Our Community is 940,000 Strong. Join Us.


Intercooled vs non-intercooled Supercharger


flip888
09-08-2005, 09:18 PM
I was wondering how much more boost a intercooled SC could take compaired to if it wasnt intercooled. I know that i turbo relies pretty heavily on a IC because they spin way faster + have to deal with the exhaust temp but to me it seems like the IC for a SC would just be a waste of time. It seems like maby you could run like, what 1 maby 2 more psi on an average sized SC.

drdisque
09-09-2005, 12:11 PM
the Ford GT comes with a factory IC for its supercharger, so its not totally pointless. Remember, that the GT runs a twin screw supercharger at over 10 PSI. An IC can come in handy on alot of high output superchargers like Kenne Bell ones. Also, if you're using a centrifugal supercharger its as easy to install as running one with a turbo, so there's really no reason not to. I remember Vortech has a really cheap add-on water-to-air intercooler with most of its kits.

nissanfanatic
09-09-2005, 11:20 PM
There is no set limit. It depends on efficiency of the intercooler, compressor, ambient temperatures, compression ratio, fuel octane, current tune, ect ect. Intercoolers are for the best. Colder intake charge=safer power/more potential for power without higher octane fuel or retarded timing.

blakscorpion21
09-13-2005, 09:35 PM
colder air is always better.

nissanfanatic
09-14-2005, 08:00 PM
Actually the largest mass of air is always better. Hence colder air=more air.

beef_bourito
09-18-2005, 10:22 PM
well that's not 100% true, yes more air mass is better but colder is better because you have a smaller chance of detonation from excess heat.

Add your comment to this topic!