PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on Blowers vs Chargers in general?



SoCalSouthpaw
09-14-2006, 07:45 AM
I know this topic is not new. What is one to do when you have several highly experienced engine builders that all have educated, and I have to assume, real world knowledge of Blowers, Chargers, and natural aspiration. I've been told:
All of the following has been told to me from performance shop owners that each have no less than 20yrs in the business at least.
One has said never used forced induction.
Another has said use a whipple charger - as he has had nothing but positive experience and reliable results using them.
Lastly - another has said he has had nothing but nagative experience with whipple chargers, from warranty to even more alarming, reliability. I say in response, "Ok, what about a Pro Charger?" Reply, dont even use a charger - use a blower.
So, I feeling pulled in every direction. Any body have some input? Thanks alot.

sigepmock
09-14-2006, 07:50 AM
Ok let's get the lingo down. There are turbo chargers, exhaust driven, and superchargers, belt driven off the engine. Then within superchargers there are two main types.....centrifugal (Paxton, Procharger) and then the Roots or twin rotor style(Whipple, Blower shop) :crossx:
You will get a bunch of different opinions on this but tell us what type of set-up this is going in and how it's going to be used, that should help.

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 07:51 AM
If you are interested, I can tell you why we chose turboed over everything else. There was a lot of thought that went into it.

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 07:54 AM
Blowers and superchargers are the same thing and are belt driven. Turbo chargers are differeent and are driven by exhaust gas through a turbine.
There are different types of superchargers roots being the classic "blower" seen on hot rods, hot boats for years. There are pluses and minus's to all the applications.
Talk to a RELIABLE engine builder to find out what is best for your application or better yet post this in the blower section and get free input form some real experts, Infomaniac, Fiat48 and many others.
Whipples are a screw charger and are the only blower that compresses the air fuel charge in the blower.
Regarding Whipple does anyone know if they are still in business?

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 07:59 AM
Whipples are a screw charger and are the only blower that compresses the air fuel charge in the blower.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Explain this one to me...

Jbb
09-14-2006, 08:01 AM
Regarding Whipple does anyone know if they are still in business?
Yep .....still in business with a line of newly designed blowers that look great ....and are putting up great numbers....according to Dustin

Havasu_Dreamin
09-14-2006, 08:04 AM
Regarding Whipple does anyone know if they are still in business?
Dustin was on here last week answering questions.

sigepmock
09-14-2006, 08:06 AM
[QUOTE=Schiada76]
Whipples are a screw charger and are the only blower that compresses the air fuel charge in the blower.
QUOTE]
Yeah you might want to think about revising this one......most blower set-ups have the carbs on top with the compressors "sucking" air and fuel through them...then compressing the air fuel mixture before it enters the intake and then the cylinders.....
And with EFI set-ups the fuel is sent directly into the intake/cylinder after the air is already compressed, even on the Whipple set-up.
Here are some basics:
How supercharger work (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/supercharger.htm)

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 08:08 AM
[QUOTE=Schiada76]
Whipples are a screw charger and are the only blower that compresses the air fuel charge in the blower.
QUOTE]
Yeah you might want to think about revising this one......most blower set-ups have the carbs on top with the compressors "sucking" air and fuel through them...then compressing the air fuel mixture before it enters the intake and then the cylinders.....
Exactly. Like... all of them with exception of port injected and the hooptie "blow through" style used primarily in aftermarket add-on applications and rarely on designed systems.

Phat Matt
09-14-2006, 08:08 AM
I think he is talking about the Oakland (Blowers) vs San Diego (Chargers) game last week. :)
Oh, and in my opinion the Chargers looked great last week. Hope this helps! :D

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 08:09 AM
I think he is talking about the Oakland (Blowers) vs San Diego (Chargers) game last week. :)
Explains a lot...
Listen to disk 2 first. It jams.

Phat Matt
09-14-2006, 08:11 AM
Explains a lot...
Listen to disk 2 first. It jams.
lol. I will. In fact I'll play it right now. :)

sigepmock
09-14-2006, 08:12 AM
lol. I will. In fact I'll play it right now. :)
I see how you are now.....keeping the good tunes to yourself :argue: :yuk: :D

SHAKEN Not Stirred
09-14-2006, 08:16 AM
Yep .....still in business with a line of newly designed blowers that look great ....and are putting up great numbers....according to Dustin
YEP!.....
"And HERE they are!!!!......
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780W200_rotors_a.JPG
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780w305_rotors.JPG
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780305ax_and_200ax_6_5_and_3_3.jpg

SHAKEN Not Stirred
09-14-2006, 08:16 AM
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780IMG_0644copy.JPG
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780IMG_0647.JPG
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780IMG_0651.JPG
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780IMG_0655.JPG

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 08:16 AM
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Explain this one to me...
I may be wrong but what I've been told from a blower manufacturer that the scew type , Whipple, which is licensed by Lysholm is the only blower that is actually a compressor. The charge is compressed in the blower. The roots compresses the charge in the cylinders.
I'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong.
Also informed that Whipple lost it's exclusive deal with Lysholm.

SHAKEN Not Stirred
09-14-2006, 08:16 AM
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780IMG_1159.JPG
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780IMG_0659.JPG
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780W305_r_small_2.JPG
http://www.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1780w305r_small.JPG

SHAKEN Not Stirred
09-14-2006, 08:18 AM
I may be wrong but what I've been told from a blower manufacturer that the scew type , Whipple, which is licensed by Lysholm is the only blower that is actually a compressor. The charge is compressed in the blower. The roots compresses the charge in the cylinders.
I'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong.
Also informed that Whipple lost it's exclusive deal with Lysholm.
Yes.....Whipple/Lysholm are the only true compressors..... :)
CJG
:rollside:

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 08:21 AM
Yes.....Whipple/Lysholm are the only true compressors..... :)
CJG
:rollside:
Hence "blower" not "compressor" on the roots and centrifagal. :D

Phat Matt
09-14-2006, 08:23 AM
I see how you are now.....keeping the good tunes to yourself :argue: :yuk: :D
Go to www.jukeboxinthesky.co.uk
click on the Slacker tab.
Right click save as "Obsessive Sounds"
Be the envy of boaters around you for not playing the same old shit...get asked who this is and where can they get it.
You can do the same with the other mixes. Check out Slacktivism.
:D

deltaAce
09-14-2006, 08:40 AM
quotes;
1. One has said never used forced induction.
2. Another has said use a whipple charger - as he has had nothing but positive experience and reliable results using them.
3. Lastly - another has said he has had nothing but nagative experience with whipple chargers, from warranty to even more alarming, reliability. I say in response, "Ok, what about a Pro Charger?" Reply, dont even use a charger - use a blower.
.................................................. ............................................
1. Good advice for a basic pleasure craft.
2. They are simple, reliable baby blowers.
3. Balls to the walls.............
What is your application, what is your objective & how much are you willing to spend?

SoCalSouthpaw
09-14-2006, 08:51 AM
Thanks for all the input. First, in regards to a RELIABLE engine builder - I believe that if someone who specializes in building high performance engines - as a business - a business that has remained in business for well over 20 years doing this - is a RELIABLE engine builder. Im not talking about the guy who own's the local automotive repair shop. Im not going to mention any names. Thats not what this thread is here for. So, nuff said on whether or not I spoke to reliable engine builders.
Ok, I have a 496 - that needs a rebuild as I have seized it. Now, originally I was going to go for the big one and slap a 540 or a 572 strapping no less than 800hp. Then, as I started looking at cost - and all the unfinished projects I have around my house - I thought maybe I will just rebuild my 496 and put a Whipple on it. Maybe get 700hp, and complete a couple house projects (I know, my priorities are demented). Then, all the mayhem set in by speaking to peeps in the industry and got all this conflicting info. So, that is why I am here. Because I have read many posts when it comes to issues like these - whether its engines, stereos, hulls, etc... and have learned there is some serious real world experience here. So, there you have it. I want to rebuild my 496 and get 700hp at least out of it, and not have a touchy, mechanical nightmare on my hands. Hope this helps. :rollside:

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 08:53 AM
I may be wrong but what I've been told from a blower manufacturer that the scew type , Whipple, which is licensed by Lysholm is the only blower that is actually a compressor. The charge is compressed in the blower. The roots compresses the charge in the cylinders.
I'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong.
Also informed that Whipple lost it's exclusive deal with Lysholm.
Yeah, that is inaccurate. A screw-type of compressor is just a style of compressor. There is a "male" and "female" side of the vanes and much like every other engine mounted, crank driven supercharger they smoothly create a shape when meshed together that reduces in volume as it moves back and down through the compressor. By turning a large volume into a smaller volume it compresses the charge and adds boost. Any typical "blown" application you see be it two carbs on an 8-71, a Quad-rotor screw type, or a Magnussen (also a Rootes type) will be supercharging the fuel/air mixture before charging the intake ports. The pressure under the manifold is where you register boost pressure, and is one of the reasons you don't need to spend a ton of money porting intakes on a blown motor unless you really want to squeeze horsepower.
Centrifugal superchargers and other serpentine belt driven superchargers like Paxtons, Vortecs, Pro-Chargers and others act in the same manner, but compress more like a turbo using a turbine compressor instead of meshing vanes. Think hair dryer. The difference is, they are ususally mounted off of the motor and have an outlet pipe feeding the intake of the motor. Since this is just supercharged air under normal circumstances, you still need fuel. Most of these are used on engines already set up for fuel injection, so you ususally just feed the now-supercharged air into the throttle body, adjust your fuel curves/injectors/pressures etc... and enjoy a lot more power. Retrofit style chargers are also available in what is called a "blow-through" design, which supercharges the air prior to a carburetor and puts a "hat" on the carb to force boosted air into the carburetor. These are pretty hokie.
Turbo-superchargers work in much the same way except instead of using a belt to drive them, they use the exhaust already coming out of the motor acting on an exhaust turbine. They then use boost tubes to feed into the aforementioned throttle body. Some older systems were "draw through" and put a carburetor on the inlet to the turbo and compressed the fuel/air mixture in the turbo and sent the mix to the motor. There are also "blow through" turbos, also hokie.

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 08:55 AM
Hence "blower" not "compressor" on the roots and centrifagal. :D
You are getting lost in the hype. If you are building boost over ambient, you are compressing air.

SoCalSouthpaw
09-14-2006, 08:57 AM
My intentions are this: Id like to keep my cost around 15K +/- 5K. I want my 26' American Offshore to hit in the 90's. I know this is capable with ease @ 700hp. They tested this hull with 650hp and it clocked a 101mph pass. Of course, with one pilot and probably little else in the way of weight on board. So, I figure, 700hp+ with a couple heads and some gas and a couple of full coolers (stocked with water and cokes, of course), and my dog, I could hit in the 90's, and easily cruise it in the high 80's.

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 09:01 AM
I would say that your 496 with any supercharger, built bottom end and a lot of injection work will meet you goals for well under 15K and do it on pump gas.
700hp reliably is nothing when supercharged. You could do that on 3-4 pounds and damn near use a ceiling fan. None of the arguments are going to have any traction for that kind of boost. You can do it with anything.

acatitude
09-14-2006, 09:04 AM
I cant believe that Peto cant build what you say for 15k +/- 5k
i agree with FS, your building a relativily mild motor. you could probably accomplish what you want without a SC..

deltaAce
09-14-2006, 09:24 AM
An opinion; A cost effective way to obtain your #s (650-700hp). Perform the basic engine rebuild. If your engine has fuel injection, use the Procharger. If it's carbed, use the Whipple.

SoCalSouthpaw
09-14-2006, 09:31 AM
I would say that your 496 with any supercharger, built bottom end and a lot of injection work will meet you goals for well under 15K and do it on pump gas.
700hp reliably is nothing when supercharged. You could do that on 3-4 pounds and damn near use a ceiling fan. None of the arguments are going to have any traction for that kind of boost. You can do it with anything.
Ceiling Fan. Now that is some funny shiat. :) I havent spoke to Peto about my 496 yet. I think I will document this project out here. My boat has a unique story. Bought it with a stern power outdrive. 3 lower units and a spun prop blade, and a 2" drive extension later.....I was put in contact with the original owner. Im the 3rd. He has a performance shop in TN. He cnc'd an apdapter to attach an IMCO drive to the stern power gimbal - thing has been sittin in his shop ever since he sold the boat, as the guy I bought it from didnt want to pay the extra $$ for the IMCO drive. So I bought it. Had it on for Labor Day. Let me put it this way, you ever try and drive a car with the E-brake on? That is exactly what this Stern Power drive felt like. I didnt realize it until I used my new IMCO. What a diff. In fact I was able to get another 5-600 rpm's out of my motor. Came up on plane with a ferious vengence. STOKED describes my feeling. Well, come sunday morning, nice lil cruise on the river from Topock - snap! Motor goes. So, it had a 26p prop on it. Which I knew I could of went to a 28, maybe even a 30p prop. My motor had been dyno'd at 585hp. And with the 26p on it - 73mph. I never got to see what it would do with a bigger prop with the new drive. So, its gonna be interesting to see what the new powerplant and bigger prop will do for my beloved cat.
Now, who wants to invite me to Christmas dinner since we're all close and sh*t now? LOL!!

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 10:13 AM
You are getting lost in the hype. If you are building boost over ambient, you are compressing air.
My mistake, the roots compresses the air in the intake not in the cylinders, still, not in the blower. The whipple has a "male" and "female" screw that compresses the mix in the blower.
The roots is not a "compressor".
Invented by the Roots brothers in the late 1800's to ventilate mine shafts I believe.

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 10:16 AM
My intentions are this: Id like to keep my cost around 15K +/- 5K. I want my 26' American Offshore to hit in the 90's. I know this is capable with ease @ 700hp. They tested this hull with 650hp and it clocked a 101mph pass. Of course, with one pilot and probably little else in the way of weight on board. So, I figure, 700hp+ with a couple heads and some gas and a couple of full coolers (stocked with water and cokes, of course), and my dog, I could hit in the 90's, and easily cruise it in the high 80's.
Easy 800 hp with an 871 non intercooled on a 496 on 5#'s boost.
Go up from there with great heads, chiller, little more boost.

Jordy
09-14-2006, 10:32 AM
The roots is not a "compressor".
Now you're just playing with semantics. They're all "compressors" in some way, shape, or form, even in your description:
the roots compresses the air in the intake not in the cylinders
Wouldn't that make it a compressor??? :)

SoCalSouthpaw
09-14-2006, 10:43 AM
Easy 800 hp with an 871 non intercooled on a 496 on 5#'s boost.
Go up from there with great heads, chiller, little more boost.
My mechanic said the same thing. I like to hear the same thing from different people. So, I might get my 800hp after all.

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 11:23 AM
Now you're just playing with semantics. They're all "compressors" in some way, shape, or form, even in your description:
Wouldn't that make it a compressor??? :)
You're breaking my balls here! You're breaking my balls! :D
From what ENGINEERS have told me roots aren't considered compressors.
Screw chargers are the only huffer that comprees the charge in the blower was my point.
So just keep bustin my nuts. :D

Jordy
09-14-2006, 11:28 AM
From what ENGINEERS have told me roots aren't considered compressors.
What would someone who drives a train know about superchargers anyway??? :D :D :D

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 11:31 AM
You old enough to remeber Engineer Bill?
Green light go!......................Red light stop! Then the kid spits milk all over himself out of his nose. :D

SHAKEN Not Stirred
09-14-2006, 11:40 AM
Now you're just playing with semantics. They're all "compressors" in some way, shape, or form, even in your description:
Wouldn't that make it a compressor??? :)
Ummmmmm......NO!
A 8-71 or 10-71 is a blower/pump, not a compressor.....
They make positive pressure/boost in the intake manifold/cylinder head....
The WhippleCharger or other similar screw type systems are compressors....
Meaning air enter's at one pressure and exit's at another pressure....
No semantics.......Physics......
Later,
CJG
:idea:

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 11:41 AM
Ummmmmm......NO!
A 8-71 or 10-71 is a blower/pump, not a compressor.....
They make positive pressure/boost in the intake manifold/cylinder head....
The WhippleCharger or other similar screw type systems are compressors....
Meaning air enter's at one pressure and exit's at another pressure....
No semantics.......Physics......
Later,
CJG
:idea:
:wink:

Jordy
09-14-2006, 11:48 AM
A 8-71 or 10-71 is a blower/pump, not a compressor.....
They make positive pressure/boost in the intake manifold/cylinder head....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but boost is higher than ambient pressure in the intake manifold right??? In order to have higher than ambient pressure, you must compress it somewhere along the line.
The WhippleCharger or other similar screw type systems are compressors....
Meaning air enter's at one pressure and exit's at another pressure....
And that doesn't happen with a roots??? It's not at the same pressure on the bottom of the blower (manifold side) as it is up top. ;)
No semantics.......Physics......
Later,
CJG
:idea:
It's ***boat, it's all semantics. ;)
Using your example of compressing, does that mean that the compressor side of a turbo is misnamed as it's really just a blower/pump by your definition??? :idea:

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 11:51 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but boost is higher than ambient pressure in the intake manifold right??? In order to have higher than ambient pressure, you must compress it somewhere along the line.
And that doesn't happen with a roots??? It's not at the same pressure on the bottom of the blower (manifold side) as it is up top. ;)
It's ***boat, it's all semantics. ;)
Using your example of compressing, does that mean that the compressor side of a turbo is misnamed as it's really just a blower/pump by your definition??? :idea:
Not if you're an anti Semantic.

Jordy
09-14-2006, 11:52 AM
Not if you're an anti Semantic.
I didn't know Mel Gibson was on here. :D :D :D

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 11:53 AM
Ba Dump! :D

SHAKEN Not Stirred
09-14-2006, 01:53 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but boost is higher than ambient pressure in the intake manifold right??? In order to have higher than ambient pressure, you must compress it somewhere along the line.
And that doesn't happen with a roots??? It's not at the same pressure on the bottom of the blower (manifold side) as it is up top. ;)
It's ***boat, it's all semantics. ;)
Using your example of compressing, does that mean that the compressor side of a turbo is misnamed as it's really just a blower/pump by your definition??? :idea:
Jordy,
The screw compressor is the only supercharger that internally compress's the air.........
A roots blower pumps air from the outside of the engine into the manifold, it does not exit the roots blower at a higher pressure than in which it entered........
It does not, at anytime, compress the air internally in the case......... Its only compressing air in the manifold/plenum because it's air volume is greater than what the motor is flowing................
Because a roots blower does not compress air internally, it has a far greater leakage back up into the supercharger, which in turn forces the supercharger to be larger in size because it's volumetric efficiency lessens dramatically with boost, therefore it needs to be bigger to pump the same amount of air..........
Then, the air molecules that leak back up through the supercharger get re-heated..............as air increases in temp as it's moved............
ThatÂ’s why dyno pulls do not show true results of a roots, as they only show a brief increase in temp................. When you run a steady state load, you will see the temp continue to increase under boost....................
A screw compressor compresses air internally, and therefore it exits at a much high psi, allowing for far greater leakage back up into the housing..............
Screw compressor are world renown for their incredible efficiency at compressing air. Check ingersol-rand, gardner-denver, kobelco, sul-air, etc......
A roots blower was originally intended to only be a scavenge pump, which fills the motor to zero boost, no positive pressure in the manifold............
The screw compressor was designed to be just that, a compressor........
If by definition someone thinks that the roots has air entering at one pressure and exiting at another, then we should call it a de-compressor because it actually LESSENS the pressure while moving through the rotor housing....................
As air is moved, and heated up, the density of the air changes and is actually exiting the roots blower at a lower pressure than entering................
If a motor has positive pressure in the intake manifold, then the roots will always be exiting air at a lower psi than that of the intake manifold..............
Thus, it's inefficient under boost!
Hope this helps......
Later,
CJG
:idea:

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 02:01 PM
A roots blower pumps air from the outside of the engine into the manifold, it does not exit the roots blower at a higher pressure than in which it entered........
It does not, at anytime, compress the air internally in the case......... Its only compressing air in the manifold/plenum because it's air volume is greater than what the motor is flowing................
Are you joking? :D
Who cares about supercharger case pressure. Cylinder pressure is all that matters. You take a lot of air, squeeze it into a small space, and you've got some compression. Where do you think the increased cylinder pressures come from?
I would disregard the, "only true compressor" bullshit. The screw type compressor is a slick system but you can create just as much pressure and blow head gaskets just as easily with a roots style blower.

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 03:02 PM
Are you joking? :D
Who cares about supercharger case pressure. Cylinder pressure is all that matters. You take a lot of air, squeeze it into a small space, and you've got some compression. Where do you think the increased cylinder pressures come from?
I would disregard the, "only true compressor" bullshit. The screw type compressor is a slick system but you can create just as much pressure and blow head gaskets just as easily with a roots style blower.
Sure you can but it takes a ton more horse power to do it and it heats the hell out the air. Fuelers take what 500hp just to spin their blowers? There's a reason they don't let them run the screw charger.
The screw compressor is vastly superior due to the adiabatic efficiency.
The only reason this is being debated on this thread is that I mentioned roots and centrifugal chargers don't compress the mix in the case. That's true.
It seems from your previous posts you're very efficient at compressing an air fuel mixture yourself. What's your adiabatic efficiency and how much sustained boost can your shorts take? :D :D

sigepmock
09-14-2006, 03:09 PM
Types of Superchargers
Photo courtesy HowStuffWorks Shopper
The Eaton supercharger, a modified Roots supercharger.
There are three types of superchargers: Roots, twin-screw and centrifugal. The main difference is how they move air to the intake manifold of the engine. Roots and twin-screw superchargers use different types of meshing lobes, and a centrifugal supercharger uses an impeller, which draws air in. Although all of these designs provide a boost, they differ considerably in their efficiency. Each type of supercharger is available in different sizes, depending on whether you just want to give your car a boost or compete in a race.
The Roots supercharger is the oldest design. Philander and Francis Roots patented the design in 1860 as a machine that would help ventilate mine shafts. In 1900, Gottleib Daimler included a Roots supercharger in a car engine.
Roots supercharger
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/super-charger-11.jpg
As the meshing lobes spin, air trapped in the pockets between the lobes is carried between the fill side and the discharge side. Large quantities of air move into the intake manifold and "stack up" to create positive pressure. For this reason, Roots superchargers are really nothing more than air blowers, and the term "blower" is still often used to describe all superchargers.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/supercharger-8.jpg
Photo courtesy Sport Truck
A 1940s Ford pickup with a Roots supercharger.
Roots superchargers are usually large and sit on top of the engine. They are popular in muscle cars and hot rods because they stick out of the hood of the car. However, they are the least efficient supercharger for two reasons: They add more weight to the vehicle and they move air in discrete bursts instead of in a smooth and continuous flow.
Twin-screw
A twin-screw supercharger operates by pulling air through a pair of meshing lobes that resemble a set of worm gears. Like the Roots supercharger, the air inside a twin-screw supercharger is trapped in pockets created by the rotor lobes. But a twin-screw supercharger compresses the air inside the rotor housing. That's because the rotors have a conical taper, which means the air pockets decrease in size as air moves from the fill side to the discharge side. As the air pockets shrink, the air is squeezed into a smaller space.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/super-charger-13.jpg
Twin-screw supercharger
This makes twin-screw superchargers more efficient, but they cost more because the screw-type rotors require more precision in the manufacturing process. Some types of twin-screw superchargers sit above the engine like the Roots supercharger. They also make a lot of noise. The compressed air exiting the discharge outlet creates a whine or whistle that must be subdued with noise suppression techniques. Centrifugal
A centrifugal supercharger powers an impeller -- a device similar to a rotor -- at very high speeds to quickly draw air into a small compressor housing. An impeller is similar to a rotor Impeller speeds can reach 50,000 to 60,000 RPM. As the air is drawn in at the hub of the impeller, centrifugal force causes it to radiate outward. The air leaves the impeller at high speed, but low pressure. A diffuser -- a set of stationary vanes that surround the impeller -- converts the high-speed, low-pressure air to low-speed, high-pressure air. Air molecules slow down when they hit the vanes, which reduces the velocity of the airflow and increases pressure.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/super-charger-12.jpg
Centrifugal supercharger
Centrifugal superchargers are the most efficient and the most common of all forced induction systems. They are small, lightweight and attach to the front of the engine instead of the top. They also make a distinctive whine as the engine revs up -- a quality that may turn heads out on the street.
From my link earlier that obviously no one looked at :crossx:

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 03:18 PM
Whataya mean nobody looked at?
I thought I summed things up rather succinctly with "hence blower not compressor".
Must be too simplistic. :idea:

sigepmock
09-14-2006, 03:21 PM
Whataya mean nobody looked at?
I thought I summed things up rather succinctly with "hence blower not compressor".
Must be too simplistic. :idea:
OK maybe you and Shaken did..... :D

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 03:23 PM
Fuelers take what 500hp just to spin their blowers? There's a reason they don't let them run the screw charger.
Screw compressors require energy also.
The point of my post is that any forced induction system is a compressor in that it will increase cylinder pressure. This "only true compressor" business is pure marketing bullshit. The complete engine works as a system so to cut down a system because of one part is mearly semantic.
As far as drag racing goes, I didn't realize screw type compressors were banned in all top fuel classes.
As far as adiabatic efficiency goes, a screw type compressor is similar to, or just a little better than, most centrifugal superchargers. That is not the only factor.
You're obviously one of these guys who knows the correct way to do everything and you seem to want to throw down absolutes and pretend you're the big man but you will get your ass handed to you at the track by someone doing it differently. There are a lot of different ways to accomplish the same goals, in this case.

SoCalSouthpaw
09-14-2006, 03:23 PM
Engine update: Engine block shrapnel found about the engine compartment. This changes everything. Hence, new block. I think my cost ceiling just got raised. :mad: :skull: :cry:

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 03:35 PM
You're obviously one of these guys who knows the correct way to do everything and you seem to want to throw down absolutes and pretend you're the big man but you will get your ass handed to you at the track by someone doing it differently. There are a lot of different ways to accomplish the same goals, in this case.[/QUOTE]
I didn't claim the correct way to "do" anything. Just stated a fact in answer to a gentlemans question.
Don't get your panties in a wad over something this trivial.
I stated a fact and some people claimed it isn't so. Physics says it is.
Now some internet nut job wants to jump my shit for it. :rolleyes:
Here I'll try it for you again read s l o w.
A screw supercharger is the only one that compresses the air in the case.

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 03:38 PM
A screw supercharger is the only one that compresses the air in the case.
I like to think centrifugal superchargers compressed air in their case also. :D

Old Texan
09-14-2006, 03:39 PM
Are you joking? :D
Who cares about supercharger case pressure. Cylinder pressure is all that matters. You take a lot of air, squeeze it into a small space, and you've got some compression. Where do you think the increased cylinder pressures come from?
I would disregard the, "only true compressor" bullshit. The screw type compressor is a slick system but you can create just as much pressure and blow head gaskets just as easily with a roots style blower.
Bingo!!!!
They all push air and on the out take side it is compressed in relation to the "receiver" vs the driving power required to push air to the saturation point. If the power required to generate compressed air supply becomes greater than the power produced you create an inefficient machine.
Create 1000 hp and if the air induction device becomes so inefficient it takes 60% (600Hp) than you have f'd up. In reality yoiu aren't needing that much air. Inter and after cooling is a key to more air as it shrinks the air molecules and creates the desired effct of a bigger air charge. That's what you're after, more air.
From a drag racing standpoint a turbo is the way to go on gas. My son in law's 10.5 Outlaw small block kicks shit out of blown and big block NOS cars on a regular basis. But you better build a solid lower end and get the best head gasketing available.
I'm surprised more marine gas engines haven't gone turbo. Turbos have dominated the dieswl engines for years. Detroit has both, turbos pushing air through roots blowers.

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 03:39 PM
Engine update: Engine block shrapnel found about the engine compartment. This changes everything. Hence, new block. I think my cost ceiling just got raised. :mad: :skull: :cry:
Damn that sucks!
Build a big CI NA motor and still get your HP.
Don't know if it would be cheaper though.

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 03:42 PM
I like to think centrifugal superchargers compressed air in their case also. :D
OH YEAH! Says who? :D
Now you never did answer the question as to your maximum boost and personal adiabatic efficiency. :idea:

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 03:45 PM
Now you never did answer the question as to your maximum boost and personal adiabatic efficiency. :idea:
I'd be pleased to line up with you beside the bench racing trees, if you'd like. You may find I can be pretty efficient.

Whipple Charged
09-14-2006, 03:46 PM
Are you joking? :D
Who cares about supercharger case pressure. Cylinder pressure is all that matters. You take a lot of air, squeeze it into a small space, and you've got some compression. Where do you think the increased cylinder pressures come from?
I would disregard the, "only true compressor" bullshit. The screw type compressor is a slick system but you can create just as much pressure and blow head gaskets just as easily with a roots style blower.
Tom,
Actually, how the supercharger flows air is very important, boost is not boost. 14lbs of boost with a 1071 vs. 14lbs of boost with a screw, centrifugal, etc. are different. If you use absolute as your measurments, as does the aviation industry, then you would see the variance. As air heats up, it's density changes. The cooler the air, the more dense it is, which in turn can give you more actual cylinder pressure. This is the simple Boyle Gas Law.
A roots does not have internal compression, a turbo does not have internal compression, a scroll or vane does not have internal compression. Internal compression allows for the air to exit the supercharger with less leakage back up into the rotor housing. Screw compressors VE is 90+% and increases as boost increases. This means it seals better as boost increases, complete opposite of the roots which leaks more with increased pressure.
Then you talk about parasitic losses, heat and there is very little comparison.
Thanks,
Dustin

SoCalSouthpaw
09-14-2006, 03:48 PM
Cant we all just get along? Oh wait - then it would be boring...
Proceed with tongue lashings! :D :boxingguy

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 03:49 PM
From a drag racing standpoint a turbo is the way to go on gas. My son in law's 10.5 Outlaw small block kicks shit out of blown and big block NOS cars on a regular basis. But you better build a solid lower end and get the best head gasketing available.
I remember when turbos were crap. It seemed generally known. Back in the 80s, it was said that turbos were a restriction in the exhaust, causing flow problems... the very thing a performance engine builder wants to improve.
... then, somebody started building killer turbo engines and winning at the strip. Next thing you know, everybody knew all along turbos were the only way to go.
At least... that's how it went at the tracks around here.

Whipple Charged
09-14-2006, 03:52 PM
Damn that sucks!
Build a big CI NA motor and still get your HP.
Don't know if it would be cheaper though.
Schiada76, whats up buddy? Come on man, were in bizz :)
Just to be clear, we didn't "lose" the LYsholm exclusive deal, it was suppose to expier this next year, but they broke the contract by not supplying superchargers, we then built our own. They tried to reject the contract, but our lawyer rejected their cancelation, which is has been in court for sometime now. It's like a girlfriend leaving you, but we said, umm no, your not leaving but I AM GOING TO DATE SOMEONE ELSE!! Ha ha
Dustin

deltaAce
09-14-2006, 03:52 PM
Let's not forget the total VOLUME of air being moved by the PUMP (supercharger), measured in Cubic Feet per Minute. A stock (naturaly aspirated) 500ci engine might inhale 850cfm @ 6000rpm. If we trick (force feed) the engine into inhaling substaintaly more, it will respond as if it has a greater cubic inch displacement.

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 03:59 PM
I'd be pleased to line up with you beside the bench racing trees, if you'd like. You may find I can be pretty efficient.
Okay what choice of fuel?
You can use your favorite bran muffin, I'll bring some choontz burritos and the huge pot of menudo my office manager just brought me.. :D
Check out Kenny Duttweiler if you want to talk hairdryers. That boy puts out some big numbers.

Old Texan
09-14-2006, 04:02 PM
I remember when turbos were crap. It seemed generally known. Back in the 80s, it was said that turbos were a restriction in the exhaust, causing flow problems... the very thing a performance engine builder wants to improve.
... then, somebody started building killer turbo engines and winning at the strip. Next thing you know, everybody knew all along turbos were the only way to go.
At least... that's how it went at the tracks around here.
Buick Grand Nationals had a lot to do with it. 6 cyl GM product became the ultimate American muscle car.
To me it makes sense to marinize turbo performance as they do 2 things well, HP to weight ratio advantage and decrease exhaust noise. In today's bitch about loud unmuffled power boats it seems they would be an ideal fit.
Hey but what do we know Tom, we didn't use big enough words or throw in any theories of physics, we just know what goes, eh? :p

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 04:02 PM
Schiada76, whats up buddy? Come on man, were in bizz :)
Just to be clear, we didn't "lose" the LYsholm exclusive deal, it was suppose to expier this next year, but they broke the contract by not supplying superchargers, we then built our own. They tried to reject the contract, but our lawyer rejected their cancelation, which is has been in court for sometime now. It's like a girlfriend leaving you, but we said, umm no, your not leaving but I AM GOING TO DATE SOMEONE ELSE!! Ha ha
Dustin
Dustin,
I'm very glad to hear that.! Hope you don't think I was trying to start chit or denigrate Whipple. Kick Lysholms azz! :D

Schiada76
09-14-2006, 04:06 PM
Buick Grand Nationals had a lot to do with it. 6 cyl GM product became the ultimate American muscle car.
To me it makes sense to marinize turbo performance as they do 2 things well, HP to weight ratio advantage and decrease exhaust noise. In today's bitch about loud unmuffled power boats it seems they would be an ideal fit.
Hey but what do we know Tom, we didn't use big enough words or throw in any theories of physics, we just know what goes, eh? :p
Hey Hey Hey!
Froggy's first post was referencing all the research Trident did on forced induction and said he'd explain why they chose turbos. :D

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 04:11 PM
The screw compressor is the only supercharger that internally compress's the air.........
yadayadayada....
There is little doubt that a screw-type compressor is more efficient than a Rootes-type compressor. (It think it is spelled with an "e" everyone... let's start getting on that one...) The doubt is that it matters.
As I said, for 3-4 pounds, you can use a ionic breeze for all it matters. That is one of the nice things about forced induction... you end up with a ton of available power to spare in nearly every case. With the only exception being extremely high (racing) performance.
I don't know what size the new blowers that Whipple is making are, but the maximum cubic inch motor you can run efficiently with one of the older 3.3 liter blowers is 522. (Those of you familiar with our motor program should be having that number ring a bell for you right now) You can bolt two of them together, which looks like it produces more power than the Space Shuttle, but in reality is kind of a band-aid version of a solution. Kind of like putting two jet drives together to make more flow. Wait...
Actually, it is about the same. We don't have a high volume mixed flow pump available, so we are using two of what is available for basically the same reason. You don't have to run either as hard to get double the volume.
If Lysholm hadn't pulled the rug out from under them, we would have them in the boats right now. It is a good solution to the problem of lots of power with lots of reliability. I am fortunate to have run into the turbo solution though, and feel that our package is superior, though more expensive, for marine applications. Maybe the new stuff answered some of the higher volume questions though.
How big is your new big "compressor" (don't want to get any panties in a bunch here... ;) ) Dustin?

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 04:13 PM
Hey Hey Hey!
Froggy's first post was referencing all the research Trident did on forced induction and said he'd explain why they chose turbos. :D
Actually, I offered to explain it if anyone cared... ;)

Whipple Charged
09-14-2006, 04:16 PM
I remember when turbos were crap. It seemed generally known. Back in the 80s, it was said that turbos were a restriction in the exhaust, causing flow problems... the very thing a performance engine builder wants to improve.
... then, somebody started building killer turbo engines and winning at the strip. Next thing you know, everybody knew all along turbos were the only way to go.
At least... that's how it went at the tracks around here.
Tom,
In the 80's, the screw compressor was actually THEE most efficient forced induction method. But the turbo has come along ways now and they are certainly bad ass. Typically stock turbos, from the OEM's are not that good, but some of the aftermarket turbos from Garrett and others are really, really sick. I'll be the first to tell you that we cannot compete with peak hp of a turbo, it's the best there is, but overall power throughout the rpm range is our bread and butter.
Here's a video of a Ford GT that shows the "instant" boost.
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/26bc07f5-bce7-4c18-9b40-983c014b138e.htm
Thanks,
Dustin

Jbb
09-14-2006, 04:26 PM
Tom,
Actually, how the supercharger flows air is very important, boost is not boost. 14lbs of boost with a 1071 vs. 14lbs of boost with a screw, centrifugal, etc. are different. If you use absolute as your measurments, as does the aviation industry, then you would see the variance. As air heats up, it's density changes. The cooler the air, the more dense it is, which in turn can give you more actual cylinder pressure. This is the simple Boyle Gas Law.
A roots does not have internal compression, a turbo does not have internal compression, a scroll or vane does not have internal compression. Internal compression allows for the air to exit the supercharger with less leakage back up into the rotor housing. Screw compressors VE is 90+% and increases as boost increases. This means it seals better as boost increases, complete opposite of the roots which leaks more with increased pressure.
Then you talk about parasitic losses, heat and there is very little comparison.
Thanks,
Dustin
I love it when Brown gets virtually kicked in the nads....lol... :rollside:

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 04:42 PM
Tom,
Actually, how the supercharger flows air is very important, boost is not boost. 14lbs of boost with a 1071 vs. 14lbs of boost with a screw, centrifugal, etc. are different.
[much good technical dissertation deleted for the sake of quote brevity]
Then you talk about parasitic losses, heat and there is very little comparison.
Thanks,
Dustin
Thanks, Dustin.
Screw type superchargers are slick technology.
OK, let's look at this from a consumer's perspective. Let's have a look at the term, 'very little comparison'. OK... screw type superchargers are good technology with a lot of positive attributes. At least, this is what the experts tell us.
Have a look at this 1996 HotRod magazine .article (http://www.hotrod.com/thehistoryof/articles_1996_best_of/index1.html) Ken Duttweiler, along with others, created a 323ci GM small block that kicks out 955 hp. They also cite a 'race tune' of the same engine at over 1000 hp. I have no idea what 'race tune' means. Maybe the race version requires mid grade non-lead.
Anyway, that's around 3 hp per cubic inch from a centrifugal supercharger.
Gee... it's too bad Ken doesn't step up his game with a screw type supercharger. He's going to get his ass kicked with that 1000 hp small block engine.
yadayadayada....
My thoughts exactly.
I'm not here to educate everyone on the best technology and I'm certainly not crapping on screw type superchargers. It seems to me, however, that there are people making a lot of power with a wide variety of technologies.
Does anyone remember when Adrian Newey went to McLaren and developed the twin keel setup? Being highly regarded and designer of the best car on the grid, prior to moving to McLaren, everyone listened as he declared twin keel to be the best. ... and I believe every car but two ran twin keel the next year. One of those two was Ferrari. The other was Tyrell, I believe. I don't think Tyrell had the money for a total redesign and their technical director, a freakishly brilliant guy and independant thinker, wasn't the sort to follow trends anyway.
... so two years goes by and it would seem that there was very little to nothing, advantage wise, to the twin keel design. It certainly raised the aerodynamic bar but Ferrari raised the bar just as much by developing a more traditional design concept.
Had Ferrari not stepped up the single keel design, everyone would have assumed twin keel to be the only way to go and single keel to be obsolete.
Once again, I'm not suggesting that screw type superchargers don't have their advantages but it's clear they are one of many effective ways to make power.

Whipple Charged
09-14-2006, 04:43 PM
yadayadayada....
There is little doubt that a screw-type compressor is more efficient than a Rootes-type compressor. (It think it is spelled with an "e" everyone... let's start getting on that one...) The doubt is that it matters.
As I said, for 3-4 pounds, you can use a ionic breeze for all it matters. That is one of the nice things about forced induction... you end up with a ton of available power to spare in nearly every case. With the only exception being extremely high (racing) performance.
I don't know what size the new blowers that Whipple is making are, but the maximum cubic inch motor you can run efficiently with one of the older 3.3 liter blowers is 522. (Those of you familiar with our motor program should be having that number ring a bell for you right now) You can bolt two of them together, which looks like it produces more power than the Space Shuttle, but in reality is kind of a band-aid version of a solution. Kind of like putting two jet drives together to make more flow. Wait...
Actually, it is about the same. We don't have a high volume mixed flow pump available, so we are using two of what is available for basically the same reason. You don't have to run either as hard to get double the volume.
If Lysholm hadn't pulled the rug out from under them, we would have them in the boats right now. It is a good solution to the problem of lots of power with lots of reliability. I am fortunate to have run into the turbo solution though, and feel that our package is superior, though more expensive, for marine applications. Maybe the new stuff answered some of the higher volume questions though.
How big is your new big "compressor" (don't want to get any panties in a bunch here... ;) ) Dustin?
Wes,
522? We've run them on 632ci engines and have made almost 1150hp. It comes down to the proper head design, compression ratio, camshaft, etc. as well manifold and intercooler design. There certainly is a perfect RPM that the SC is most productive at but they carry a very straghit efficiency curve. It really comes down to making the most power productively. The W200ax compressor has no problem making the 700-1000hp range and you have to be a bit more creative to get it to the 1100hp range. 800 is like falling off a log. Teague Custom Marine has sold A LOT of these, as well as GT, Pfaff, Sterling and others and the most commong package is 540ci as is TCM and GT's 900 and 950 EFI's. My personal favorite is the 565ci with the single W200ax kit, with AFR 335/121 CNC'd heads, Whipple-crane cam, 8.8-9:1 compression, the motor will make 950hp with zero problems. Will idle at 800rpm, will shift with 1.21 gears and 36 pitch 5-blade props, etc.
With our new ones, we had increased the flow rate another 5% as well as increasing the effective rpm range. Peak speeds have also been increased for contionous duty operation.
The quad was never a band aid, it was done for performance. Have one blower and then add another, you double your potential air flow. You have no extra increase in temperature. The only thing your giving up, and it really depends on the projected HP is increased parasitic losses. This is not a 2:1 ratio, but it does take more energy to operate 2 sc's vs. 1. The problem with one big blower such as a PSI is that rotor leakage is far greater. Because you get far more rotor deflection, you must increase your rotor to case, and rotor to rotor clearance so they live. Also, the bigger it is, the more energy it takes to operate. We make as much power as PSI does with our quad rotor, typically 50 @ 1500hp and 75lbs of torque. This is for two reasons, one is stated above, the other is the old rotor and supercharger technology, PSI was designed after a sul-air air compressor, which was an oil flooded SC and had know timing gears. Screw compressor rotor technology has come a long way and has greatly increased the flow vs. size vs. AE.
Sterling has run both, has seen all the advantages and disadvantages of these systems, they choose our quad rotor over the PSI or any roots or turbo application. To note, I've done A LOT of EFI tuning over the years, and these larger boats such as MTI's, Skaters, Nortech's, etc. need as much torque as humanly possible at low rpm. When they're propped to haul ass, and they have 38 pitch 6-blade propellers, 1.21 gears, they need 1000+lbs of torque at 1500rpm to get on plane. Same problem for centrifugals, turbos, etc. If they come up with transmission that has more gears, then you can toss all that out of the window, but right now, when you only have forward and reverse, your prop/gear ratio will dictate what you need.
My new little baby is a 305ci (5.0 liter) SC with max continous compressor speed of 18,000rpm. There is also a race version with a max speed of 22,000.
Thanks,
Dustin

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 04:53 PM
I meant "Band-Aid" as a joke. People have claimed that our dual jet setup is exactly that... but we are doing it for exactly the same reasons you are doing a quad-rotor.
I will go out on a limb and say that if you had a larger screw compressor available it would negate the need for a quad-rotor, correct? I would think that your losses would be reduced even further, complexity, weight and expense greatly reduced and probably a couple of other things I am not considering.
I know that if a much larger version of the Berkley-style pump was available I would be using them for sure.
Alas... there isn't, so I'm not.

Whipple Charged
09-14-2006, 04:54 PM
Thanks, Dustin.
Screw type superchargers are slick technology.
OK, let's look at this from a consumer's perspective. Let's have a look at the term, 'very little comparison'. OK... screw type superchargers are good technology with a lot of positive attributes. At least, this is what the experts tell us.
Have a look at this 1996 HotRod magazine .article (http://www.hotrod.com/thehistoryof/articles_1996_best_of/index1.html) Ken Duttweiler, along with others, created a 323ci GM small block that kicks out 955 hp. They also cite a 'race tune' of the same engine at over 1000 hp. I have no idea what 'race tune' means. Maybe the race version requires mid grade non-lead.
Anyway, that's around 3 hp per cubic inch from a centrifugal supercharger.
Gee... it's too bad Ken doesn't step up his game with a screw type supercharger. He's going to get his ass kicked with that 1000 hp small block engine.
My thoughts exactly.
I'm not here to educate everyone on the best technology and I'm certainly not crapping on screw type superchargers. It seems to me, however, that there are people making a lot of power with a wide variety of technologies.
Does anyone remember when Adrian Newey went to McLaren and developed the twin keel setup? Being highly regarded and designer of the best car on the grid, prior to moving to McLaren, everyone listened as he declared twin keel to be the best. ... and I believe every car but two ran twin keel the next year. One of those two was Ferrari. The other was Tyrell, I believe. I don't think Tyrell had the money for a total redesign and their technical director, a freakishly brilliant guy and independant thinker, wasn't the sort to follow trends anyway.
... so two years goes by and it would seem that there was very little to nothing, advantage wise, to the twin keel design. It certainly raised the aerodynamic bar but Ferrari raised the bar just as much by developing a more traditional design concept.
Had Ferrari not stepped up the single keel design, everyone would have assumed twin keel to be the only way to go and single keel to be obsolete.
Once again, I'm not suggesting that screw type superchargers don't have their advantages but it's clear they are one of many effective ways to make power.
Tom,
You can never really compare motors such as Duttwilers small block. We've made over 900hp out of 400ci small blocks with the right heads, manifold, etc. We've made over 1000hp out of some LS1 style engines that were 409's. John Lingenfelter made 1200+hp with our quad rotor on some small blocks years back. If Ken's motor used a centrifugal, I'm sure we would make virtually the same power but would increase the lower rpm torque level DRAMATICALLY! If it was a turbo, then we couldn't make that same power boost for boost, simple as that.
Centrifugals are not better than screw compressors, they have the lag of a turbo, but take far greater energy to operate. A turbo takes next to nothing to operate, as it's running off the already flowing exhaust fumes. So to me, I see that you either need to go with a screw or turbo, and each has it's advantages/disadvantages depending on it's application. If you have say a 1000hp 500ci engine with a screw or centrifugal, then a turbo would rougly have 1100-1200 but it's boost is progressive and the turbo needs to be sized properly to give the best airflow.
A "race tune" means it puts the motor at it's max level before detonation, this usually means it takes the best gas possible, cool air, etc. This is also refered to as "on kill" or "certain death" :D
Thanks,
Dustin

Whipple Charged
09-14-2006, 05:00 PM
I meant "Band-Aid" as a joke. People have claimed that our dual jet setup is exactly that... but we are doing it for exactly the same reasons you are doing a quad-rotor.
I will go out on a limb and say that if you had a larger screw compressor available it would negate the need for a quad-rotor, correct? I would think that your losses would be reduced even further, complexity, weight and expense greatly reduced and probably a couple of other things I am not considering.
I know that if a much larger version of the Berkley-style pump was available I would be using them for sure.
Alas... there isn't, so I'm not.
Wes,
Certainly, which was our intentions when developing the new supercharger. There are many that love the look, the idea, the story about them, etc. but the single blower will replace the quad over time. Cost is less, but in reality, the weight is not that far off, temps are not that far off, but the parasitic losses are certainly less. Our other main reason for building this SC is for the customers that love the roots look, the big blower, big drive, big belt, etc. Look how many are still in the marine market, go through the channel at Havasu, I swear at least half have big roots blowers sticking out. Now we have a big blower that not only fits in the direct, exact spot that the roots did, but it uses the same drive, same linkage, same belts, etc. Better yet, you get that look and feel of the big sc, yet ours makes far greater power, more reliable, does not wear out, does not need to be serviced all the time, idles like the smaller sc's, far better fuel economy, etc. They have the bypass valve in the sc, far greater distribution and all the other benefits.
Thanks,
Dustin

Whipple Charged
09-14-2006, 05:06 PM
Engine update: Engine block shrapnel found about the engine compartment. This changes everything. Hence, new block. I think my cost ceiling just got raised. :mad: :skull: :cry:
After reading your post, do you actually have a Mercury Marine 496 Mag or Mag HO or is this a GM big block 454 stroked/bored to a 454?
A great motor, and something I'm working on is the GM575. They sale this in a short block version. You will exceed 15k if you do the work yourself, proably have to go around 30k (it's just double :D), but you can make that into a 900hp/1000trq, 91 octane, supercharged, fuel injected if you went with the right parts. I think the short block can be found for about 10k, our blower package with all the EFI parts, manifold, IC, fittings, etc. will run around 10-13k depending on options. You then need some AFR 335/121 CNC finished heads complete, fel-pro multi-layer gaskets as well as some other odds and ends. This can be a 775hp on 87 octane or 900 on 91 octane. Just food for thought.
Thanks,
Dustin

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 05:25 PM
Tom,
You can never really compare motors such as Duttwilers small block. We've made over 900hp out of 400ci small blocks with the right heads, manifold, etc.
Why didn't you make over 1000, like Kenny did? You've had a 77 ci displacement advantage, as well as all the advantages that come with a screw type supercharger. Why are you trailing Ken? You should have been up at the 1500 hp mark, given that 'there is very little comparison' between a centrifugal supercharger and a screw type supercharger.
We've made over 1000hp out of some LS1 style engines that were 409's.
Ken Duttweiler did it with a 323 ci small block and he was dragging that energy soaking centrifugal compressor behind him while doing it.
... to me, I see that you either need to go with a screw or turbo, and each has it's advantages/disadvantages depending on it's application.
I don't think I'm too far behind you on that. I'm just a consumer but I have a lot of respect for the simplicity and efficiency of both systems.
I also think Froggy has an amazing point with the idea that there really isn't a lot of difference at low boost pressures.
Anyway, I also don't care about max horsepower. I don't believe you can make 1000 hp with any car based engine and run it for 100K miles with only only 5K oil changes and 20K spark plug changes. When you push an engine to it's limit, stuff breaks. It's the cost of high performance.
A "race tune" means it puts the motor at it's max level before detonation, this usually means it takes the best gas possible, cool air, etc. This is also refered to as "on kill" or "certain death" :D
Yeah. I think a lot of people don't understand that it's not a great idea to pull the engine out of a dragster and throw it unchanged into a taxi cab and drive it around the city.
When you go to the track, or read ***boat, there are a lot of guys who throw down absolute language and are more than pleased to explain why you'd be a total asshole to do something differently than the way they did it or would do it. Bla bla bla is the best with no exceptions. It seems clear to me there are lots of ways to create power.
The performance world is full of people who parrot back what they've been told by someone they thought was 'the shit'. There aren't a lot of people like your dad who have a new idea and develop it to a point where it is a better system. I'll bet your dad didn't win the first race he ran with a screw type supercharger and I'll bet there were people who believed in other systems who were more than happy to tell him he was going in the wrong direction. I'm glad your dad didn't listen to them.

Froggystyle
09-14-2006, 05:40 PM
Nice post Tom... I just gave my "Tom Brown dashboard hula dancer" statue a little shake in your honor.
I have been, and am currently getting stung doing stuff differently myself. I believe that Art and Dustin believe in the product enough to push through their challenges, as do I.
There is dialing in left in my project. A lot of it. The turbos are the baddest induction system I have ever run, but I have a 28" long, 4" diameter oil cooler now to chain them in. The turbos mocked Rex's big cooler. Pinned it in under two minutes. The biggest cooler you have ever seen lasted almost four.
So, we developed a new "biggest cooler you have ever seen" to control it further. This one seems to have done it. Not so much so that I have my eyes closed to the thought of a 5 liter screw blower though.
Something to be said for running against a dyno at 5400 RPM at full power. It do make some heat.
Hey Dustin... I know you are slammed, but when you get a second, can you drop me some info about the new big blower? Cool is good... ;)

Jordy
09-14-2006, 05:49 PM
Detroit has both, turbos pushing air through roots blowers.
Ah yes, the old screamin' 2 strokes. Unfortunately, they're a dying breed thanks to emissions restrictions. Most the ones that come in now end up getting yanked in favor of a new Series 60. Every now and then though we'll get a firetruck in with an 8-92 or an old transit or Greyhound with a 6-92. Sucks to see them going to the junkyards because not much beats the sound of a 2 stroke Detroit running on kill!!! :D :D :D

Jbb
09-14-2006, 05:56 PM
Ah yes, the old screamin' 2 strokes. Unfortunately, they're a dying breed thanks to emissions restrictions. Most the ones that come in now end up getting yanked in favor of a new Series 60. Every now and then though we'll get a firetruck in with an 8-92 or an old transit or Greyhound with a 6-92. Sucks to see them going to the junkyards because not much beats the sound of a 2 stroke Detroit running on kill!!! :D :D :D
You just aint' lived till you seen one runaway and turn into a transit grenade either... :p

Jordy
09-14-2006, 05:59 PM
You just aint' lived till you seen one runaway and turn into a transit grenade either... :p
There's a reason they're called a RUNAWAY, because when that governor lets go or the rack sticks WFO, you RUN THE FOCK AWAY!!!! :D :D :D

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 06:01 PM
Ah yes, the old screamin' 2 strokes.
I vaguely recall reading about those.
Didn't they have a turbo that fed air into a carburetor that fed a roots style blower, into a single valve 2 stroke engine?
Now there's something...... a little different. :D

Jordy
09-14-2006, 06:04 PM
I vaguely recall reading about those.
Didn't they have a turbo that fed air into a carburetor that fed a roots style blower, into a single valve 2 stroke engine?
Now there's something...... a little different. :D
No carb involved. 4 valves per cylinder. Mechanical injectors run by a common rack. The 92 Series ran a big turbo into a roots blower and then into the cylinders. The 71 Series were just blown with no turbo. They're great in generators and fire pumps because they come up to speed in a hurry. Excellent in those settings as they run a common speed. Just got rid of a 750kW with a 16V-92 in it. The ground would rumble and the sky would turn black when that one fired up as the rack would hit full fuel and just start dumping it in. Pulled over 800kW out of it on the load bank. Total workhorse.
The newer ones have electronic controls on them that got rid of alot of the mechanical functions of speed control. Once they run away the only real way to get them shut off is to block the air intake but you have to be really close to do that and you've only got a limited amount of time before they start spitting parts out the sides. Kind of like tap dancing in a mine field. :D :D :D

Jbb
09-14-2006, 06:07 PM
On an unrelated note....I bought a Smith c-100 compressor today to feed my plastic media blaster....Ford 302....half engine /half compressor 100 cfm @120 psi.....spools up rather quickly.... :p

Jbb
09-14-2006, 06:09 PM
I vaguely recall reading about those.
Didn't they have a turbo that fed air into a carburetor that fed a roots style blower, into a single valve 2 stroke engine?
Now there's something...... a little different. :D
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/prev_wiki/images/1/11/Dd_8v92.jpg

Jordy
09-14-2006, 06:15 PM
They look much better when they're silver. ;)

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 06:15 PM
...100 cfm @120 psi.....
That's all well and good but is it a true compressor?

Jordy
09-14-2006, 06:16 PM
Sure, but is it a true compressor?
:D :D :D

SoCalSouthpaw
09-14-2006, 06:17 PM
Damn!!!. This is the kinda info I was hoping to generate from this thread. Also, it wouldn't be ***boat if there wasnt the comic relief, either. lol. :)
Im goin to be studying these posts. For me, 30K might as well be 100K. So with that in mind - I have my finance guy comin over monday to talk about a refi on da pad. There's that priority thing again....or is it crack? :220v:
In any case, I cant wait to get the ball rolling. My motor is coming out now. I cant tell you how much I appreciate the response to this thread!!!!

Jbb
09-14-2006, 06:19 PM
That's all well and good but is it a true compressor?
I told you Lamont ...Half Ford V8......Half compressor.... :p

SoCalSouthpaw
09-14-2006, 06:22 PM
HEMI.
http://***boat.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17663&stc=1

Jbb
09-14-2006, 06:25 PM
I sure did like that Hemi boat Dustin had...... :p

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 06:30 PM
I sure did like that Hemi boat Dustin had...... :p
Me too. His sister looked smoking hot on that thing. :cool:

Jbb
09-14-2006, 06:31 PM
http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/images/pages/boat/boat2.jpg

JMC
09-14-2006, 06:43 PM
http://www.psisuperchargers.com/viewproduct.php?id=29
This one should handle your boost need :boxed:

Tom Brown
09-14-2006, 06:48 PM
You just aint' lived till you seen one runaway and turn into a transit grenade either... :p
You mean it isn't as glamorous as Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves make it out to be?

Old Texan
09-15-2006, 05:17 AM
They look much better when they're silver. ;)
That pukey green is the famous "GM Alpine Green", decorating engine rooms all over the seas. :p
The 71 and 92 series are still real popular pushing shrimp, crew, and work boats in the Gulf of Mex.
Big in chemical plants running fire fighting pumps. These have no shutdown controls, "run 'til they blow". :cool:

Whipple Charged
09-15-2006, 10:40 AM
http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/images/pages/boat/boat2.jpg
Same engine the next year:
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3995/hemipolishedport2aag5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Froggystyle
09-15-2006, 10:53 AM
I like it better polished, but what a pain in the dick keeping it nice, huh?
We ended up powdercoating all of our engines because of the nightmare of keeping everything clean. I think I have some before and afters around here too...

Froggystyle
09-15-2006, 10:58 AM
Polished....
http://www.tridentboats.com/trident_boats_gallery/d/1024-2/Engine+1.jpg
Powdercoated (not complete yet...)
http://www.tridentboats.com/trident_boats_gallery/d/1854-2/07-12+Engine.jpg
Powdercoated and installed... sorry about the fuzzy picture.
http://www.tridentboats.com/trident_boats_gallery/d/2172-2/Water+Test+8-28+009.JPG

Jbb
09-15-2006, 11:04 AM
Froggy that engine looks top notch!!!
Dustin....polished looks alot better ...did you sell that boat ...or is it still your test bed ?

Liberator TJ1984
09-15-2006, 11:41 AM
There's a reason they're called a RUNAWAY, because when that governor lets go or the rack sticks WFO, you RUN THE FOCK AWAY!!!! :D :D :D
I've had it happen to me ....ran like a little biatch :skull:
Started to run backwards and using oil for fuel (2-strokes gotta love 'em)
http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/prev_wiki/images/1/11/Dd_8v92.jpg
Except it was this little guys big brother ..a 16VTAB 16cylinder....parts in that sob were to big to be standing by when they wanted out :p

Tom Brown
09-15-2006, 11:52 AM
Not that it matters to anyone but me but I prefer the powder coat look to polish. That's a clean turbo installation. :cool:
I prefer powder coat on the Whipple too. Another killer installation. :cool:

Froggystyle
09-15-2006, 03:34 PM
Powdercoat definitely makes the engine look like jewel under there. Plus, it is a lot easier to keep clean... I mean... a LOT easier.