How a Centrifugal Supercharger works

[Super Matty P]

I wouldn't sell a product that I think people would hate. I don't see how anyone could hate them if they are well priced, powerful, reliable, etc....I just don't see that being an issue.

You never know though. If no'one likes them then I move onto the Scion and try again there. Nothing I can do with the task I've been given but to do it as best I can.

 

[KpaBap]

A lot of blabbering for nothing, I thought we had left this alone. I started this thread because I saw Matty's ad that said No lag blabla, well when people think of superchargers vs. turbochargers they think that superchargers give you lots of low end power and not so much top end power, and vice versa for turbos. That is true for a twin-screw SC which will make full boost at really low rpm (1k or so depending on the particular setup) and a lot of extra torque down low -- don't know about you but to me that is what NO LAG means, I don't have to wait for anything to spin up, spool up, or blow up, the power is there from 1000 rpm on.

Well that's just not how a centrifugal sc delivers its power and that's the only reason I started this thread, to educate people so that they don't expect something they won't get. If anything Matty should be the one posting links to how his product really works.

So to put it shortly (using theoretical numbers, if you want to be an ass, then be my guest and dig up MAP/RPM data from google, I won't)

Twin Screw
1000 rpm - 12 psi
2000 rpm - 12 psi
3000 rpm - 12 psi
....
6500 rpm - 12 psi


Centrifugal
1000 rpm - 1 psi
2000 rpm - 2 psi
3000 rpm - 4 psi
4000 rpm - 5 psi
....
6500 rpm - 12psi


Now which one looks less "laggy" to you? For the sake of a sane argument let's say both superchargers could flow the same volume of air per minute.

We can argue semantics and definitions of the word "lag" all day. I care.
The fact is, a centrifugal supercharger will start making noticeable power gains way later in the powerband than a "traditional" twin screw.

I have nothing against the product of Matty itself. Quite the contrary, I loved how Natey's Miata felt and I think something like this is just what the Protege needs.

And yet, there werent 200lb-ft at 1000rpm in Natey's Miata.


Knowledgeable buyers are more stingy, I know.

 

[MPNick]

A lot of blabbering for nothing, I thought we had left this alone. I started this thread because I saw Matty's ad that said No lag blabla, well when people think of superchargers vs. turbochargers they think that superchargers give you lots of low end power and not so much top end power, and vice versa for turbos. That is true for a twin-screw SC which will make full boost at really low rpm (1k or so depending on the particular setup) and a lot of extra torque down low -- don't know about you but to me that is what NO LAG means, I don't have to wait for anything to spin up, spool up, or blow up, the power is there from 1000 rpm on.

Well that's just not how a centrifugal sc delivers its power and that's the only reason I started this thread, to educate people so that they don't expect something they won't get. If anything Matty should be the one posting links to how his product really works.

So to put it shortly (using theoretical numbers, if you want to be an ass, then be my guest and dig up MAP/RPM data from google, I won't)

Twin Screw
1000 rpm - 12 psi
2000 rpm - 12 psi
3000 rpm - 12 psi
....
6500 rpm - 12 psi


Centrifugal
1000 rpm - 1 psi
2000 rpm - 2 psi
3000 rpm - 4 psi
4000 rpm - 5 psi
....
6500 rpm - 12psi


Now which one looks less "laggy" to you? For the sake of a sane argument let's say both superchargers could flow the same volume of air per minute.

We can argue semantics and definitions of the word "lag" all day. I care.
The fact is, a centrifugal supercharger will start making noticeable power gains way later in the powerband than a "traditional" twin screw.

I have nothing against the product of Matty itself. Quite the contrary, I loved how Natey's Miata felt and I think something like this is just what the Protege needs.

And yet, there werent 200lb-ft at 1000rpm in Natey's Miata.


Knowledgeable buyers are more stingy, I know.

Here is more things to think about. We help build a F-150 twin turbo, 5.4 engine twin T-3 turbos. 100% stock engine and four extra injector after thr throttle body. It made around 360 rwhp and 370 toruqe @ 7psi. At the same time we did a Ford lightning, stock 5.4 engine with the better Ford Motorsport twin screw SC. The power was almost exact, even the power build at the same rpms. The dyno charts looked almost the same. The big thing is the Twin screw SC needed to run 14psi to make the same power as the twin T-3 turbo.

Things to think about.

 

[noclue119]

...

...

Not to devalue any of your accomplishments, which are quit impressvie. But there are advantages to using a Supercharger.

I.E. MB uses Eaton Roots in their SLK230 Kompresser models. They use a Roots blower because

1. The SLK230's supercharger is bypassed until the car is truely floored. It almost feels like there is a button behind the gas pedal which you really have to step on it inorder to engage the S/C. Its a really nice feature because sometime i catch myself hitting boost when i don't really want to be in boost.

2. It does not need a S/C the air from the intake to the manifold distance is much less then that of a turbo which give it much better throttle response. (Which i think what matt is referring to when he says lag)

3. The S/C's is Self-contained lubrication, you can change out the super charger's oil every 3000 miles while the engine's will hold for 7000. The oil is also not as hot as the ones in the turbo. And either is the engine bay

4. The room required for a supercharger is much less than that of a turbo.

5. Its quiet MB are know as luxary cars which need to be quiet. S/C is a much better option in that case.

and the main reason

6. Cheap

These are all good reason for using a Supercharger. I think given what matt's objective is which is not to build a "balls to the wall" 600 whp car, S/C is a much better option compared to turbo.


Don't forget twinscrew S/C on a FWD = bad. Remember power without control = acceleration in a pinto

 

[noclue119]

As a MSP driver, I am quite afraid of a Supercharged P5 because of the area under the torque curve advantage they hold over the Turbocharged MSP's.


But its nice to have a warrenty for some of us

 

[MPNick]

Not to devalue any of your accomplishments, which are quit impressvie. But there are advantages to using a Supercharger.

I.E. MB uses Eaton Roots in their SLK230 Kompresser models. They use a Roots blower because

1. The SLK230's supercharger is bypassed until the car is truely floored. It almost feels like there is a button behind the gas pedal which you really have to step on it inorder to engage the S/C. Its a really nice feature because sometime i catch myself hitting boost when i don't really want to be in boost.

2. It does not need a S/C the air from the intake to the manifold distance is much less then that of a turbo which give it much better throttle response. (Which i think what matt is referring to when he says lag)

3. The S/C's is Self-contained lubrication, you can change out the super charger's oil every 3000 miles while the engine's will hold for 7000. The oil is also not as hot as the ones in the turbo. And either is the engine bay

4. The room required for a supercharger is much less than that of a turbo.

5. Its quiet MB are know as luxary cars which need to be quiet. S/C is a much better option in that case.

and the main reason

6. Cheap

These are all good reason for using a Supercharger. I think given what matt's objective is which is not to build a "balls to the wall" 600 whp car, S/C is a much better option compared to turbo.

I have a Viper customer that got a new MS 50E. Not sure of the model, may be wrong on that. The thing is the V8 with the SC. It is a very vary fast car. I have seen it mid 12s at this year Viper Nationals that we have at E-Town. I like roots type SC, I do not like the centrifugal type. They have more lag when compared with a turbo that is sized right.

BTW the Ford GT has a very big twin screw SC on it. Out of the box they are being dynoed at over 600 rwhp.

 

[noclue119]

I have a Viper customer that got a new MS 50E. Not sure of the model, may be wrong on that. The thing is the V8 with the SC. It is a very vary fast car. I have seen it mid 12s at this year Viper Nationals that we have at E-Town. I like roots type SC, I do not like the centrifugal type. They have more lag when compared with a turbo that is sized right.

BTW the Ford GT has a very big twin screw SC on it. Out of the box they are being dynoed at over 600 rwhp.

but i understand that root and centrifugal s/c are different but as a power adder u can't deny that its cheap.

and throttle repose of the centrifugal s/c will always be better then that of the turbo

ya but 600 whp + twin screw sc + fwd = no accleration and high tire bills.

 

[MPNick]

As a MSP driver, I am quite afraid of a Supercharged P5 because of the area under the torque curve advantage they hold over the Turbocharged MSP's.


But its nice to have a warrenty for some of us

I think psi of boost for psi of boost the turbo will give you more torque everywhere. From idle to redline, the turbo will out do the centrifugal sc. This is what I have seen over and over again. Both on the dyno and street driving.

 

[MPNick]

but i understand that root and centrifugal s/c are different but as a power adder u can't deny that its cheap.

and throttle repose of the centrifugal s/c will always be better then that of the turbo

ya but 600 whp + twin screw sc + fwd = no accleration and high tire bills.

Is it cheeper? What is the going price for a SC on the Protege? What is the price on the turbo kit. You are never going to make 200whp and be safe without a intercooler. The C/S does heat up the air more then the turbo psi to psi. So take into account on what a real working system will cost.

 

[noclue119]

I think psi of boost for psi of boost the turbo will give you more torque everywhere. From idle to redline, the turbo will out do the centrifugal sc. This is what I have seen over and over again. Both on the dyno and street driving.

But think of it this way he is emulating turbo with out the expense of IC, all that piping and BOV/BPV. Which is a market for some people who are not looking for goobs of power but instead wants a little more juice out of their P5/LX/EX

 

[noclue119]

Is it cheeper? What is the going price for a SC on the Protege? What is the price on the turbo kit. You are never going to make 200whp and be safe without a intercooler. The C/S does heat up the air more then the turbo psi to psi. So take into account on what a real working system will cost.

Its cheapers for sure the HIboost kit is 3,995.00 the MAM is even more. He is targeting 3000 which is 25% cheaper. also his comes with a programmable tuner where the HIboost is a pre-programmed ECU. Once again he is not aiming for 200 whp he is targeting more toward 170 which makes it very safe. Its just a different option for a different segement of the market

 

[Super Matty P]

Actually, The HiBoost kit is on sale for $3600 and it comes with the exact same customizable Haltech F10X ecu that I'm using. Juan is who I get them from and he's doing all of my tuning!

p.s. While I KNOW I'll hit 170whp My goal is 200whp. I think it's fairly easy to accomplish this and 200whp on stock everythign has been proven pretty safe...except for maybe a clutch.

p.p.s. Kpabap is pretty much right about the psi ratings between the 2 superchargers but there is MUCH more to it than that. Think of it this way.... My kit will most likely run about 6psi with no intercooler and make almost 200hp (rough estimate). The Eaton-powered 2.0L Saturn Redline uses an M62 (midsize blower) and on 14psi of INTERCOOLED boost makes 200bhp. 6psi non, to 14psi intercooled.....for the same power...one of these blowers is efficient and one is not. I do admit that the Saturn will have more power down low and sooner but that is not really something I need a whole lot of. Whenever I gas it out of turn I have enough torque as-is to smoke the inside tire. Adding more power to that will only slow me down.

p.p.p.s. The Ford GT's aren't dynoing 600whp....they make 500bhp. I can't imagine anyone in the world doing so many articles on the Ford GT and not mentioning that the cars are underrated by 25% easily.....that's just stupid to think that.

 

[Micah]

p.p.p.s. The Ford GT's aren't dynoing 600whp....they make 500bhp. I can't imagine anyone in the world doing so many articles on the Ford GT and not mentioning that the cars are underrated by 25% easily.....that's just stupid to think that.

"An engineering firm that has been doing development work on a Ford GT, reported that on their chassis dyno, a "well broke in" Ford GT made 565 horsepower to the rear wheels. They went on to say that the car was hazing the tires on the dyno and they believed the real numbers are quite a bit higher."

http://www.mustangweekly.com/2004/march/news/SuperbowlGT.gif

 

[Super Matty P]

IF thats true it makes no sense to advertise it as 500bhp. When it comes to exotics the more powerful they are the better they sell. Ford would be shooting themselves in the foot underrating this car when it has to compete head to head with 600-700hp supercars.

 

[Super Matty P]

p.s. If I had chosen to go with a roots blower (which I originally started) I would be catching s*** still. It doesn't matter what I chose to do. It was never going to be good enough for some people.

p.p.s. I'm also VERY tired of people trying to compare my supercharger to a turbo. They are similar but wholely different.

 

[MPNick]

Think of it this way.... My kit will most likely run about 6psi with no intercooler and make almost 200hp (rough estimate). The Eaton-powered 2.0L Saturn Redline uses an M62 (midsize blower) and on 14psi of INTERCOOLED boost makes 200bhp. 6psi non, to 14psi intercooled

p.p.s. The Ford GT's aren't dynoing 600whp....they make 500bhp. I can't imagine anyone in the world doing so many articles on the Ford GT and not mentioning that the cars are underrated by 25% easily.....that's just stupid to think that.

If they need 14psi and intercooled to make 200 why do you think you can make it at 6psi and no intercooler? You make less power with the SC per psi of boost then a turbo. Why to you not think you will need a intercooler. Yes you can tune for it by dumping alot of fuel to cool the charge and retard alot of timing. But then you power output will be real low. I just do not see how your claims add up. Can not wait for the dyno sheets on this one.


Ford rates the GT at 550hp not 500hp. At first they were rated at 500hp, but that was last year. They are running very low 11s and a few have run very high 10s. Around 133 mph. They have dynoed over 600whp.

 

[Super Matty P]

Nick, I based my power estimates on several things. Most importantly I base it on the CFM output of the blower at certain rpm levels. I also looked at similar 4cyl imports running centrifugal blowers and their power output. I also factored in that my kit will include very efficient EMS in the haltech. Also the size of this blower is a good bit larger than the competitors (4cyl import).

If a 1.6 Honda with a vortech (and no ems) makes 174whp @ 7psi using the stock exhaust. I'm pretty confident that my 2.0L powerdyne with standalone fuel computer and 4-1 header will make = or more power at the same boost level on a cooler running, more efficient blower.

 

[Micah]

http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordgt/specs.asp

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=436 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Horsepower @ RPM:</TD><TD>550@6,500</TD></TR><TR><TD>Torque @ RPM (lb ft):</TD><TD>500@3,750</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Super Matty P]

good deal, I was off on my numbers. I think we're still comparing apples to corkscrews though.

 

[Natey]

p.s. If I had chosen to go with a roots blower (which I originally started) I would be catching s*** still...

I absolutely LOVE the sound of my centrifugal one. I know that doesn't mean s*** on a dyno or timeslip, but DAMN! Whenever it starts to whine, I get a woodie.(rockon)