*Pics* Why you should do a Solid Isolator Coupler...

[djnice]

Originally Posted by joes407

to clarify I pulled my invoice for exact miles. mine was replaced at 14387 miles, the squawk noise was definitely metal on metal sounding and in the service bay when they asked whats wrong and had me start the car they immediately said turn it off. it was loud and didn't sound like it would go away with time. I believe they tested the noise in decibals and then decided to replace whole supercharger. I think somewhere there was a bulletin not to replace the unit unless it reached xxx decibals. I now have 25k miles and im starting to hear the start of that noise again on occasion but not nearly as loud as it was and im holding off on solid coupler until I know if im going to need another warranty supercharger.

It would have been interesting to see your SC tore down. To see if the shaft, spring, gears, rotors, or what was making the noise. Hopefuly they are not having significant wear on parts that will let debris into the intake.

[silverds]

Originally Posted by djnice

It would have been interesting to see your SC tore down. To see if the shaft, spring, gears, rotors, or what was making the noise. Hopefuly they are not having significant wear on parts that will let debris into the intake.

Not exactly torn down. It's a cut-away and way to big to link as an image so I'll just link the URL http://www.flickr.com/photos/kanman/5533708685/

[silverds]

It think I have a logical explanation why the TVS2300 in the GT500 CANNOT use a spring loaded coupler.

It appears that the coupler in that supercharger is mounted to pins directly connected to the rotor gear. They share the same compartment in the supercharger. Any debris released from the spring fretting on the shaft would likely damage the delicate teeth of the gears. Precision gearing and metal debris don't mix well.

If that logic is accurate it would apply to any supercharger where the input shaft couples directly to the rotor.

[Modern07]

Originally Posted by silverds

There is no question or dispute by anyone else including me, that installing the solid coupler will stop noise from the coupler.

The question by everyone else but you is..."at what cost?" and "for how long?"
......

If all you have to offer is faith in the knowledge of those who've preceded you, we appreciate that but faith in marketers, regardless of their claims or experience is unwise

Actually, that question is one I had also - but is using the experiences of all those that have gone before us not a valid way to try to answer the question at hand? Or to at least gain some confidence in the answer?

In other words, given that people have been using the solid coupler as a way to resolve the rattle issue since 2009, and that there are no documented cases of problems being caused by this part by anybody that has switched to it thereafter, is it not fairly safe to say that in actual fact, despite the theory that goes against it, the physical evidence suggests that it is going to be just fine?

Or given the lack of absolute verified evidence one way or the other, do you genuiely think everybody should just put up with the rattle?

I guess at the end of the day, it is all a personal preference, and some people are more risk averse than others - they are likely to be the ones that still have a warranty e.g. yourself, and by default are not going to be switching to this solid isolator in any case.

For the rest of us we have a decision to make, and I genuinely think that using the evidence and experience of all those that have gone before us with this swap is a perfectly valid course of action to assess the risk involved.

And I'm not talking about the people selling the part, I'm talking about the experiences of the end-user.

Oh, and at the Avatar change

Originally Posted by ZL1-V

I have to ask do either of you have significant others in a relationship?

I do - but this weekend she was away - and my car is also away at FSP getting built.....sooooo

[djnice]

Originally Posted by silverds

Not exactly torn down. It's a cut-away and way to big to link as an image so I'll just link the URL http://www.flickr.com/photos/kanman/5533708685/

Yeah, that cut away is neat.

I meant it would be good to see a tear down of Joe's SC or one of the others making the squaking noise to see where the problem was at and what is making it louder than others.

The other thing about the GT and 2300 is the shaft is driving the gears and the 1900 is driving the rotor and it has more drive shaft length. So there may be something to do with vibration at the rotors, or the momentum in the rotor may amplify the vibration, oscillation, etc.

[joes407]

Originally Posted by djnice

It would have been interesting to see your SC tore down. To see if the shaft, spring, gears, rotors, or what was making the noise. Hopefuly they are not having significant wear on parts that will let debris into the intake.

they did not remove the snout since they warrantied the whole charger. somewhere on the forums are pics of the intake and supercharger when they had it off but as I said snout was intact

[djnice]

This is interesting. In this article superchargersonline says they only use the spring isolator because it prevents gear damage. And this is the type with the coupler directly at the gear and in the same oil bath with the gears.
http://www.superchargersonline.com/i...age=page&id=57

[silverds]

Originally Posted by djnice

This is interesting. In this article superchargersonline says they only use the spring isolator because it prevents gear damage. And this is the type with the coupler directly at the gear and in the same oil bath with the gears.
http://www.superchargersonline.com/i...age=page&id=57

Yeah I saw that but if you look at the couplers shown installed, none are the torsion spring type. However Stiegemeier.com does have this. Those are like 45-tooth gears though and probably NOT a TVS.

[Modern07]

Interesting bit of Info from the latest person that is having his LSA supercharger replaced because of the rattle noise...

Originally Posted by z28man2

I spoke to the dealer today. They got the replacement supercharger in & will go in this week for replacement. Apparently the S/C has a new part# starting with 193. Apparently this is the revised S/C but no-one at GM can seem to confirm what if anything was revised
........................

I found this below check out the part number replacements.

Sale Price: $1,990.25
Compared at: $2,095.00
You Save: $104.75
Product ID : 19301022


CHEVROLET
E-mail to a friend
Browse more in: SUPERCHARGER & COMPONENTS
Part Notes:
6.2 LITER W/SUPERCHARGER
Part #19301022 replaces: 19257754

Now, I wonder if the change in the supercharger is actually the change to a solid isolator to resolve the rattle noise as depicted in this picture that GM published...



I guess we will find out soon enough....

[AZ-ZL1]

This thread is soooooo entertaining. Gotta love it.

ps: I have the solid coupler.

[djnice]

As I understand it, that picture was for the 2012 ZL1 before the car hit the street. The CTSV guys were hoping the same thing a year ago. I doubt the new part number changes from a spring coupler, but we can keep hoping.

Actually, reading on the caddy forums seems the new part number has the same issue. Maybe it fixed bearings or other problems.

[silverds]

Originally Posted by djnice

Yeah, that cut away is neat.

I meant it would be good to see a tear down of Joe's SC or one of the others making the squaking noise to see where the problem was at and what is making it louder than others.

The other thing about the GT and 2300 is the shaft is driving the gears and the 1900 is driving the rotor and it has more drive shaft length. So there may be something to do with vibration at the rotors, or the momentum in the rotor may amplify the vibration, oscillation, etc.

I missed this point but it's a great one. If the mass of the solid coupler is significantly more than the torsion coupler, that could cause a lot of unwanted vibration, more so if the solid coupler is not perfectly balanced. Also I wonder what elastic deformation may be occurring to the solid coupler as it spins at such high speeds.

[silverds]

Just theorizing here, but what more perfect application for a fluid torque converter can there be. Torque transmission via fluid would almost negate any irregular torsional vibration transmitted from the crank. There would be sacrifices in increased lag most likely.


OR maybe a centrifugal clutch. As the input shaft reaches sufficient speed the clutch engages the rotors. Or even a frictionless magnetic coupling where magnets around the input portion of the coupling create a rotating magnetic field that caused magnets connected to the rotor drive to spin.

Unless the input at the pulley was WAY overdriven I think all those would reduce the torque ratio enough to be impractical.

But this... sounds interesting and appropriate...if it's good enough for our suspension...

Patent #7,086,507: Controllable magneto-rheological elastomer vibration isolator

A tunable vibration isolation device comprising a magneto-rheological elastomer (MRE), and methods of using such a device, are provided. By manipulating a magnetic field within the MRE the device's stiffness is controlled. The vibration isolator can be constructed to provide shock absorption in one, two and three dimensions. Coupling the tunable device to a sensor feedback and a control system provides fast and accurate vibration isolation and energy dissipation for shock events in a variety of applications.

[djnice]

Looks like you took it deeper than anyone else wants to go. Oh well.