[MIAMI2SSRS]

Originally Posted by LesBaer

Thank you both from me as well. Superchargers and DI are new to me, so I'm trying to absorb as much as I can right now. I'm going to keep my boost conservative at 6psi since we don't the same forged engine as the Z06. I also won't have wider wheels and Pilot Super Sports for at least another month.

When you are done with your car it is going to be a beauty!!!

[jessrayo]

Originally Posted by toohighpsi

Great discussion points and observations! It can be difficult to make direct comparisons between a specific SC performance because the application and surrounding hardware can dramatically affect the SC's performance.

When looking at the generic SC map data, between the R1740 and R2300, we find they are quite similar in all aspects except flow. Since the 2300 rotor has a slightly lower L/D (length over diameter) along with higher displacement it is actually a slightly better performer in "specific" terms. (R1900 is my favorite blower due to it's L/D)

For example, at 1.8 PR (~12 psi boost) the peak adiabatic efficiency occurs at 10K RPM on both superchargers, with the 2300 having a 1% benefit. This 1% benefit for the 2300 is shown across the RPM range of the SC.

When it come to input power between the ZR1 and C7Z06, the R1740 generic at 20,000 RPM and 1.8 PR has a mass flow of ~2200 kg/hr. If we want to reach the exact same point with an R2300 it needs to be turned 16,000 RPM and requires 6.2KW less input power than the R1740 spinning at 20,000 RPM.

Now again these are generic SC map comparisons, restrictions in the system such as air filters, inlets, throttle bodies, intercoolers, ports, calibration, etc. all influence to total performance of the system. Most probably the discrepancy between the ZR1 and C7Z06 as noted by jessrayo

The stock LT1 that I have on the engine dynamometer is equipped with a TVS 2300 Heartbeat and makes 630 ft-lbs of torque and 670 flywheel HP with 7.5psi boost on 100 octane unleaded, it's the same setup and calibration that ran 10.8s @ 129 in the 2016 Camaro (610RWHP). My Z06 LT4 runs 10 PSI of boost from an R1740 to make 650 ft-lbs and 650 flywheel HP. In this case the blower requires more boost to make a similar output (I think the stock LT4 could make 670HP with 100 octane) but has a higher torque value due to the increased speed of the blower reaching a higher volumetric efficiency at a lower engine speed.

It's important to realize that at the OEM level there are no Kudos to making more power that the vehicle is specified for. The Z06 was known to have 650HP long before the engine development began (same for CTSV2 and ZR1). If the engine makes more power than the specification, there isn't a big celebration by the engineers (well maybe a small one , who doesn't love power!) but then they have to figure out how to get the performance down to the desired level.

As for peak possible power from a 2300? That will depend on the application, there are 2 credible sources listed above that seem pretty realistic in their application. I've been over at Kenny Duttweiler's (that guy is just awesome) shop and watched him make about 1100 HP on an LS engine with a 2300 with which should yield well over 900 RWHP. Everything in the system must be addressed, especially all areas on the inlet of the SC, they are the most important as the final limiting speed feature of a TVS SC is the inlet area, once the rotor speed exceeds the ability of the inlet port to fill the rotor chambers it's all down hill from there as noted by the examples in the original post.

Very good information. As I said in my post, my observations were based on the 1.9 which is a really good little blower. Thanks for more specific data on the 1.7.

Speaking of maximum power, I know Thomas at Hendrix engineering has said he got over 900 whp out of a 2.3 on a 454 and if I remember correctly they were not using any cooling brick at all because it was a drag car and never ran more than 10 seconds.

I don't know if I fully agree with the concept that the inlet port restriction is the main power limiter on the supercharger because we observed a similar phenomena of boost rise directly related to intake 2 temp increase when we were feeding the supercharger with preboosed air from turbos in my compound boost set-up. The supercharger inlet could not possibly be the limitation when the air at the supercharger inlet was under boost. Yet no matter how we tinkered we really could not get much more than 1000whp through the supercharger in a true compound set-up using a heartbeat supercharger. I then pulled the supercharger off and the car instantly made 1200 whp on turbos only.

Since I pulled and sold the heartbeat supercharger from my ZL1 I have seen a forum post where a builder achieved 1400+ whp using compound boost through a LS9 supercharger. The LS9 supercharger has much less restrictive cooling bricks than the Heartbeat and I suspect that is the main difference, but it is really hard to say. My ZL1 is still not running with twin turbos and a 1.9 in harmony, but it will be.

I really like your comment on the OEM parts not giving Kudos for extra power, they are specifically engineered to optimize efficiency at a certain power level. When we get it in the aftermarket, then we figure out what happens when you run it until something fails or can't keep up. I must admit that the GM engineers have been giving us Camaro owners a lot of room to play by making parts much more durable than stock could even begin to stress.

What started my comment to LesBaer is really the information that when you buy a supercharger it has a limited range, really more like a max amount of air and power. If you take a supercharger and put it on your car and just keep adding pulley size one step at a time, you will find the point when spinning it faster will no longer give you more power. If you want to make the absolute most power possible, in general you will want a bigger supercharger. If you know going into your build that you are going to be under the 700whp mark then the smaller supercharger may actually be more cost effective and efficient.

Having said all of this I loved my ZL1 when it was on the Heartbeat, that was a great supercharger. I drove it all the way to Arizona and averaged over 100mph including my time for fuel stops (and I made a lot of fuel stops). But the factory GM superchargers are awesome also.

[toohighpsi]

Originally Posted by LesBaer

Thank you both from me as well. Superchargers and DI are new to me, so I'm trying to absorb as much as I can right now. I'm going to keep my boost conservative at 6psi since we don't the same forged engine as the Z06. I also won't have wider wheels and Pilot Super Sports for at least another month.

You'll be at about 620-630 flywheel HP with 6psi and 91/93 octane, combining that power with the great chassis of the camaro6 makes for a great car .

[toohighpsi]

Originally Posted by jessrayo

Very good information. As I said in my post, my observations were based on the 1.9 which is a really good little blower. Thanks for more specific data on the 1.7.

Speaking of maximum power, I know Thomas at Hendrix engineering has said he got over 900 whp out of a 2.3 on a 454 and if I remember correctly they were not using any cooling brick at all because it was a drag car and never ran more than 10 seconds.

I don't know if I fully agree with the concept that the inlet port restriction is the main power limiter on the supercharger because we observed a similar phenomena of boost rise directly related to intake 2 temp increase when we were feeding the supercharger with preboosed air from turbos in my compound boost set-up. The supercharger inlet could not possibly be the limitation when the air at the supercharger inlet was under boost. Yet no matter how we tinkered we really could not get much more than 1000whp through the supercharger in a true compound set-up using a heartbeat supercharger. I then pulled the supercharger off and the car instantly made 1200 whp on turbos only.

Since I pulled and sold the heartbeat supercharger from my ZL1 I have seen a forum post where a builder achieved 1400+ whp using compound boost through a LS9 supercharger. The LS9 supercharger has much less restrictive cooling bricks than the Heartbeat and I suspect that is the main difference, but it is really hard to say. My ZL1 is still not running with twin turbos and a 1.9 in harmony, but it will be.

I really like your comment on the OEM parts not giving Kudos for extra power, they are specifically engineered to optimize efficiency at a certain power level. When we get it in the aftermarket, then we figure out what happens when you run it until something fails or can't keep up. I must admit that the GM engineers have been giving us Camaro owners a lot of room to play by making parts much more durable than stock could even begin to stress.

What started my comment to LesBaer is really the information that when you buy a supercharger it has a limited range, really more like a max amount of air and power. If you take a supercharger and put it on your car and just keep adding pulley size one step at a time, you will find the point when spinning it faster will no longer give you more power. If you want to make the absolute most power possible, in general you will want a bigger supercharger. If you know going into your build that you are going to be under the 700whp mark then the smaller supercharger may actually be more cost effective and efficient.

Having said all of this I loved my ZL1 when it was on the Heartbeat, that was a great supercharger. I drove it all the way to Arizona and averaged over 100mph including my time for fuel stops (and I made a lot of fuel stops). But the factory GM superchargers are awesome also.

We're probably getting into another topic here, but you've got my interest are you running SuperTurbo or TurboSuper? (naming convention by the order of the devices) I normally wouldn't recommend TurboSuper for a gasoline engine as its benefits are mainly focused at boost levels that are higher than that which is capable with gas (think diesel here).

Since you are using the factory SC I have to assume TurboSuper, which pretty much requires a capable control system including electronic bypass system to control. SuperTurbo like what is used by VW in Europe and the new Volvo XC60 her in the US is much easier to control.

In a TurboSuper system you have to think of the SC as a multiplier, which is what it really does all of the time anyway, it takes the inlet pressure/flow, multiplies it by the Pressure Ratio that it is pullied for, and provides an outlet pressure/flow. It continues to do this under ALL circumstances and the input power for the device is the combination of the following 4 items; pressure ratio, mass flow, thermal efficiency, and mechanical efficiency.

With the turbocharger feeding the SC you probably want to unload the SC with the bypass system as the turbocharger comes on line. If the SC is not unloaded it continued to do what it was designed to do - multiply. For example let's say we have the SC set to a 1.8 PR (~12psi boost at atm) and we add the turbo. To calculate the SC output pressure we take: Inlet pressure x PR = Outlet pressure for each device – remember that PR is based off absolute pressure.

So at sea level with an ideal inlet we would have (14.7*1.8) =26.46psia absolute pressure (then subtract 14.7 if you want boost pressure)

Adding the turbo to the system also set at 1.8 PR we would find:

(14.7*1.8) = 26.46psia for the turbo then the SC would be (26.46 * 1.8) = 47.63psia (subtract 14.7psi) and we have a boost pressure of 32.9psi.

With this arrangement it’s easy to see how things can get out of control in a hurry without a good control system, especially with a nonlinear device upstream of the multiplier. This is the reason that the Superturbo the more favorable solution, you pin the nonlinear device between 2 positive displacement devices (SC and engine) which in turn sets some bounds during transient operation. Also we noted that the input power of the SC is influenced by PR and mass flow. While the PR is controlled by the drive system, the mass flow is increased through the SC by the TC which will require additional drive power (for back of the envelope calcs you could assume the PR and mass flow are 50% each) so drive power will increase by up to 40% as the inlet pressure to the SC is increased to 26.46 psia from 14.7 psia.

To try and control the SC bypass in a turbosuper system is difficult, I was not successfully able to do it with a vacuum operate PWM controlled bypass due to the hysteresis and lack of feedback. An electronic bypass is pretty much required. Since the SC is a volumetric device, it shouldn’t really become an “air restriction” in the path of the turbocharger, but if it ends up doing unnecessary work, it will requires input power, which will then impact your results. You'd also have to measure the IC pressure loss to understand the impact in your application.

Compound boosting systems look to take the strongest points of each device and capitalize on them. In this cases I’d expect to be running a pair of non wastegated turbine housings sized for the maximum boost and power that I was planning to run and then devise the control system to have the SC provide the transient response and fill in the “hole” from the turbochargers at the low-mid engine speed. It truly creates a boosting system that cannot be matched by any other means but will require some development to make it right.

Sorry for the long winded response, I presented a paper on SuperTurbo at the 2005 Dresden Boosting Conference in Germany, if you have interested in the topic send me a PM with your email and I’d be happy to send the paper to you.
Happy Boosting!
Mike

[ender2664]

Why is this kit so much more expensive than the procharger?

[ADM PERFORMANCE]

Originally Posted by ender2664

Why is this kit so much more expensive than the procharger?

How much is a procharger?

[ender2664]

About $5,400

[toohighpsi]

Originally Posted by ender2664

About $5,400

Can't speak specifically for Andy's kit, but when compared to a Magnuson it's about quality. I've attached a couple photos that I found here on the forums that can help show the differences.

Notice the differences in things like clamps, fittings, hoses, air filter, etc.

The Magnuson uses all OEM quality components, has a calibration which delivers 550+ RWHP with perfect drivability as daily driver, is CARB pending, features an included 3 yr / 36000 mile powertrain warranty, and an optional 5yr / 60000 mi powertrain warranty.

Now I'm sure there will be plenty of arguments about how long some people have run their centrifugal systems, so many miles, so many years, etc. The Eaton TVS based units are what the OEMs like GM, Jaguar, Ford, Audi, Nissan, VW, Volvo and Mercedes have used in production, it is the most efficient and reliable SC available today.

[ender2664]

/2016-camaro-lt1-supercharger-kit-625-hp
This says there is a one year warantee which just that is enough to make me believe the kit is junk.
Separate question:
I remember procharger as being a reputable company with gray products, is that no longer the case?

[ADM PERFORMANCE]

I often wonder why Legos cost $100+ dollars.Its because they come with
1500 pieces. Pretty sure each piece cost somethingjust like pieces to a supercharger.

My join date was 8 years ago and my son is 8 years old Hmmmmm.

"Is it good enough,the customer will decide"

[toohighpsi]

Originally Posted by 20171LE

The LT1 Fast Lists are all dominated by centrifugals. The ECS system exposes the PD blowers for the weak and inefficient blowers that they are.

Thanks for the reminder, in reality there weren't any PD units available for the C7s until recently so it's no surprise what's on the list. Don't you fret, I'll take care of that "C7 Fast List" concern at the next test and tune we have... .

[1KillerSS]

I thought I smelled something....Andy, good to see you sorting the 6th gen's out. What do you think the power ceiling is on these engines, I know they have been around for more than a day or so, but the LS3 was also when it was shoved into a 5th gen.

After all the years, it seems the sweet spot for the LS3 is around 750 to 850whp, (I am aware that topic is debatable). What do you think the new 6th gen is good for, before cracking it open and forging the internals?

[Subperfect]

Originally Posted by 20171LE

TT > Centrifugals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PD blowers
Please stop spreading misinformation on here.

Not to feed the troll but, after reading tons of articles because my car is going FI I didn't understand why to go roots or PD. After my car is done I would love to do a comparison with anyone with a maggie blower they are right down the street from my place.

[E-Ray]

I don't know which is better, but I order the Edelbrock E-Force TVS 2300, for my 2SS. It came with a free 3 yr. 36000 mile Power Train warranty. And no maintenance for 100,000 miles. For my daily driver the power it will produce will be ok with me.