superchargers?

[oldsoul]

why am i not finding many threads about them. It seems like a ka24de supercharded 240 would be a street demon.

[cory2081]

I agree. There are a couple people that have done this on S13's. I have never read of an S14 with one. The 2 that I have read about had Powerdyne units on them. I am hoping to supercharge my S14 with a Procharger. I'm currently stockpiling parts to build a really strong KA right now before I start on the SC project though. If I knew that enough people were interested in possibly buying a kit, I might speed things up a bit. With all the turbo kits available, you'd think there would be at least 1 supercharger kit.

[oldsoul]

a super charger just seems to make more sence to me , because of the need to not rev to the moon.

[pmkls2]

I completely agree with the both of you. I am not a big fan of turbo's because they are much more complicated and tempermental than superchargers. I would love to supercharge my s13 (as soon as I get the funds together). To me a supercharger sounds better because of the simplicity. They dont require a lot of revs to produce power, the boost comes in a lot sooner, and you would have a much flatter torque curve with a supercharger too. Just my thoughts, but I'd love to see a kit out there someday.

[cory2081]

Yeah, a supercharged KA would be very nice. I've owned a turbo car before for 11 years (Buick GN). They can be a real pain at times, especially when you run into problems with boost creep and manifolds cracking. I like turbos, I just want something different in this car. I want to use a Procharger unit b/c I have had experience with their new models and I like the fact that they are self-contained. The hardest part is finding a place to mount it on the KA and figuring out the proper pulley size to use. The rest is cake. I figure it could probably be mounted below the alternator and use the same belt as the alternator since it is the widest belt on the KA. Piping shouldnt a problem at all. Just use the same stuff for fuel management as a turbo car (E-manage, injectors, walbro fuel pump, etc.) It would be a fun project.

[oldsoul]

plus a lil blower whine would be cool on the street

[navysnail]

you also have to let turbos cool down before you shut off the car

[marshun]

Yeah, a supercharged KA would be very nice. I've owned a turbo car before for 11 years (Buick GN). They can be a real pain at times, especially when you run into problems with boost creep and manifolds cracking. I like turbos, I just want something different in this car. I want to use a Procharger unit b/c I have had experience with their new models and I like the fact that they are self-contained. The hardest part is finding a place to mount it on the KA and figuring out the proper pulley size to use. The rest is cake. I figure it could probably be mounted below the alternator and use the same belt as the alternator since it is the widest belt on the KA. Piping shouldnt a problem at all. Just use the same stuff for fuel management as a turbo car (E-manage, injectors, walbro fuel pump, etc.) It would be a fun project.

grand nationals are ill. my friend had one. i met a guy at an exhaust shop with a GSX. geeze that thing was clean.

[C-Kwik]

They dont require a lot of revs to produce power, the boost comes in a lot sooner, and you would have a much flatter torque curve with a supercharger too.

Depends on the type of supercharger. Centrifugal units do not have a flat boost curve. The boost rises with RPM and typically will achaive max boost at redline on most cars. Thse units are more inline with a turbo as far as efficiency is concerned, but power tends be flat until the upper RPM's.

Positive Displacement units tend to have much lower efficiency than turbos or centrifugal chargers. But they do have a flat boost curve and tend to be able to boost early. They are harder to intercool which seems to be a major crutch since the efficiency of these units are so poor. I believe the whipple chargers are the most efficient and I've heard their efficiency is approaching that of a turbo, but are pricey.

To give you an idea of how important this might be, consider that turbos are banned in the Top Fuel Dragsters. Norwood Racing built a 4 cylinder version of a Top Fuel Motor that is essentially half a Top Fuel Motor. It runs off two turbos and burns the sme Nitromethane. It acheived some 4000 HP. Top fuel gets something to the order of 6000 HP last I heard. Twice teh displacement yet has only about 50% more power. My understanding was that turbos were banned from top fuel because the first team to try and run them dominated the race.

[cory2081]

Yes, Grand Nationals are very sweet cars. My first car was an '87 GN and I owned it for 11 years. It had roughly 450RWHP when I sold it. I never got beat in a street race with that car. It was hell on top end especially, thanks to the TE61 I'm not going to argue efficiency here between blowers and turbos. I'm not wanting a supercharger b/c it is the most efficient. I want one b/c they are more consistant and I like the power delivery that they provide. I don't really know where people keep getting this "myth" about centrifugals and that they build boost with engine RPM. Yes, they may reach full boost at a higher RPM, probably within 600-1000 RPM of redline depending on the set-up. But, the Pro-Charger that I installed on a '98 Mustang GT makes 7-8PSI from about 2,000-5,000 and peaks at 10PSI just over 5,000. As soon as you snap the throttle, that car is gone!! It doesn't have the lag of a turbo car at all, it feels much more like a REAL strong N/A set-up with a wider power band. This same car only has a few bolt ons, exhaust, 3.73 gears, bigger throttle body, and it is using the FMU that came with the kit. Keep in mind, this is a full weight, full optioned '98 GT with a DVD, TV, and stereo system. On drag radials the car has run 8.00 with traction problems. Thats darn fast for a 98 considering how freakin slow those 1st gen mod engines were (99-04 are over 1 second faster 0-60 stock) Anyway, the car is very reliable, and people really stare when they hear that loud whine at a stop light. I just think that, for my driving style and the way I want my 240 to feel, the procharger is the way to go. Besides, its self contained.....no need to punch a hole in my oil pan.

Now, I'm just kicking this whole idea around. I'm not trying to bash turbos or anything....I love turbos, I just want something different. I REALLY want to supercharge my KA. Hopefully, I will be able to do so sometime this year.

[oldsoul]

thats what i was thinking. i dont want to go 4 a big hp all motor car because although it is SUPER cool ,the reliablity problem is a fator.

[pmkls2]

I have to agree with cory here, I know that a centrifugal supercharger will not have as flat of a torque curve as a roots type blower, but it will still be flatter and more cinsistent than a turbo. Plus, there is a lot more involved in the installation, tuning, and upkeep of a turbo vs. a supercharger. And I am not saying that a turbo is bad either, I am just not interested in all of the fabrication and tuning involved (yes I know there would be some fabrication and tuning with a supercharger too). Just my thoughts,

Phil

[whoflungpoo]

Phil,

speaking of maintenence , isn't it recommended (at least what i've read from Jackson) that you tear down and rebuild a supercharger at regularly specified intervals?

as far as tuning/installation is concerned.... it seems like both could be just as much work...

super: gonna have to fab mounting brackets, intake, charge piping, possible aftercooler/intercooler, figure out pulleys, find a belt the right size/strength to drive it, etc...

turbo: manifold, IC, piping, Bov and flange, wastegate setup and downpipe.

both are gonna require an upgraded fuel system/management to get any kind of reliable par...

don't get me wrong, i think a SC would be awesome, i just don't see where it would be any easier/reliable...

240kid: there are long standing arguments on the necessity of the length of time necessary to let a turbo cool. I have friends who let them cool and have blown more turbos than I care to think of, i've also had others who have driven the crap out of their cars and just turn em off. If your like me and want to do it anyways, get a HKS type1 and it will automatically figure out how long to sit.

[cory2081]

Yes, there are maintenance intervals with a supercharger. The oil in a procharger is to be changed every 6,000 miles. it takes all of 5 minutes to do it. Yes, a supercharger may need a rebuild from time to time, so do turbos. Yes, it will take some time to get the bracket figured out and the pulleys and all, I'm talking about installation if you could buy a supercharger kit and all of that was already done. I plan on doing it, I have the resources to get everything made in kits if people wanted duplicates of my setup when it is complete. I'm not talking about I know of companies that will do it, I'm talking I have family members in the machining and fab business. It looks like there are at least several of you that would like to see a kit like this. I think more people would be interested if they could see the end product and some good HP numbers.

[C-Kwik]

I have to agree with cory here, I know that a centrifugal supercharger will not have as flat of a torque curve as a roots type blower, but it will still be flatter and more cinsistent than a turbo. Plus, there is a lot more involved in the installation, tuning, and upkeep of a turbo vs. a supercharger. And I am not saying that a turbo is bad either, I am just not interested in all of the fabrication and tuning involved (yes I know there would be some fabrication and tuning with a supercharger too). Just my thoughts,

Phil

A turbo will generally have a much flatter boost curve than a Centrifugal charger. For a given motor, the Centrifugla charger will reach about half the maximum boost at about the midpoint to redline. My relatively large T04B hits 6.5 psi at 3500 RPM and maintains that through redline.

[cory2081]

Well, my GN's TE61 would hit 20 PSI at about 2,800 with the 9" stall converter that the car had. I could leave a stoplight at well over 10PSI....of course, without slicks the car would just roast the tires for a couple hundred feet. I realize that turbos have a flatter torque curve, BUT, the throttle response just isn't nearly as good as that of a blower (unless you have an automatic and can brake boost it )

[thekage]

I would love to see a super charger for the 240... ive been thinking about it for the s14 ever since i Saw the vortech charger on a 3rd gen eclipse here in town... man that thing smokes... Very interested.

I know the basic flow of a turbo..... intake-manifold-block-exahust manifold-turbo-intercooler-back into intake....

How does a super charger differ? I guess the main question i am asking is where does it comeinto the picture at. I know belt driven off of a pully... but does it just blow into the intake?

[C-Kwik]

supercharges essentially do the same thing a turbo does. Forces more air into the motor. The turbo is driven off the exhaust gasses, the supoercharger is driven off the pulley. Theree's not much more than that...

[cory2081]

Yeah, same concept. You can also use an intercooler with a supercharger to increase efficiency. I'm totally serious about doing this. I just don't know when I will actually do it just yet. As I said, right now I'm getting a cylinder head to port/polish and install nitrated valves and all those goodies. Then I plan to buy another KA and rebuild it with forged internals. Then will come the blower. I just hope that I have the funds to complete this project by the fall of this year.

[C-Kwik]

Just a correction. Intercoolers do not change the efficiency of any forced indutions. They cool a percentage of the heat introduced by both the compression of air and the inefficiency in doing so. Sorry if I'm being picky, but I don't want to let people have the impression that an intercooler is a fix for bad efficiency.

[oldsoul]

my engine bay is not to small i bet i could stick a paxton in there and add a horse or 2... now i just need the cash to do it...lol

[thekage]

Ok question.. with a Supercharger, do you still use headers? Or do you use a down pipe like with a Turbo Charger?

[whoflungpoo]

Ok question.. with a Supercharger, do you still use headers? Or do you use a down pipe like with a Turbo Charger?

You use exhaust mani's/headers. Turbo's use downpipes because their exhaust driven.

[cory2081]

Just a correction. Intercoolers do not change the efficiency of any forced indutions. They cool a percentage of the heat introduced by both the compression of air and the inefficiency in doing so. Sorry if I'm being picky, but I don't want to let people have the impression that an intercooler is a fix for bad efficiency.

I know that, I was just using "efficiency" as a way of saying you make more HP b/c you are cooling the air charge...ie denser air=more volume=more power. I know that the efficiency of a blower is not changed by this, but, you do get more HP this way than you would without the intercooler. So, it is a more efficient set-up in a way. Any given air pump is going to heat up the air in the process, but, then we get into thermal units and all that and it becomes a big scientific equation which can lead to a really long thread..lol. I'm trying to keep things simple here, most people on this thread should know how all of this works already.

[oldsoul]

i wonder if a super charger would be more powerful, because.....in using a turbo u use a small exhaust manifold, maybe to the point of being restictive. but a s/c application you can use a "good" equal lenth header that can almost pull the exhaust out. there for more in and even more out.

[oldsoul]

oh yeah you also can use a heat shield wrap better on a na style exhaust easier to lower under hood temp

[C-Kwik]

I'm trying to keep things simple here, most people on this thread should know how all of this works already.

I try not to make assumptions...

[C-Kwik]

i wonder if a super charger would be more powerful, because.....in using a turbo u use a small exhaust manifold, maybe to the point of being restictive. but a s/c application you can use a "good" equal lenth header that can almost pull the exhaust out. there for more in and even more out.

Turbo's are actually more efficient for a given boost when the turbo is sized properly for that motor and boost. Think of it this way. In a typical 4-stroke motor, a third of the energy from the combustion gets absorbed into the motor(cooling system), another third into pushing down the piston, and the last third escapes in the form of heat and pressure out the exhaust. A supercharger takes it's power from the third that is actually doing work to move the car. A turbo uses the heat and pressure in the exhaust to drive the compressor. While the turbo is a restriction in the exhaust, sized well, it will only be a minor restriction and the loss of power at the crank from the backpressure in the exhaust stream will not be as much as the loss of power from a supercharger using the crank energy. And this becomes most apparent with larger turbos and higher boost pressures. Larger turbos do not need to spin as fast and becuase they tend to use larger turbine wheels, it has better leverage over the turbine shaft to produce more shaft torque. This means a lower pressure differential is needed between the manifold and the downpipe and more air can be bypassed through the wastegate.

To simplify, a turbocharger uses energy that is otherwise wasted as heat out the exhaust. A supercharger takes energy from a source you are trying to add power to.

edit: additional info - Turbo headers can be built to be pretty efficient as well. Equal length turbo headers are out there. There are some cases where turbo header size is limited because of space limitations, but even then, they can still make quite a bit of power.

[cory2081]

Turbo's are actually more efficient for a given boost when the turbo is sized properly for that motor and boost. Think of it this way. In a typical 4-stroke motor, a third of the energy from the combustion gets absorbed into the motor(cooling system), another third into pushing down the piston, and the last third escapes in the form of heat and pressure out the exhaust. A supercharger takes it's power from the third that is actually doing work to move the car. A turbo uses the heat and pressure in the exhaust to drive the compressor. While the turbo is a restriction in the exhaust, sized well, it will only be a minor restriction and the loss of power at the crank from the backpressure in the exhaust stream will not be as much as the loss of power from a supercharger using the crank energy. And this becomes most apparent with larger turbos and higher boost pressures. Larger turbos do not need to spin as fast and becuase they tend to use larger turbine wheels, it has better leverage over the turbine shaft to produce more shaft torque. This means a lower pressure differential is needed between the manifold and the downpipe and more air can be bypassed through the wastegate.

To simplify, a turbocharger uses energy that is otherwise wasted as heat out the exhaust. A supercharger takes energy from a source you are trying to add power to.

edit: additional info - Turbo headers can be built to be pretty efficient as well. Equal length turbo headers are out there. There are some cases where turbo header size is limited because of space limitations, but even then, they can still make quite a bit of power.

I know all of this already. I am not supercharging my car so that it will be the fastest 240 in the world. Yes, it may have more power if I went turbo.....BUT, it would be a different kind of power, the kind that I am not looking for. I'm building a street car, daily driver. NOT some trailer queen. We'll just have to wait and see what kind of numbers I get after the car is finished. I'm betting they aren't far from a turbo car with comparable modifications.

[C-Kwik]

I was responding to oldsoul...