http://www.rotrex.com/

NOT a Vortech.

http://www.jacksonracing.com/home.htm

JR has switched to Rotrex.

http://www.w2wpowertrain.com/p....aspx


Just curious on what anyone KNOWS about these blowers. I came across some people saying it was just an inefficient centrifugal blower, but it doesn't appear to be anything like a Vortech.

Link to another thread I made with an ITR video:
https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1857237


This charger could be complete poop, but it would be nice to see some dyno's and boost pressures to compare. If it does make instant roots type boost with turbo efficiency it would be a nice set-up. Some empirical data would be appreciated!

 

honda+fwd+supercharger= waste of time+money

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dturbocivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">honda+fwd+supercharger= waste of time+money </TD></TR></TABLE>

I couldn't have said it better.

 

Thanks for no useful information, but the bump was appreciated

 

The ITR video really showed its powerband.. It looks pretty good IMO, although still a bit weak in the midrange. HKS was using the Rotrex SC for a little while on their SC kits.

It's really superior to the old fashion roots blower. Easy to intercool, easy to plumb , and no heatsink (turbo) in the engine bay, and centrifugal SC top-end. The drawback is the pricing though, and you can easily build a turbo setup to match that powerband and response with the new line of GT-series turbo and equal length manifolds available.

The other drawback is rebuilding that damn thing... Seriously, you'd run into the same problems as the Vortech guys, basically having no shops being able to rebuild the unit unless it was some outrageous price and downtime. Turbos are just better in almost every way for a Honda, especially with all the standardized parts you can buy off the shelf these days.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 88 rex &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Thanks for no useful information, but the bump was appreciated </TD></TR></TABLE>

i dont see how what he said wasnt useful information?

 

Hotrex what?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by stealthmode62 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Hotrex what? </TD></TR></TABLE>

thats what i thought this thread was about at first... i was like what new facts are out there about him? what more could eh possibly have done? LOL

 

fact: hotrex has the herpes

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dturbocivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">honda+fwd+supercharger= waste of time+money </TD></TR></TABLE><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mike93eh2 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i dont see how what he said wasnt useful information?</TD></TR></TABLE>

that actually is pretty useful there guy, he just didnt go into detail. ill break it down:

roots type blower: bad efficieny, produces lots of heat, hard to intercool, falls off at high rpm, decent low end but no more than a good bb turbo.

centrifugal sc: kinda like a turbo of course but still not as efficient, will make less power when compared to equally sized turbo, turbo still wins in top end and low end, cause centrifugals are rpm dependant and drag off the crank.

rotrex: not sure where they make power but if its a ton of low end then wheel spin city is what youll have and i doubt anything can make more tope end power than a turbo.

so as you can see, turbos own supercharges of any type.

sure turbos get hot and ****, just get your stuff ceramic coated and your good to go

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by blinx9900 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


rotrex: not sure where they make power but if its a ton of low end then wheel spin city is what youll have and i doubt anything can make more tope end power than a turbo.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm aware of what a roots does and a vortech does. But this thread is created to help get some more info on Rotrex set-ups. Even your post indicates you don't know much about them. Wheel spin city isn't the issue and this isn't a turbo vs. supercharger thread so let's keep it on topic

 

Lets see some numbers, then we can talk ****.


Im sure it wont compare to turbos, but we still have to see for ourselves.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 88 rex &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm aware of what a roots does and a vortech does. But this thread is created to help get some more info on Rotrex set-ups. Even your post indicates you don't know much about them. Wheel spin city isn't the issue and this isn't a turbo vs. supercharger thread so let's keep it on topic </TD></TR></TABLE>

i was agreeing with the fact that honda+supercharger of any kind=waste of money. you were too busy trying to find something to flame me for to realise that.

 

Supercharging isn't a waste of money. If you're looking for big numbers than your barking up the wrong tree though.

I love how some of you guys are so biased on what you think is acceptable. I drive a turbo car, but I also loved my supercharger.....to each their own I geuss.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by blinx9900 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

i was agreeing with the fact that honda+supercharger of any kind=waste of money. you were too busy trying to find something to flame me for to realise that.</TD></TR></TABLE>


And I'm saying that this thread isn't about that superchargers being a waste of money. I'm not flaming you, but pointing out the fact that you have little knowledge on this unit and thus makes your opinion rather useless on this unit. The rest of your post is irrelavant and has no bearing on this thread.


So far Tony is the only one to provide any serious constructive criticism and it's appreciated

 

dont know much about the rotrex chargers either.. but i do know of a BMW M5 with twin rotrex chargers puting out close pr a little over 1000hp. if i can find the article ill def. post it up here... if i remember correctly, he has some info on it about his chargers. bump for a curious question

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dturbocivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">honda+fwd+supercharger= waste of time+money </TD></TR></TABLE>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^TRUE STORY^^^^^

 

Based on their marketing bullshit, its essentially a gearless centrifugal supercharger. Think of it as the pulley turning a slightly elastic barrel, in which it holds 3 shafts that press upon a small central shaft. Their torque on demand deal stems from the loose fit the rollers have on their shafts. As that barrel accellerates, the rollers push into that shaft harder, as they can't. At static speeds, it relies on their magical 'traction oil'.

In other words, its the same-old centrifugal SC, but with a more effecient drive system; <U>its still rpm-dependant</U>. I highly doubt it isn't, as that would mean they use insanely high 'gearing', and allow it to slip when its no being accellerated. The terms 'galling' and 'extreme heat production' come to mind when thinking of metal rollers allowed to slip for thousands of hours at a few thousand rpm (belt speed).

To make a long story short, its the equivalent of adding nearly frictionless bearings to a journal bearing turbo. It won't make [much] more HP, it will just cut losses from friction. Nothing magical besides maybe the geometry used for the roller system. My guess is Jackson Racing switched for the same reason most SC guys go turbo - more power when the compressor is sized correctly, and 250lb/tq at 2000rpm in a FWD means NO traction. To put it boldly: aftercooled JRSC's are ~300 max on a 1.8L; run a straight [300whp max] T3 on a 1.8L, and it will have almost no lag, run cooler IAT's, and possibly breathe a bit better at high rpm's. The centripetal SC one-up's that, by removing the typical reason small turbos suck - upper-rpm exhaust restriction.


BTW it wouldn't take more than an all-motor guy to say the B18C5 already is strong as hell. The real test is to slap it on an old D15 and make some low/mid-range power.


Modified by HiProfile at 6:41 PM 3/12/2007

 

Well people say that SC is better for road racing, because its torque, more reliable, and quick spooling. Well all i hear is how they overheat, break and have no mid-top end!!!

My friends GSR with GT28RS, makes 310whp at 10 psi and fully spools at 3500rpms!!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 88 rex &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And I'm saying that this thread isn't about that superchargers being a waste of money. I'm not flaming you, but pointing out the fact that you have little knowledge on this unit and thus makes your opinion rather useless on this unit. The rest of your post is irrelavant and has no bearing on this thread.


So far Tony is the only one to provide any serious constructive criticism and it's appreciated </TD></TR></TABLE>

point taken i actually learned about them a while back, but i did not retain the info damn drugs

 

We saw Oscar Jackson promoting his new line of Rotrex at SEMA. Seems to make sense to me if you had a new FIT.

Turbo guys will always bumrap blowers.... they're too stable.

If you have a Power Point Viewer this explains it all.

If not, visit this page and D-Load it
http://www.w2wpowertrain.com/t-techRotrex-2.aspx

Will, you're on the right track. Collect all the info before forming your opinion. I hope this is helpful.

 

Just a point I would like to point out, I may be completely off on this but Ill say it anyway. I noticed that it is a smaller unit, that they claim is capable of producing up to 600 HP. Which I think means there using a lot of pressure to make that HP. We all know what happens when you compress air, so unless you only wanted to make enough HP where you could keep boost levels low or run an intercooler, I don't think it would be the most efficient choice. Just my thoughts.

 

I was shocked to see how many of these things were at the 2007 World Drag Expo. They come in a number of different sizes to tailor to whatever application. The one for the Fit was the size of a grapefruit. I saw one on a $60,000 crate motor that looked almost as big as a volleyball. Don't get me wrong, I'm not running out to be the first on my block to get one, but the design has some merit. No oil lines (to your engine oil) and a whole lot less heat than a roots or a turbo. It looked like an alternator on a tricked out small block.


Modified by Hondaddy.com at 12:32 AM 3/13/2007

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HiProfile &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
In other words, its the same-old centrifugal SC, but with a more effecient drive system; <U>its still rpm-dependant</U>. I highly doubt it isn't, as that would mean they use insanely high 'gearing', and allow it to slip when its no being accellerated. The terms 'galling' and 'extreme heat production' come to mind when thinking of metal rollers allowed to slip for thousands of hours at a few thousand rpm (belt speed).
</TD></TR></TABLE>

From what I read, it is actually a gearbox built inside the supercharger... So variable speed is achieved without anything slipping, just like CVT for example. I am not exactly sure if the Rotrex unit is built like that, but I have seen several SC prototypes a year ago that uses a gearbox.

Turbos are no different then centrigufal SC.. That's what a centrifugal SC is, basically a "turbo on a stick" is what we call it. A turbo compressor driven by engine speed. With a proper gearbox to attain variable speed, it is basically a turbo that can achieve great spool across the powerband with no lag. That's what it is, and that's why there is a market or general interest for them.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by LSVTECTURBO-EG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Just a point I would like to point out, I may be completely off on this but Ill say it anyway. I noticed that it is a smaller unit, that they claim is capable of producing up to 600 HP. Which I think means there using a lot of pressure to make that HP. We all know what happens when you compress air, so unless you only wanted to make enough HP where you could keep boost levels low or run an intercooler, I don't think it would be the most efficient choice. Just my thoughts.</TD></TR></TABLE>

You are way off..

For superchargers, there is no such thing has "too much pressure" to make that HP. Essentially, the Rotrex is a turbo compressor driven by RPM. A turbocharger is worse, having the turbine being the main restriction. On superchargers, you can run a tuned length exhaust manifold and end all problems assosciated with backpressure. To make 600 HP, it simply means it is going to run XX amount of PSI to achieve that power and run a compressor that can flow XXX amount of CFM, and that would depend on your cylinder head, cams, displacement, etc... for HP/PSI. For superchargers, it is the parastic drag, which means the engine itself has to push a lot of power to make up for the loss. In most cases, it is a lot more stressful on the engine at high power levels.