Supercharger

Just wondering here, but have any of you heard of a supercharger kit for this car?? Everyone seems to get turbos, just wondering about the Other blower..........

hmm...

There is a supercharger for sr20de's...

I dont know if you can buy it anywhere. Maybe if you have mob connections, lol :p


...but, yes, there have been several stories and/or confirmations of their existance.

Real men get turbos! :D :D :D

i think im goign to keep my car naturally aspirated, for now at least, but just wondering.....

Go to the SE-R Mailing List archives and do a search on "supercharger" or "supercharger" and "turbocharger". I'd say let us know when you're done reading, but I'll be dead by then. :D

Seriously, everything you really want to know is there and then some.

I heard of someone in Australia or New Zealand running a supercharged SR20.

im austarila there is a guy that has a silvia (s14?) with the blower on the sr20de but its a rear wheel drive sr and its all custom deal. also i have read about jim wolfe haveing a 99 g20 that had a blower (was in a issue of sport compact car) but jim wolfe denys the cars existance . i resarched it as i wanted a blower as oppsed to a turbo . a blower is much safer from a boost controll stand point (waste gate goes bad and party is over)also a cool down just before shutting the engine off isnt nessesary in a blower car as you dont need to cool down the bearings in the blower like you do in the turbo.the ideal set up would be a blower out of a 87 mr2 supercharged with its electromagnectic clutch on the end of it (like a a/c compressor) so you can engage the blower when you needed it . i think for the money it will take to do it id rather just get a 88 lotus espirt hci and restore it and drive my g every day .After my chrysler turbo i think twice about turbos (lost wastegate controll and engine shortly after)..just my 2 cents .....

A supercharged FWD car??? Can someone say torque steer? Turbos are free power....

Originally posted by Dshaft96
A supercharged FWD car??? Can someone say torque steer? Turbos are free power....

Torque steer has nothing to do with this. Nothing wrong with a supercharged FWD car either (if you're into that sort of thing ;) ). Torque steer is caused by twisting of the halfshafts primerially (sp?), but also by compliance in the suspension bushings. So, a high powered FWD turbo car would more likely torque steer than a supercharged FWD car.

it is possible to have no torque steer in a turbo fwd drive car . take a look at a 91 lotus elan it had a speicaly defvolped front suspension to eliminte the toruqe steer . also a 2000 buick regal gs drives just fine with its 205 horse supercharged v6. mainly as long as the axel shafts are the same length (have to run a extension out of the trans case ala ford taurus) lsd diff and a decent suspension set up it isnt too bad a problem . now the worst toruqe steer i ever had was that chrysler turbo i had . the bastard would amost turn itself into the driveway if you wanted. to do the superchager/turbo deal right run the drive train out of the awd pulsar gtir or the primera t4 awd so one can get all the power to the ground. yes there was a awd primera but it i belive could only be had with a automatic tranny....

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
yes there was a awd primera but it i belive could only be had with a automatic tranny....
AWD Primera where are you? :):)

i currently live near fairbanks alaska. now as for the primera i was directed to it by a fellow g owner over in yahoo club land . i did a little reasearch and found one example in newzeland on a used car lot and two others in japan. details are scetchy its a p10 chassis with a sr20de ,automatic trans and supposedly most of the parts are lifted from the nissan parts bin. i havent found a way to contact nissan to see if they in fact made the car or if it is some kit but the example in newzeland appeard to be bone stock . now the name t4 i think comes from a class in some raceing series close to touring car (touring group 4) so it may be a limted production homoginization type deal . talking to the guy that direct me to it you need a new rear subframe and some creative welding to adpat it over and you will tip the scales at 3300 lbs.at any rate its a odd car . AWD drive would sure be nice here dureing the -65 degree, 24 hours of darkness, winters (to aid in ditch removal)

this guy owns one : "nissanprimerat4"
but he is in the SR20DE Forum

i think the rule of thumb for S/C T/C is that engines with less than ~300hp are better off with a turbo, and anything with more than ~300hp is better off with a super.

of course that is just a rule of thumb. i know of a TT Viper that does the 1/4m in 9.99s. but a good reason for a TT over a SC in that case could be that under 3000rpm, turbo lag is almost null, as you would be spinning the tires anyway.

Originally posted by Brian P
i think the rule of thumb for S/C T/C is that engines with less than ~300hp are better off with a turbo, and anything with more than ~300hp is better off with a super.



lol, who's rule of thumb is this???


never heard this... ever.


btw, every superchargered civic, vw gti, miata, integra, or focus I've seen, is under 300hp.. ;)

Originally posted by Brian P
i think the rule of thumb for S/C T/C is that engines with less than ~300hp are better off with a turbo, and anything with more than ~300hp is better off with a super.


Whoever told you this hooey needs to get a new thumb. :p

I highly suggest reading Mike Kojima's Turbo Manifesto in the Suck, Squish, Bang, Blow series in Sport Compact Car.

A turbocharger is much better than a supercharger in almost every application if the turbo is sized correctly. The problem in the performance aftermarket is the monkeys selling turbos don't know very much about sizing them. If you're willing to do some math, Mike gives all the formulas to figuring out how to size a turbo properly.

One last thing for anyone wanting to put together their own turbo set-up for their SR20.....

Rob Cadle (President of SERCA) is an engineer for Garrett and has put together a great combination that is so good it appears Garrett is going to add it to their offerings. It's a mid hp range turbo for us (300 or so hp). Of course, for really big numbers, the GT3037 is supposed to ROCK.

Originally posted by P10DET
Whoever told you this hooey needs to get a new thumb. :p
:eek: Heh, 'hooey' is a bad Russian word for penis! :D


I highly suggest reading Mike Kojima's Turbo Manifesto in the Suck, Squish, Bang, Blow series in Sport Compact Car.
YES! Not to mention the whole series rocks. Too bad I packed mine away for moving (BTW I got approved for a new appt), I want to re-read the cam installment.


Rob Cadle (President of SERCA) is an engineer for Garrett and has put together a great combination that is so good it appears Garrett is going to add it to their offerings. It's a mid hp range turbo for us (300 or so hp).

That's the badboy, w/bb center, I'm going to put in! Supposedly it fits a stock GTi-R maifold. Ohh I can't wait!

Originally posted by G-Forces

:eek: Heh, 'hooey' is a bad Russian word for penis! :D


YES! Not to mention the whole series rocks. Too bad I packed mine away for moving (BTW I got approved for a new appt), I want to re-read the cam installment.



That's the badboy, w/bb center, I'm going to put in! Supposedly it fits a stock GTi-R maifold. Ohh I can't wait!

:-) LOL (-:
That is true, you insulted a man without even knowing it... Comming back to the topic, how much would it cost in general to add turbos to g20 p10 (the one with 140 hp 2.0 eng.) and what else would i have to modify in the car so that I do not kill it?
Thanks.:smoka:

Originally posted by kostik76
Comming back to the topic, how much would it cost in general to add turbos to g20 p10 (the one with 140 hp 2.0 eng.)
How fast do you want to go? How much do you want to spend. You can probably get a cheap setup for under $2500 properly done. Small front mount intercooler, JWT ECU, JDM DET manifold, cheap T25/28, piping. That should net you an nice quick around 190-220hp at the wheels. Anymore than that and you'll have to start upgrading MAF's, injectors, fuel rail, fuel pump, ignition, etc depending on how much power you want/need.

Thanks. Does anyone know a good place in Brooklyn where I could go to for such mod. ?:bloated:

I have a friend with a Supercharged Integra Type-R turning 404hp at the crank. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

jackson raceing supercharger right? that guy makes them for b16&18 honduh and the mazda miata . too bad he wont look at us sr20de folks he could tap a big market with one of his kits ...

Originally posted by G-Forces

:eek: Heh, 'hooey' is a bad Russian word for penis! :D


Hey g-forces do you know russian???? i lived there for 5 years and know it very well.

If anyone is looking for step by step instructions and explanations on how to install a turbo charger into an automatic g20...see this website The Quest for a Turbo Charged Infiniti G20 Automatic (http://home.talkcity.com/gasolinealley/lawrenan/Front.htm)

It might help out the people that own a manual too, those who dont know what a turbocharger is..

Originally posted by Koojo
Hey g-forces do you know russian???? i lived there for 5 years and know it very well.
ochen nyemnoga! A couple of my friends are Russian...I know most of the naughty words like hooey and peezda! :p

even if Jackson Racing is gonna make a supercharger kit for the SR...why get it? it's inefficient, pricey and it's not really that fast (at least on the track) if you all remember the civic Si challenge that SCC, Car and Driver and Stupid Street had, both the Si from SCC and C/D had superchargers, however, was beat pretty badly by the Stupid Street's NA Civic!!!!
the supercharger might feel pretty fast cuz of the humongo torque increase but most SC's runs outta breath around 6k rpm. and since it's belt driven (meaning it takes horsepower to generate horsepwoer as oppose to turbo which takes wasted exahust gas into power=efficiency) it's gonna be a very big liablity on your engine.
why do i know this? cuz i had a 93 civic coupe before my P11 with B16 and Jackson's SC and it was not up to par on the tracks...and also cuz my stupid timing belt broke...my engine went up in smokes...:( 110miles away from home...in the dessert...please DONT ask me how much it was to tow the car home....:( :( :(

..humh.....sounds like your car broke down in my area.....

further..in Buttonwillow actually...about 60miles further than palm springs i think...it totally sucked!:(

Ya govoru po russki bez problem. That was for these who understand. I AM RUSSIAN :-) :smoker: :-( Just went upstate on my g20t '95 (i think you call it p10). Put about 1/5 K miles in mountains, went through 1.2 tanks of gas and 48h of fun. This was the first time I took this car on the trip. It is all stock, except for insignificant extras that do not do hooey. I noticed that going up the hill I have to really downshift to get moving, for example if I am going about 40 I would have to put it into second with full throttle and then keep shifting about 5k rpm, i would not even go into 5th gear. Never the less I never had a problem. What would you recommend me to change/add in my car to be able to drive on mountain roads without revving my engine so much? Also can anyone recommend which wind deflectors I should get?

stoneagetech,

yes there was a awd primera but it i belive could only be had with a automatic tranny....

I have a '91 T4 primera and its a "5 speed manual". Model number on the build plate is HNP10 where the "N" represents AWD. Transaxle number on the build plate says RS5F32A FM43.

These cars are basically a 4WD version of the TE Primera so come with Recaro interior, sport suspension, 105 to 110kW (140 to 147HP), full factory spoiler kit and all the usual extras except keyless entry. Picked it up 2 years ago for NZ$9.5k (just under US$4k) with 68000km (42000 miles) on it. I can confirm no torque steer that I'd notice but then again not really making as much power as a turbo/supercharged version. Car handles neutral with NO bodyroll and ride is firm but not harsh. I tested it on Pukekohe Raceway earlier this year (fastest circuit in the southern hemispere I'm told) and it rocks.:ylsuper Only downside - spec turning circle is 33 feet!. (My FWD turbo mitsi' is bigger and and turns around in 17 feet.)

I'd recommend taking one of these for a spin if you ever get the chance. I wouldn't change anything about it except maybe more power......arrhh arrhh;)

Kos call the following number 718-332-5133 Full Throttle they how work on turbos for the p10.

agthang, thanks.
Now I have to buttle my 'check engine' problem. Hopefully nothing major. I will give them a try.
Thanks again.

I am true believer in Superchargers. Why? www.theoldone.com. Definetly worth check it out, but in a nutshell they have developed a supercharger kit for about 3500 complete with everyhting including safeguards to take a VTEC honda, with the VTEC disabled, and achieve a little more than 400HP from it. These motors are 1.8 and lower, the good part is boost is only an acceleration away, no waiting for the boost to spool up. Its actually an amazing thing to drive and the best part is there is not such thing as a supercharger thats to big, actually the bigger the supercharger the faster you achieve the boost you want, in any case, i am looking at developing somehting similar to the SR20 motor, it think it would be great but i would like to find a tuner in the SO.Fla area to help out.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
I am true believer in Superchargers. Why?


That's what I say. WHY? :p

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
...the good part is boost is only an acceleration away, no waiting for the boost to spool up.

That's not true.


Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
i am looking at developing somehting similar to the SR20 motor, it think it would be great but i would like to find a tuner in the SO.Fla area to help out.

Bring lots of money. :D

No, more than that...... :D

Seriously, you should read Mike Kojima's Turbo Manifesto in SCC. Turbos are superior to superchargers in almost every way. The only reason OEMs are going SC is a SC will light the cat off sooner.

a turbo does cost horse power too ..there is no such thing as free horse power . a turbo costs back pressure (thus horsepower)untill it can spool up sufeciently(have to build pressure to get the impellers going) . also in detroit diesel applications the more effiecent supercharger is used on the detriot diesel to blow air into the cylanders since the detroit cant suck in air on its own .the closest thing to free horse power (if you like burned pistons and bent rods) is nitrous. turbos arent as reliable as a blower (as long as you keep up on blower oil changes)a blower will cost about 5-10 hourse to make 40 (ususly). and since the sr20de has the torque of a 3 year old peddleing a bicycle a supercharger would be more favorable since it will provide beatter torque characteristics. if you want boost to keep up with the RPMS then look into what studebaker did in the late 50s and early 60s with the golden hawk its blower had a varable ratio pulley (similar to the clutch in the snowmobile) . this all does cost money but in the game of raceing it is ususly "he who has the most money wins". of coarse the only reason why it would be expensive is the fact that none of the peices are on the market .really in all in all id rather pocket the money and go and run a sr20det since it is a proven package. but then again spending the money doing that would be burning 300zx twin turbo cash . well thats my 2 cents i dont wanna look like a ass here (or a know it all) but i wanted to voice my opinon ....



still defending the blower
Mike :argue: :rocket:

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
a turbo does cost horse power too ..there is no such thing as free horse power . a turbo costs back pressure (thus horsepower)untill it can spool up sufeciently(have to build pressure to get the impellers going) .


Say what? No. You're equating backpressure with horsepower and that is dead wrong.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
also in detroit diesel applications the more effiecent supercharger is used on the detriot diesel to blow air into the cylanders since the detroit cant suck in air on its own .


Sorry. Wrong again on all counts. A supercharger is significantly less efficient than a properly sized turbo. The only supercharger that comes close is a centrifugal supercharger which is essentially the compressor side of a turbo with the compressor driven by the engine.

To say the Detroit Diesel cannot suck air on its own couldn't be more wrong.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
turbos arent as reliable as a blower (as long as you keep up on blower oil changes)


Also wrong.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
and since the sr20de has the torque of a 3 year old peddleing a bicycle a supercharger would be more favorable since it will provide beatter torque characteristics.


Wrong again. First, the SR20 has a lot of torque for a 2 liter engine. Second, a SC will not provide better torque characteristics. A properly sized turbo will kick the SC's ass in no uncertain terms. It will make more torque and at a lower rpm than the SC.

Seriously, you need to read Mike Kojima's turbo articles in SCC.

I'm not trying to slam you, but I cannot let this misinformation go.

P-10DET
how is it a detroit diesel can suck air in with out a blower? it will not run without its blower remeber it is a 2 cycle diesel with no intake valves (just 4 exaust valves) and just a big intake port surrounding the upper part of the cyl and since on its downward intake stroke its exaust valves are open too the blower has to push air into the cylander to remove some of the exaust air and stuff some fresh air in there then the piston beings its compession stroke and the valves slam shut the piston passes over the port and comustion takes place .
why is it you get a horsepower gain from removeing backpressure from the exaust ? granted removeing all backpressure will cause burnt valves and the like
yes a properly sized turbo is effiecent but in the import tuneing word its a rare find
the waste gate sits in a high heat high temp world it can be stuck in its casing when it gets carboned up . the pop off valve on a blower doesnt deal with unburned fuel and exasut gasses .thus more controoled boost
looking from my job stand point i have replaced 13 turbos to date and still have yet to replace a blower (maintain a fleet of firetrucks and refueling trucks for the USAF) .
a turbo has to deal with exaust heat harming its bearings a blower doesnt see near the temperatures a turbo does just from that stand point a blower has more reliablity
i have read the article series in sport comact car he is VERY biased towards blowers
not only does the blower light off the cat faster the manufacturers dont have to deal with people not following the reccomendations on how to properly take care of a turbo car (warm ups and cool downs)

lets try not to be rude here ok ?

stoneage...

i agree that SC's require way less up keep, but SC's are just no match for a proper turbo selection. Sorry, but this has just been proven over and over again.

also, the sr20 doesnt have a lot of torque? have you looked at honda engines?? why is it that stock G20's can stay head to head w/ a stock Si which pushes 30 more HP?


do you work for Jackson Racing or Vortech? lol.. :D

We've all seen how much of a proven package the SR20DET motor is. I come from the honda world, let me say turbochargers have generically been the way to go. But what is the diffrence, i've seen most of the honda tuners, i've worked with the DFI and Other engine management products. The best product i've seen so far has been from endyn, it is there supercharger kit and i will attach a picture of it, very nicely done and eaton superchargers are amazing. Why is it that i take this gentlement so seriously? Its not the fact that he is smart about motors, he's taken the time to do the research. The secret behind there system is the J&S Safeguards with the MSD ignition, they can individually retard the timing of each cylinder as needed. Also notice its not an aftermarket intake system it is the still the honda system with bigger, and correctly sized injectors. Now if i was to build a car for 1/4 mile trips i would definetly go turbo, but since i use my car as a daily driver it seems logical to me to go with the sc because it is a more streetable system. Power is on tap, and i do not have to worry about "correct" turbo sizing. The reason is because "correct" turbo sizing is a give a take option, you can only do so much to get the correct HP throughout the band width and you may not always get the maximum horsepower.

just my 2cents, dont quote me on this, read it out for yourself, dont tie yourself down to 1 persons article, read on other people, other type of motors. etc.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
P-10DET
how is it a detroit diesel can suck air in with out a blower? it will not run without its blower remeber it is a 2 cycle diesel with no intake valves (just 4 exaust valves)

How does any 2 cycle engine work? The port acts as a valve. I used to race 2 cycle karts. I'm pretty familiar with 2 cycle engines. You can even change the timing of the ports much like changing cam timing. It's not as easy because it involves machining, but it can be done. The engine can and does indeed suck air by itself.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
...and just a big intake port surrounding the upper part of the cyl and since on its downward intake stroke its exaust valves are open too the blower has to push air into the cylander to remove some of the exaust air and stuff some fresh air in there...

That's called overlap. Virtually all engines have valve overlap.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
...then the piston beings its compession stroke and the valves slam shut the piston passes over the port and comustion takes place .


As I said, the port acts as a valve. It's no different except for the lack of a mechanical valvetrain. When the port is open it's the same as a valve being open. When the port is covered it's the same as a valve being closed.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
why is it you get a horsepower gain from removeing backpressure from the exaust ?


It's because the engine will breath easier. Engines are just air pumps. We add fuel and spark and it runs all by itself. Turbocharged and supercharged engine hate backpressure. By reducing backpressure, the engine becomes more efficient. For turbo and SC engines, the difference it dramatic.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
granted removeing all backpressure will cause burnt valves and the like


Where do you get this information? I'm sorry, but it's wrong. If saying that is rude, then I have to be rude. It's wrong.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
yes a properly sized turbo is effiecent but in the import tuneing word its a rare find


For the most part, yes, but that is changing. If you read Mike's article, he walks you though sizing a turbo. If you read that article, you can size a turbo better than most turbo "gurus" in the import world.

Specifically, for the SR20 engine, if you're willing to listen, you can get better information than for almost any engine. Why do I say that? Because the president of the SE-R Club of America is an engineer for Garrett. He and Mike have spent a lot of time figuring out great turbos for the SR20. Fast, smooth, spool-up.... low lag.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
the waste gate sits in a high heat high temp world it can be stuck in its casing when it gets carboned up . the pop off valve on a blower doesnt deal with unburned fuel and exasut gasses .thus more controoled boost


I suspect that is something unique to the Diesel engines you are working on. Also, a divorced wastegate will help prevent this.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
looking from my job stand point i have replaced 13 turbos to date and still have yet to replace a blower (maintain a fleet of firetrucks and refueling trucks for the USAF) .


I suspect that is due to abuse. I'll bet the seals or bearings went. That is usually caused by shutting the engine down with a hot turbo.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
a turbo has to deal with exaust heat harming its bearings a blower doesnt see near the temperatures a turbo does just from that stand point a blower has more reliablity


I will admit that a turbo requires the user to pay some attention to its use and it takes a little more care. But properly used and cared for it should last as long as a SC.

I used to hate turbos. I still prefer NA, but turbos have changed a lot in the last 20 years. And they are much more efficient than SCs.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
i have read the article series in sport comact car he is VERY biased towards blowers


Mike is very biased towards turbos. This is because they are significantly better than SCs. A properly sized turbo will kick a SCs butt every time.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
not only does the blower light off the cat faster the manufacturers dont have to deal with people not following the reccomendations on how to properly take care of a turbo car (warm ups and cool downs)


True.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
lets try not to be rude here ok ?

I'm not trying to be rude. But don't expect me to be quiet when you are saying a lot of wrong things. I personally don't care about telling you that you're wrong, but I don't want others to believe things that are wrong.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
...since i use my car as a daily driver it seems logical to me to go with the sc because it is a more streetable system. Power is on tap, and i do not have to worry about "correct" turbo sizing.


Well you have to worry about getting the right SC. Also, SCs have lag as well. They do not have instant power and torque. In fact, turbos tend to generate more power and torque sooner. There is a lot of misinformation out there about SCs. Trust me, I used to be one who believed all of it.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
The reason is because "correct" turbo sizing is a give a take option, you can only do so much to get the correct HP throughout the band width and you may not always get the maximum horsepower.

Actually, you've got this backwards believe it or not. It's easier to get a turbo to make more power and torque throughout the rev range. A turbo will spool up and make boost much quicker than a SC will. To get a SC to make boost down low, you have to sacrifice high rpm breathing and power. To make power at high rpm, you have to sacrifice throttle response and torque down low.

"Where do you get this information? "
its what i have been taught in several schools in florida and training i had in the air force so if its wrong then by all means say so if you know beatter
"How does any 2 cycle engine work? The port acts as a valve. I used to race 2 cycle karts. I'm pretty familiar with 2 cycle engines. You can even change the timing of the ports much like changing cam timing. It's not as easy because it involves machining, but it can be done. The engine can and does indeed suck air by itself. "
the detroit as far as i have been schooled will not suck air by itself and from personaly seeing it wont run without its blower working properly
also im sorry i was trying to explain why it wouldnt suck air by itself in the earlier post by talking about the port and exaust valves since there trying to get that engine to scavenge in a matter of speaking .they dont use the blower to boost power thats where the turbo bolted on top of the blower comes in on the "ta" series (i can provice picutres of the engine since i know that sounds like B.S.)

"It's because the engine will breath easier. Engines are just air pumps. We add fuel and spark and it runs all by itself. Turbocharged and supercharged engine hate backpressure. By reducing backpressure, the engine becomes more efficient. For turbo and SC engines, the difference it dramatic. "
so the engine is more effiecnt with less backpressure whicth is more horsepower, so if you introduce a turbo and increse the back pressure since the exaust gasses have to spin up the turbo so you would loose efficeny/horsepower untill you can spool up right?

"I suspect that is due to abuse. I'll bet the seals or bearings went. That is usually caused by shutting the engine down with a hot turbo. "
one had a impeller come apart 2 had seals fail and the rest were bearing failures (bearing probelms probably took the impeller out on the first one ) so yes your right it was probably due to improper care

"divorced wastegate "
how does that work? and how well does it work?i have never heard of it sounds like a good idea
i had a wastegate go bad on my chrysler 2.2 turbo (carbon problem)and it over boosted and blew the head gasket out
but i do see it more on the diesels as they carbon up like you wouldnt belive . Since you run a richer mixuture with the turbo isnt there a carbon problem for the gas engines? i guess thats where that divorced wastegate comes in, once again fill me in on that

also when you eliminate all backpressure you dont burn exaust valves? what happens?i was always told that you would toast the valves and valve seats when you didnt have any backpressure at all

ok im only 20 here so i probably dont have near the experence you got , but i got all this stuff from all the schools i went to and stuff i have worked on for the past 6 years, i try to throw it out here for the other guys so they just dont hear about turbos.
and i agreee with you all motor is beatter
My final arguement for the S/C ..i wanna be diffrent

if you want to e mail me at [email protected] since there is a concern for bad info getting out here

also i vitied your site awhile back (GEOs G20 right?) and saw that you put a short shifter in the G ,did this go in pretty smooth? . i had to use a diffrent size bolt in the bearing and fork part and had to pretty much destroy that rubber boot..

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
its what i have been taught in several schools in florida and training i had in the air force so if its wrong then by all means say so if you know beatter


OK, there may be some unusual things with some specific applications you deal with. I certainly don't know everything, so I'll shut up. :)

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
the detroit as far as i have been schooled will not suck air by itself and from personaly seeing it wont run without its blower working properly


It may be, but I don't see how. I cannot see how the SC can pump any air worth talking about. We're talking probably less than 100 rpm. That is unless it has an electric SC, but I'm not aware of any production applications of this technology. Then again, you are dealing with Diesels and you can do some awfully "strange" things with Diesels.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
also im sorry i was trying to explain why it wouldnt suck air by itself in the earlier post by talking about the port and exaust valves since there trying to get that engine to scavenge in a matter of speaking .they dont use the blower to boost power thats where the turbo bolted on top of the blower comes in on the "ta" series (i can provice picutres of the engine since i know that sounds like B.S.)


Wow. Then I'm assuming the SC has a clutch that disengages very early. I'm further assuming it must be geared such that at low rpm the SC must be spinning pretty quickly. That's why I'm assuming the SC disconnects early. It would pretty much have to I'd think because it would quickly get outside its opperating range if it has to pump air at idle just to make it run.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
so the engine is more effiecnt with less backpressure whicth is more horsepower, so if you introduce a turbo and increse the back pressure since the exaust gasses have to spin up the turbo so you would loose efficeny/horsepower untill you can spool up right?


Nah. At low rpm where the turbo is spinning up, you are not introducing enough backpressure to really make a difference. Basically if it does rob power, it is only something that would show up in a mathematical computation rather that anything you would notice. Again, sizing is critical. A properly sized turbo will spin up so fast that it wouldn't make a difference.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
"divorced wastegate "
how does that work? and how well does it work?i have never heard of it sounds like a good idea


It's just an external wastegate. That will get it away from some of the intense (relatively speaking) heat.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
also when you eliminate all backpressure you dont burn exaust valves? what happens?i was always told that you would toast the valves and valve seats when you didnt have any backpressure at all


Never heard that before. Again, it may be something very specific to your application. On a race track, some turbo guys totally remove their exhaust - just a short downpipe. This is to virtually eliminate backpressure.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
My final arguement for the S/C ..i wanna be diffrent


Hey, that's cool. :D

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
also i vitied your site awhile back (GEOs G20 right?) and saw that you put a short shifter in the G ,did this go in pretty smooth? . i had to use a diffrent size bolt in the bearing and fork part and had to pretty much destroy that rubber boot..

The only issue I had was to use a different bolt as you did. Otherwise, it was a very smooth install. No problems with the boot.

Hopefully this will clear up the efficiency thing:

Without getting too technical (meaning I won't bore you with the maths :( ):
The expansion of a fixed amount of exhaust gas, through the turbine end of a turbo, happens very rapidly. Very little time is available for the heat energy of the exhaust gas to be lost through the turbo metal. Therefore the exhaust gas undergoes something very close to what is called an "adiabatic" expansion process.
:confused:
In an adiabatic expansion such as we have here, the work done by the gas while expanding (turning the turbine) is equal to the change in internal energy of the gas.

The change in the internal energy of the gas is proportional to the change in the gas temperature immediately before and after the turbo. :eek:

Therefore a turbocharger is essentially driven by heat energy that would otherwise be lost out the tailpipe. It is not so much free energy (since it was created by burning fuel), more like energy that a naturally aspirated or supercharged motor would be wasting anyway.
:cool:
Check it out, the exhaust temperature out of a turbocharged engine is lower than for a comparable normally aspirated or supercharged engine. This is because the turbocharger has recovered some of the waste heat energy from the exhaust.

The losses caused by the increased back pressure of having a turbo are balanced by the engine not having to work so hard at sucking air in because the turbo compressor is pushing it in. The result is a nett gain in the efficiency of the engine compared with naturally aspirated engines.
:)
Compare this to a supercharger which is using crank horsepower, and hence fuel, to acheive the same thing. Since the engine is now burning more fuel to power the supercharger, the exhaust temperature rises and even more heat energy is lost out the tailpipe. The result is a nett loss in the efficiency of the engine compared with naturally aspirated engines.
:(
THAT is why turbochargers are more efficient than superchargers. Turbos are powered by WASTE HEAT -superchargers are powered by CRANK HORSEPOWER. Any questions?

As for Nitrous injection? Well they say injection is good but a blow job is better.:D

Hm, that phone number for brooklyn installer do not work. Can you just tell me where they are or the name of the buseness? Thanks

If you ask me the efficiency issue dealing with that superchargers work off crank hp and turbo's off of exhaust waste and you should take this as rule of the road that turbo's are more efficient is wrong in my belief. For instance, why is that backpressure from the turbo spool being so close off the header? The Excess heat under the engine caused by the fact that the turbo is there? The issues with how long a turbo can last in a car? Besides that to say that because the supercharger works of the crank (which if you ask me when your car is not a viable excuse as to why not run a supercharger), that a turbo is more efficient is just flat out wrong. I think that there are 2 sides to every story and that people should try diffrent appoaches to the same issue, the quest for more power, efficiency and streetable speed.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
If you ask me the efficiency issue dealing with that superchargers work off crank hp and turbo's off of exhaust waste and you should take this as rule of the road that turbo's are more efficient is wrong in my belief.


This is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. You also fail to understand how efficiency is measured. It has nothing to do with being driven off exhaust waste vs the crankshaft. Compressor efficiency is a function of how much the compressor heats the air for a given amount of pressure. Turbos are far more efficient than superchargers. Why is this important? Because the more you heat the air, the less power you can get.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
For instance, why is that backpressure from the turbo spool being so close off the header? The Excess heat under the engine caused by the fact that the turbo is there?


I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
The issues with how long a turbo can last in a car?


Funny you don't mention how long a supercharger can last in a car.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
Besides that to say that because the supercharger works of the crank (which if you ask me when your car is not a viable excuse as to why not run a supercharger), that a turbo is more efficient is just flat out wrong.


I'm afraid it's the assumptions you are making that are wrong.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
I think that there are 2 sides to every story


Yes, but it helps if they are getting information that is correct. That is not the case with what you are saying.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
...and that people should try diffrent appoaches to the same issue, the quest for more power, efficiency and streetable speed.


Knock yourself out. Your money. Your car. Do what you like to it. But if you make statements that are incorrect, you will be corrected.

I don't see what point you're trying to make.

The "Point" of my whole message is that people should not take what i say or what you say as gospel. The "Point" of the message is that everyone should hear about both sides of the story and figure out what makes more sense towards the application and there goals. Just because YOU or 5000000 people think that turbocharging a car is 100% better in every sense and for every single thing you do towards your car doesn't mean it to be fact or true. In any case, when *I* do build my supercharger system, when i do test it and when it *WILL* work and then post my results we will see who was correct and who was incorrect.
For the record, the only company that has supposedly attempted a supercharger system on a sr20 failed because they never used an external or internal wastegate, there conclusions where unfounded and rediculous. Like i said before www.theoldone.com and LEARN something for a change, especially from a man who has many articles on soft heads posted on magazines like hotrod.

Originally posted by 2002G20Sport
Like i said before www.theoldone.com and LEARN something for a change

Like the fact that they've reversed the laws of physics and have an intercooler than can cool the intake air temps to less than ambient?

That's only possible (maybe) with icewater to air and that is not very long lived.

:D

2002G20Sport
Besides that to say that because the supercharger works of the crank (which if you ask me when your car is not a viable excuse as to why not run a supercharger), that a turbo is more efficient is just flat out wrong.

What I said in a previous post was that the efficiency of the whole system, from intake to tailpipe, is more efficient with a turbocharged engine. If you are talking about the efficiency of the compressor wheel only of a turbo versus a supercharger compressor only, then that is a whole different issue.

P10DET
You also fail to understand how efficiency is measured. It has nothing to do with being driven off exhaust waste vs the crankshaft.

This is true only if you are considering the supercharger compressor only versus the compressor wheel of a turbo only. If you consider the system as a whole, the method of driving the respective compressors has everything to do with efficiency.

2002G20Sport
Just because YOU or 5000000 people think that turbocharging a car is 100% better in every sense and for every single thing you do towards your car doesn't mean it to be fact or true.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not state that it is 100% better in every sense. The efficiency stuff I posted dealt with efficiency of the whole system only and it is not merely what I think. It is backed up by the laws of physics, the laws of thermodynamics and the compression / expansion laws for gases.

2002G20Sport
Like i said before www.theoldone.com and LEARN something for a change, especially from a man who has many articles on soft heads posted on magazines like hotrod.

In http://www.theoldone.com/articles/it-is-difficult-to-make-hard-heads-soft.html T.O.O. is comparing the efficiencies of superchargers with other superchargers and not turbos at all. Yes, they have come a long way but the efficiency (or fuel efficiency) of the complete engine package is still better with a turbo.

In http://www.theoldone.com/sc/faq.html#3 the reason T.O.O. gives for using superchargers over turbos is that when dealing with engines that were originally normally aspirated, the turbochargers create heat stresses in the head that you don't get with superchargers. In the same place he states:

"From a engineering point of view, turbos make a lot of sense. They make use of otherwise wasted heat and energy that normally goes out of the exhaust pipe. Theoretically that are more efficient than SC. "

P10DET
Like the fact that they've reversed the laws of physics and have an intercooler than can cool the intake air temps to less than ambient?

This IS possible, as you expand a gas it will cool. Lower the air pressure below ambient pressure and you will get lower than ambient temperature. This can occur using the pressure drop across the throttle. No idea how T.O.O is doing it but it ain't rocket science. Perhaps he is using a closed circuit/mechanically driven refrigeration system. The refrigerant itself can then be cooled by the incoming air at ambient temperature, just like any refrigerator or freezer..

That's all I have to say
:stormzap:

...in short, Turbos are better than Superchargers. PERIOD.
we can go on forever like we did on many subjects....like P10DET said, it's your car, do whatever you want...if you want to use a banana as an exhaust, go ahead, but in the automotive world, talk to any engineerer and they will tell you that turbochargers are efficient, longer lasting and easier to maintain vs. superchargers...why do you think that only American cars comes supercharged while REAL automakers, japanese and european, uses only NA or turbo engine set ups?

2001 jag xjr-supercharged v8.... not a real car comapany?

1987-1989 toyota mr2-supercharged dohc 4...that was japanese

mercedes slk roadsters are supercharged ...thats according to the literature but i always thoght it was a turbo

new crew cab NISSAN pick up has a blower..nissan isnt a real car company?

new NISSAN xterra has a blower..see above

toyota offers a kit avaliable at its dealers that can be dealer installed on most 3.0 v6 toyotas made after 1997 and is covered under warranty

adam saruwatari is bulding or has built a supercharged nsx to take over for that 9 second 3rd gen rx7 he had ..wonder if he knows something we dont?


thats just a few non american entrys

now , here is how it really is , it all depends on how it is engineered and put together when it comes to reliablity and efficency there is no clear cut winner here . so in closeing its all part of customiseing a car its makeing your car for your application not nessesarly the most efficent.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
This is true only if you are considering the supercharger compressor only versus the compressor wheel of a turbo only. If you consider the system as a whole, the method of driving the respective compressors has everything to do with efficiency.


When you talk with an engineer about turbo efficiency or SC efficiency, they are talking about the rise in temp for a given pressure.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
In http://www.theoldone.com/sc/faq.html#3 the reason T.O.O. gives for using superchargers over turbos is that when dealing with engines that were originally normally aspirated, the turbochargers create heat stresses in the head that you don't get with superchargers.


What a crock of poop. That's total BS.

Because SCs are not as efficient as turbos, for a given boost, the SC will create more thermal stress, not less. Add to that fact that most turbo systems are intercooled while most SC systems are not and this statement becomes a double helping of poop.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
This IS possible, as you expand a gas it will cool. Lower the air pressure below ambient pressure and you will get lower than ambient temperature.


OK, sure. So we'll invest in a supercharger or turbo to create positive pressure at the cylinders only to drop the pressure below ambient.

The bottom line is that other than a short lived icewater IC or some weird set-up with refridgerant, you are not going to lower the temp below ambient.

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
now , here is how it really is , it all depends on how it is engineered and put together when it comes to reliablity and efficency there is no clear cut winner

That is just not so.

The only SCs that come close to turbo efficiencies are centrifugal SCs that use the compressor side of a turbo. A turbo is indeed more efficient than a SC. That is fact not opinion.

A well designed turbo set-up will kick bootie on a well design SC set-up.

And again, the reason OEMs in The States (and even elsewhere) are going to SCs is the fact that the SC will light the cat off sooner. Why is this? Because the turbine side of the turbo takes heat out of the exhaust. That is the reason OEMs are using SCs. They are under pressure (no pun intended :) ) to reduce start-up emissions and a SC will do that better than a turbo.

Originally posted by P10DET

Add to that fact that most turbo systems are intercooled while most SC systems are not and this statement becomes a double helping of poop.


Hahahaha...that was good :hehehe:

P10DET,
When you talk with an engineer about turbo efficiency or SC efficiency, they are talking about the rise in temp for a given pressure. No Argument, a more efficient compressor will have a polytropic compression curve that is closer to an isothermal compression curve than a less efficient one. Unfortunately the compression happens so rapidly in this case that both types of compressor will be pretty close to an adiabatic compression curve anyway - but we don't drive around with just a compressor under the hood do we? Who cares if the compressor is more efficient if the vehicle burns more fuel because of the method used to drive the compressor. The total package is where its at.
What a crock of poop. That's total BS. Because SCs are not as efficient as turbos, for a given boost, the SC will create more thermal stress, not less. Add to that fact that most turbo systems are intercooled while most SC systems are not and this statement becomes a double helping of poop.
T.O.O. is talking about the heat stresses associated with the increased back pressure between the exhaust valve and the exhaust port outlet. Increase pressure = increase temperature. Intercooling is irrelevent to the exhaust temperature induced stresses. So you can keep your double helping :D Did you actually read the link before dissin' it ??
OK, sure. So we'll invest in a supercharger or turbo to create positive pressure at the cylinders only to drop the pressure below ambient. Just off the top of my head, the pressure drop/temperature drop can occur BEFORE the compressor 1)across the throttle plate 2) by routing the intake flow through a venturi. It can be done in a multitude of ways. In fact, I know a guy who had problems with his suck-through carb/supercharged V8 because his carbs were actually icing up in the venturi and choking the engine off during part throttle cruising!! T.O.O. states he has some kind of system that works, so he either has or he's lying, but the fact remains it is possible. Why don't you ask him?

ok i had to look for it but i did finnaly find a turbo setup that is unbeatable , turbodyne systems will debut a set up that has a elecrtic motor tied to the turbo's impeller shaft that is controlled by a ecu and keeps the turbo spooled up to elimiate lag and all the power losses on low rpm bands (a supercharger/turbo hybrid if you think about it) but outside this it is true that it depends on how turbo or s/c is made and engineered for the application . why do you think you only see blowers on nhra funny cars and top fuel dragsters ?i dont think john force wants to wait around for the boost to arrive 3rd class mail......




mike

Originally posted by stoneage_tech
i dont think john force wants to wait around for the boost to arrive 3rd class mail......
I thought turbos were banned in that type of racing. They have enough money to make double, even triple turbo setups effective. I don't think they used S/C's out of choice. But I don't follow NHRA so I don't really know the details.

well i am unsure of nhra rule book anymore , there may be a rule now to keep turbos out but i dout it in top fuel and funny car i have never seen a turbo . in the lower (non import) sportsman ranks turbo cars a a rareity (outside a buick gnx) seems only a very few will run a twin turbo setup (a guy runs a 383 with 2 turbos in 79-83 malibus that does fairly well) but they require alot of work to get them to run right and launch good . where as the blower set up is pretty much proven for good off the line power and not as near as much tuneing ,now that computers are coming on the scene we will probably see more turbos since comptures make for easier tuneing but i dont think they will knock the blower out of drag raceing, now in road raceing the turbo seems to rule outright imsa,cart,lemans ,they all run turbos almost exculsivly ,probably due to the turbo never spooling down as the rpms are always failry high,it still takes more skill to drive a turbo on the road coarses as you have to try keep the boost up and watch for it to come on high boost (like trying to keep in the powerband in a underpowered car)


quoted more than bill clinton after a encounter with a black dress
mike

by the way here is that article i was talking about:
New Technology

Turbodyne has announced an agreement with Edward M. Halimi, founder of Turbodyne and inventor of its technology, for assignment of the intellectual-property and patent rights for a new generation of electrically-assisted air-enhancement products for internal combustion engines. The new products incorporate newly-developed electric-motor and electronics technology as well as a proprietary computer chip. They will be marketed by the Company under the trademarks TurboAirTM and TurboRamTM.

The Company said the electric motors utilized in the new products are superior to the older technology because they have no permanent magnets. As a result, the Company said, they are more reliable, efficient and cost-effective.

The Company said the new technology was developed independently by Halimi after leaving the Company several years ago as a result of illness.

Status of TurbopacTM and DynachargerTM

As previously announced, Turbodyne and Honeywell are involved in litigation relating in part to the joint-development and license agreements entered into by the two companies since early 1999 with respect to Turbodyne’s DynachargerTM and TurbopacTM technologies. The litigation consists of a private antitrust action brought by Turbodyne and an arbitration initiated by Honeywell.

TurbopacTM regulates and supplements the air available for combustion in internal combustion engines. The resulting improvement in the quality of combustion, especially during acceleration, increases power, improves fuel consumption and reduces pollution. DynachargerTM adds a motor and electronic controls to turbochargers to eliminate “turbo lag” resulting from the unavailability of exhaust gases during acceleration from start-up. Turbo lag creates both an efficiency problem and a safety problem resulting from the surge of power that occurs when the exhaust gases “kick in.”

sounds kinda interesting
here is there site : http://www.turbodyne.com/