Supercharging A R33

[two40]

anyone done it on a 33? pros cons?

a mate wants to do it so i thought i'd check here to see if it's worth it before he gets carried away.

[shanef]

pm nar33 on here as he's done it, but he's supercharged a v8, could still be of help

[Br4nchi3]

All the stuff I've read people are saying it isnt worth it, you spend more then you would turbocharging and get less power I think.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Br4nchi3

[krzysiu]

Br4nchi3 statement is true. Cost much more to supercharge and you get less power

Edited December 12, 2005 by krzysiu

[two40]

ok thanks guys

[Madaz]

if u gunna supercharge u prolly wanna turbo as well

[ebola]

looks nice

Madaz, what is to stop pressurized air from escaping OUT the turbos before they spool up?

[Madaz]

um :S im out of my league now

[ebola]

Never mind.

I've been mesmerized by chrome and aluminium.

Oh - and the extra 600cc would be nice, too

[NA_R33]

search button is your friend

[PHaT MR30]

http://capa.com.au/vortech.htm

thats probably what you want, but then the trouble of getting headers made and everything just seems to kill the worthwhileness, i considered this b4 getting a GT30

[Denver]

The SC's capa sell are pretty inificient and work in much the same way as a turbo..

the way you want to go, is a twin screw setup, the twin screw units themselves are only $2500 from harrop, the cost is getting them mounted up, as you'll need a custom bracket setup..

Theres an s13 race car thats based out perth here with one, that makes over 400 at the treads with it, thats using a 2.3l unit, as well as there being an xr6 with a 2.3l unit bolted to the side, which is making over 600hp at the wheels, and cuts low 10's at the drags, think its down to 10.2 now, you can get a 3.3l unit which i imagine will make more than enough power for anyones demands here, and be totally linear in its power delivery..

the catch is it just takes moeny to develop a mounting kit, and also time and development to ensure it all functions as its meant to..

[Nacho Vidal]

exactly, while you can get easier power from a turbo setup, a screw charger will give you better drivability and instant torque! you dont get that mad rush, more of a feeling of increased displacement. Excellent balance next to most of the big power turbo setups.

would like to see it done for something different!

[Warpspeed]

Turbos are quick, cheap and easy. If you want a serious amount of power though, it will most likely end up a laggy pig.

Superchargers are complicated and expensive, similar top end power but a MOUNTAIN of torque and no lag. You get what you pay for.

So many guys compare a $ 300 secondhand Toyota blower to a beautiful $ 1500 ball bearing turbo, and say the blower is crap. They are right.

Now take a smokey old $ 300 secondhand turbo off a 1.5 litre engine, and compare it to a $3000 screw blower that can make 500 Hp. That proves turbos are all rubbish, right ?

If you are going to compare turbos to superchargers, start with a similar budget. The more you spend, the better it will be, no matter which you decide.

I have owned both, and like both, but for different reasons.

Anyone that thinks superchargers don't make power should realise that ALL the fastest drag race classes run superchargers.

So where are the four second top fuel turbo cars ? If it could be done, people would be doing it, and there would be new classes started for really fast turbo cars.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Warpspeed

[PHaT MR30]

mmm yes i forgot about the SRM Screw superchargers, remember seeing torque/power curve on an SR with one of them

[Warpspeed]

Or you could get an Opcon Autorotor. They are available over the counter in Melbourne.

The largest has a rated flow of around 29 cubic metres of air per minute, that is 1,024 CFM, around 680 horsepower worth of air. Is that enough ?

http://www.hi-flow.com/HP7Super.htm

They also provide full boost over about a 10:1 engine speed range. How about 35 psi boost from 900 rpm to 9,000 Rpm.

Show me a turbo that is fully spooled at 900 Rpm, and does not run out of flow at 9,000 Rpm. Absolutely no contest......

Edited December 15, 2005 by Warpspeed

[ebola]

So where are the four second top fuel turbo cars ?  If it could be done, people would be doing it, and there would be new classes started for really fast turbo cars.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think they spat the turbos out.

You CANT put a turbo on a top fueler. moot point. end of story.

There are two types of supercharger, and a fixed displacement type will provide boost from nowhere, but is not as efficient at top end.

Then there is the compressor bladed supercharger - same as a turbo, except that boost is proportional to rpm, not exhaust. There *is* lag, but its always the same. no boost creep, and no problems with short ramp settings on dynos

Either way, supercharger have a higher cost (in kilowatts) to run than an equivalent turbo.

better or worse? What are you after?

a supercharger (screw type) IS on my wish list... but I'm keeping the turbo.

[paulr33]

what about the extra heat from supercharging the intake ?

[Madaz]

So where are the four second top fuel turbo cars ? If it could be done, people would be doing it, and there would be new classes started for really fast turbo cars.

on the other side u have PANIC that can get from start to finish in about 5-4 secs but takes 5-4 secs to spool up

[Denver]

what about the extra heat from supercharging the intake ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can intercool it still, like a normal turbo setup..

basically most of the principles stay the same, your forcing more air in, same as a turbo, tuning is lsightly different, but instead of driving the air pump with exhaust gas, your driving it with the crank of the motor..

And as for drag cars, they only run for about a minute total, and really only 10 seconds tops on full noise, and aside from top fuellers which run on nitro, most cars run methonal, which runs a lot cooler than normal fuels do, if you take note a lot of cars runing methonal will actualy get condensation on the side of the blower/hats etc from the fuel..