[CT20]

Can I put a supercharger on my 2022 1SS1LE without hurting the engine?

[arpad_m]

Many of us did, see an example in my signature below.

That said, this is a pretty complex equation. No matter what you do, you will increase the risk of failure and because you touch the powertrain and have to tune the car, you will be on the hook if engine damage occurs ("pay to play", essentially).

Factors to consider when making the decision on the actual upgrade path should include your horsepower target, reliability target, desired sound profile, planned use of the car, CARB compliance, whether you are willing/able to do the work yourself... and of course your budget—parts and labor to be purchased depend on the combination of these actual personal goals.

Now, if you simply want to slap on a supercharger, use a safe "canned" tune from the supercharger vendor and call it a day, it will work and your LT1 engine is very likely to survive. You will leave a lot of performance on the table and the horsepower/dollar ratio will not be good, but the solution is simple and will work.

[laynlo15]

I did, mines is not a 1LE like yours but is an Lt1 and we've had great success with my 2300 Magnuson and toohighpsi port injection. So far all is good and safe. It will void you warranty, if you do it get a good tuner and keep it safe.

[KingLT1]

Yep sure can.

They key to longevity is Ethanol fuel and proper tuning. You will need a fuel system upgrade for it. Don't buy into the "bolt a supercharger on and go with canned tune on 93". It's not worth a shit. If you are stuck on running pump gas, then I would do lower compression drop in pistons and a cam.

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Yep sure can.

They key to longevity is Ethanol fuel and proper tuning. You will need a fuel system upgrade for it. Don't buy into the "bolt a supercharger on and go with canned tune on 93". It's not worth a shit. If you are stuck on running pump gas, then I would do lower compression drop in pistons and a cam.

I usually find it better to lay out the options and let people decide, of course it isn't worth shit at your level of expertise and mechanical sympathy —others, however, may find even the "400 to 550 whp, wow, stock ZL1 power cheaper with hardly a hassle" proposition good enough for the money it costs.

Is flex fuel better, along with everything else you did? Of course, but I say let people just have the information and be the judge of that for themselves.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

I usually find it better to lay out the options and let people decide, of course it isn't worth shit at your level of expertise and mechanical sympathy —others, however, may find even the "400 to 550 whp, wow, stock ZL1 power cheaper with hardly a hassle" proposition good enough for the money it costs.

Is flex fuel better, along with everything else you did? Of course, but I say let people just have the information and be the judge of that for themselves.

I said what I said because a 93 octane tune supercharged LT1 is severely octane limited....the compression is too high. You really need to lower compression and run a cam to get dynamic compression in check. Then 93 octane will be fine. Otherwise you are better off doing bolt-ons and a flex sensor. Easier, cost less, and will run as good as stock ZL1's and Hell cats.

Aside from the performance pov, you also have reliability. Ethanol zaps all the heat out of the cylinder on combustion. So, it's effective at keeping rings from expanding. These LT1's have very tight ring gaps..which makes it Easy to break a ring on 93 octane. If an engine can only run half of it's NA timing for low boost then there isn't enough octane. Because when you run that low of timing it kills the engines efficiency and drives up EGT's.

I am just trying to save people time, headache, and frustration.

[SJFGTO]

Yes, dollar for dollar it is a very effective, even cost efficient mod. But, that does not mean it is cheap. You will need a tune and preferably headers to maximize the impact of the supercharger. High flow, GESI cats too in order to handle the temps and the exhaust flow. Cooling mods to address the increased heat generated by a SC. Bottom line, a SC will dramatically increase the performance of your engine, but additional mods are essential to maximize its impact and reliability.

[WiggyB]

I did mines after my 1500 mile break in period. I at least waited that long there is a guy with his car in the shop now with 140 miles on the odometer getting work done.

[JimGnitecki]

subscribing

Jim G

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

I said what I said because a 93 octane tune supercharged LT1 is severely octane limited....the compression is too high. You really need to lower compression and run a cam to get dynamic compression in check. Then 93 octane will be fine. Otherwise you are better off doing bolt-ons and a flex sensor. Easier, cost less, and will run as good as stock ZL1's and Hell cats.

Aside from the performance pov, you also have reliability. Ethanol zaps all the heat out of the cylinder on combustion. So, it's effective at keeping rings from expanding. These LT1's have very tight ring gaps..which makes it Easy to break a ring on 93 octane. If an engine can only run half of it's NA timing for low boost then there isn't enough octane. Because when you run that low of timing it kills the engines efficiency and drives up EGT's.

I am just trying to save people time, headache, and frustration.

Absolutely, and what we're saying isn't that much different IMO.

You speak from a place of goodwill that we both share, plus extensive experience with high performance mods and tuning that I do not possess—anytime you say something about the LT1, I sit and listen and take notes.

All I've tried to express is that there's a whole "design space" here with multiple local optima, some of which can be difficult to see when one's very well qualified (because the more we understand a field, the more easy to assume the "customer" wants what we have found to be the best solution).

Say, someone could want a supercharger and nothing else because of the sound and to go WOT once in a blue moon for 5-6 seconds, just to make sure that, I dunno, the bypass is still working , and for that a factory Magnuson kit may just be enough. But, to go to the other extreme, they could also want to go after the lap record at Willow Springs and assume they can do extended WOT runs for 20-30 minutes with such a setup, which would be a bad idea.

This is why I asked OP for more information. Chances are his best route is what you suggest (flex fuel with bolt-ons or the full monty with FI), but the data is still worth gathering, because we just don't know yet.

[KingLT1]

I agree...all good my friend!!

[JimGnitecki]

I am following this thread because I actually AM that hyothetical user who "wants a supercharger and nothing else because of the sound and to go WOT once in a blue moon for 5-6 seconds".

Ok, actually, I also like the more snappy part-throttle quick blasts of acceleration that a positive displacement blower provides at low/mid rpm, when on a curvy road on the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rocky Mountains.

And my "other" fun ride is 2008 kawasaki ZX-6R, a 600cc "supersport" that makes 125 hp and whose weight I got down to about 395 lb before fuel. So, a car has to be reasonably responsive to be fun in comparison to the bike.

And my prior experiences with an aftermakret supercharged car (Mustang with Rousch kit) and Chevrolet SSR with Magnuson kit) showed me that a kit from a reliable source CAN be very reliable and troublefree.

The Rousch Mustang kit with the unaltered tune gave me zero issues in a couple of years of daily driver use. Absolutely zero issues.

The SSR was not QUITE as good, but that was NOT Magnuson's fault. It was because Chevy provided a radiator fan that was not much more than a cheap toy, and the 4L60E tranny that was so weak that both the SSRs and the Corvettes that used it came from the factory with OEM tunes that cut the power output DRAMATICALLY in 1st gear since the engines produced 400 ft lb of torque but the trannies were only rated for 350 (by GM itself). And GM made it even worse on the SSR because the darn truck weighed almost 5000 lb! Once I corrected those 2 shortcomings with a dual Spal fan and a "built" transmission, I drove that SSR for about 3 years with zero engine issues. In fact, I would have to say that the Magnuson kit was the most reliable system on the entire SSR (GM rushed the SSR into production with a LOT of non-engine issues).

So, I am very interested in hearing how an UNaltered Magnuson 2650 performs over time on this forum, and in seeing how my personal experience with it goes for me, given my "relatively mature" usage.

The only issue I personally have encountered so far is that the OEM run-flat tires have way too little traction. As I mentioned in a thread on the wheels and tires forum, I have ordered Nitto 555R2 275-35-20 drag radials for the rear axle (limited to 275 by my 8.5 inch LT1 rear wheels). The biggest issue with those is their inability to be used at all below -9C degrees = 15F, and their vulnerability if the temp drops to -9C even when the car is simply STORED in the garage in an Alberta winter. I don't yet know how cold the INside of the garage will get when the OUTdoor temp is -9C)

And, important to note, we can only buy Shell 91 octane gasoline here in our city. I'm not sure how much ethanol that fuel contains locally. Shell has apparently promised to get higher octane (93, I think) fuel here soon, so that should help. But in the meantime, the engine seems happy with the 91 octane fuel.

I've only got 900 km on the 2650 kit since it was installed, but it has been great so far. I'll keep the forum posted . . .

Jim G

[arpad_m]

Originally Posted by JimGnitecki

And, important to note, we can only buy Shell 91 octane gasoline here in our city. I'm not sure how much ethanol that fuel contains locally. Shell has apparently promised to get higher octane (93, I think) fuel here soon, so that should help. But in the meantime, the engine seems happy with the 91 octane fuel.

That can be a problem IMO. As King stated above, even 93 is barely good enough for forced induction with the high compression LT1. Timings can probably be retarded enough not to hurt the engine, but this is even more of a performance loss.

If only 91 was available here, my car didn't have flex fuel capability and I didn't want to touch the fuel system, I'd look into octane boosters even with a "stock" 2650 setup. That has some drawbacks, too, not dealbreakers in my personal opinion, but everything is a tradeoff (sigh) and it's not about my car anyway .

[JimGnitecki]

Originally Posted by arpad_m

. . .
If only 91 was available here, my car didn't have flex fuel capability and I didn't want to touch the fuel system, I'd look into octane boosters even with a "stock" 2650 setup. That has some drawbacks, too, not dealbreakers in my personal opinion, but everything is a tradeoff (sigh) and it's not about my car anyway .

What are the drawbacks of octane boosters?

Jim G