alphenom

Either I'm not paying attention or something, but why haven't I ever heard of or seen anyone use a front mount intercooler like you would with a turbo charged car with a supercharger. I've heard people say that besides parasitic drag that heat was one of the disadvantages of supercharging. I know that this would be impossible with something like the jrsc but couldn't it work with a vortech setup? I've seen water to air intercoolers with some of their kits. Can someone tell me if this is possible or not.

dbman96

Yes it's definitely possible. The vortech uses the water/air unit just to simplify the intake pipe routing; I'm sure an air/air would be just as efficient, if not more so.

alphenom

Does anyone have firsthand experience with this? Why isn't it more common. Seems like the more logical method to me for daily driving. You see I just bought my first import in oct. It is a new base model lude I plan on getting a nos fogger kit in the very near future and I'm trying to decide whether to turbo or supercharge it next. So far i can't see why I'd want to turbocharge it when supercharging seems to be more reliable, just as powerful, and more drivable from day to day.


[Modified by alphenom, 8:57 PM 3/7/2002]

dustin

Supercharging is no more reliable.

Supercharging is much less powerful (in general).

Turbo is just as drivable (if not more) than supercharged.

alphenom

Ehh, How so? Isn't the entire supercharger concept more simple, and therfore more reliable? If your producing the same amount of boost isn't it just as powerful since the heat issue would be taken care of? I'm not too fond of the idea of turbo lag. I'd rather know that I'm gonna have torque when I want it without having to abuse the car, as in day to day driving.

Lsos

Turbocharging can be much more powerful than supercharging. I'll say that at low boost levels a super would be better. But, if you want real power, I suggest turbo. It can be just as reliable as a supercharger, but I think it requires more to make it so. I'm not saying this from experience, by the way.

alphenom

Anyway has anyone tried this? Would the gains be worth the price of custom piping and such?

chri5

I would say the turbo concept is more simple. Instead of having to get it to line up corectly with a pully, and putting more loand on the engine you are merely routing already present exhaust gases through the turbo making the compressor spin, and create boost. The exhasut is already going to be there, you may as well make it earn its keep.

There is a parasitic loss which is unavoidable in a SC'd app. Also, a SC such as the Vortech will NOT reach full boost as soon as a properly sized turbo setup, thus having a maldistributed powerband.

Noboy is fond of the "idea" of turbo lag. The fact is that if you get a turbo which is sized properly to your application this will not be an issue. It may sound like you have to wait forever when full boost only comes on at 4000 rpms, and boost starts at 3000., but in reality it is NOT a big deal at all. In fact it is better than a centrifigul SC where full boost is achieved at redline. If you have never ridden, or driven, a Honda with a turbo I suggest you do. You will realize that the issues you think will cause you to not want one are not going to be that big of a factor.

As far as reliablity goes, when you add FI to your car, no matter what system you choose, it will NOT be as reliable as before.

dbman96

Alphenom, what you're failing to realize is that this intercooling plan would only work with a Vortech-type blower. Vortech blowers exhibit MUCH more "lag" than any turbo I've ever seen. The reason for this is they can only spin at a certain multiple of engine speed. So at 4000 ENGINE rpm, the blower is spinning half as fast as it is at 8000 engine rpm. Meaning it's making approximately half of full boost. Almost ANY turbo setup is already making full boost (8+ psi) at 4000 RPM, and the Vortech is making 4 psi. Just for comparison purposes. So Vortechs produce similar PEAK power to a turbo at the same boost, but you have to wait until you're at redline to see that power. I've got a dyno plot from my car sitting next to me and I maintain peak torque in a nice flat line from 4500 rpm all the way up.

A Jackson supercharger is a totally different beast and makes plenty power down low but is far less efficient than a centrifugal compressor so it heats up the air, creating a lower charge density (and using around 25 HP just to turn the SC) which is why Jackson Racing setups make a lot less power than a turbo at the same level of boost.

Hope this helps some.

(edit: Looks like Strng1Dah beat me to it)



[Modified by dbman96, 1:24 PM 3/7/2002]

alphenom

Agreably at extremely high boost levels a turbo would be better but I'm not looking to rebuild my entire engine. If I want big horsepower I'll have the blue bottle at the flick of a switch. Also a lot of my freinds autocross there cars and wouldn't a supercharger be more logical for that as well?

alphenom

Don't you have to use electronics bov's etc... to keep the boost pressures in line and air/fuel ratio's consistant?

alphenom

This is helping me, but now I'm wondering why these two blowers are so different is it because of the way they are driven or because of the basic design. Wouldn't any compressor of a given displacement pruduce the same boost levels at any engine speed as long as turbine is driven at a speed consistant with the engine's?


[Modified by alphenom, 9:45 PM 3/7/2002]


[Modified by alphenom, 10:01 PM 3/7/2002]

dustin

Boost is boost. If you have to rebuild it with the turbo you'd have to rebuild it with the supercharger.

dustin

The wastegate regulates boost pressure. It is mechanical.

The fuel system supplied with (almost) all turbo/supercharger kits is the same. Rising rate regulator to increase fuel pressure under boost.

Dustin

dbman96

Electronics are one way of taking care of all this, but any turbo kit comes with a mechanically operated wastegate which keeps boost under control just fine. Controlling fuel is another matter entirely - whether you supercharge or turbo, you need to add fuel. With either SC or turbo you can choose to do this the cheap way (included in kits) or the right way (buy a programmable ECU that can "understand" boost).

If you want to talk complexity, think about the fact that Jackson Racing has several add-on electronic modifications that cost hundreds of dollars just to TRY to get their SC to perform as it should from the start.

dustin

The vortech SC takes engine RPM and gears it internally to spin the compressor wheel.

A turbo is NOT LIMITED by engine rpm, and can spin up to 60,000 rpm and beyond to match the exact needs of the wastegate (boost level). This is the /right/ way to do it.

The vortech method is just ghetto.... twice the boost at 8k rpm than 4k rpm is just pathetic.

Dustin

alphenom

Ok well I guess that was a bad way to word it. I was trying to say that with a turbo it seems that you have to have a number of add on's like bov's, electronics, wastegates etc.. to run one safely. How much work am I going to have to do internally to run a mild turbo or supercharger in addition to a 75 shot of nos?

dbman96

Basic design.

Jackson supercharger is a Roots type compressor (positive displacement). This means at a given speed, it FORCES a given amount of air through it. In theory this means at any engine speed it can deliver exactly the same amount of boost.

Turbos and Vortech are centrifugal compressors, which can pass a variable volume of air through them at any speed; turbos aren't directly coupled to the engine, so they can spin really fast at low engine speed and develop boost pretty quick if you want them to.

alphenom

I understand that a turbo is not limited by engine rpm but if said turbo is spinning at idle speed (whatever that may be) and then you hit the gas, wont it take quite some time for it to reach this 60000 or however many rpm's? im just saying that im looking for something to pruduce a constant boost level at all engine rpms with minimum drawbacks. I suppose that everyone else is to but I'd just rather find a direct mechanical method of doing it than relying on a glorified pinwheel. There just seem to be too many variables with this method.

Also I'm confused on how vortech's sc is ghetto. Dou you have a dyno chart to prove this?

alphenom

Thank you sir.

Xerxes

compare these two dynos. One is a turbo at 8psi, one is a vortech at 8psi. both are GSRs: http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/5809c...fnQi8ACGaAgKsU http://home.pacbell.net/dbm76/dyno1.gif

if that yahoo link doesn't work, go here http://photos.yahoo.com/qticconi

dustin

The closest you are going to get to "constant boost at all rpms" is the JRSC. Next would be turbo, and finally the vortech sc. By nature, boost output from the vortech is increasing with RPM. That is, it is /not constant ever/.

Glorified pinwheel eh? Well, exhaust has velocity,flow, & heat, all of which are wasted without the turbo. Harnessing this energy makes for some serious power.

Superchargers are entirely inefficient. Parasitic loss is very significant... especially with the vortech setup. Imagine the weight of a turbine wheel/shaft/ and compressor wheel (turbo setup). Now imaging a MASSIVE BAR going across the front of your engine bay to spin the Vortech compressor. Which would you like to spin up to speed to create boost? Now think of the losses through the gearing inside the vortech compressor itself. I could go on, and on... and on.

Ahah, every dyno chart of the vortech proves this. Torque just keeps increasing up to peak at redline. The faster the motor spins, the more boost. I'm not going to search for you, but I bet if you searched for vortech here on Honda-Tech you'd find a graph.

The most cons/drawbacks, moderate useless "peaky" power: Vortech supercharger
Middle of the road, low peak power, low end torque: JRSC
Most power, no drawbacks: Turbo.

Dustin