain your talking about the turbo when you say piping intercooler bov, supperchargers have bypasses, and internal intercoolers and no piping.. atleast whipples dont have bov's HAHA:lol: CANT READ.......... FAIL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-rib-73-240z Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 HAHA:lol: CANT READ.......... FAIL are you talking about me? because im fairly certain i might have just missunderstood what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerAce Posted November 20, 2008 Author Share Posted November 20, 2008 For the record guys, I'm only asking about CENTRIFUGAL super chargers, IE: the ones that look like turbos but belt drive. They CAN be ICed, and other than the exhaust on the engine and not having a hot side (or whatever the correct term is), the way they are setup is essentially the same as turbos (from what I gather). I don't honestly care about screw type, lobes, or whatever other SC types there are, because other than the JCR (?) kit, there really is no easy way to mount them to a straight six. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-rib-73-240z Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 For the record guys, I'm only asking about CENTRIFUGAL super chargers, IE: the ones that look like turbos but belt drive. They CAN be ICed, and other than the exhaust on the engine and not having a hot side (or whatever the correct term is), the way they are setup is essentially the same as turbos (from what I gather). I don't honestly care about screw type, lobes, or whatever other SC types there are, because other than the JCR (?) kit, there really is no easy way to mount them to a straight six. sorry they where talking about % power used to turn them so i was just asking i didnt know there where superchargers like turbos but belt driven, never seen them before but then again never looked, again i apologise for my ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 The Centrifugal Supercharger has been successfully applied to the L6 engine. There was a guy in the SF Valley that had a wicked supercharged setup. MSA looked into his setup, which was very sanitary (SC mounted where the aftermarket A/C pump would up by the fuel pump area above the alternator.) Car was wicked-quick. Very nice application. I don't know that I took photos of it at the old OutcaZst meeting or not. he showed at MSA a couple of years, and then dropped off the radar. It was a mustard-brown early car, SC was a small Paxton if I recall. Hell, make your own out of a Magnesium Toro Leaf Blower Impeller, it's two-sided, has tons of flow, and when you decrease the tip clearance from the handheld blower tolerance to something more akin to a turbo (in the range of 0.050-0.100") you can boost that baby over 15psi easily. Fun project for son and dad... I digress... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.