i just found it today. is this old news? it's going to be released sometimet this year i guess. has anyone heard of it?

http://www.procharger.com/

thanks

 

looks like a centrifugal supercharger. good for top speed runs.

all you people that like peak horsepower because it 'moves' your car and think torque is useless, this is for you.

 

[gene wilder voice] IT WAS JUST A JOKE - CAN'T YOU PEOPLE TAKE A JOKE WHEN YOU HEAR ONE?? [/gene wilder voice]

 

are all centrifugal supercharger's the same though? sure the vortech is known for top-end-only power, but who knows if this one was designed differently. i guess we'll have to wait for someone to dyno it, but i thought it was kind of interesting. i wonder how much they're gonna ask for it...

 

just bringing my post ttt as i found a couple posts on csi (for what thats worth...)

http://forums.clubsi.com/showflat.ph...sb=5&o=0&fpart=

http://forums.clubsi.com/showflat.ph...sb=5&o=0&fpart=

thought i'd share just in case

 

I know they make superchargers for domestics....My friend has one on his 2002 Mustang GT and that thing is fast as hell...11's...

 

ATI Procharcher has been one of the top choices for the 4th gen f-body LS1 FI crowd.

 

Not that I would buy an SC for a 4 banger, but why do they only make the freaking things for Si Civics...cars that were only made for two damn years?

 

I wouldn't get one for a civic. If it's pullied for 10 pounds of boost, it only hits 10 PSI at redline. This isn't so bad on a muscle car with a 6000 RPM redline where it still has a lot of low end torque, but on a civic you will get almost no extra low end.

Stick with a turbo.

 

A centrifugal supercharger on a honda is like a turbo car with really bad boost creep. Boost keeps building until redline so if the motor can only handle 8psi then at 5krpm you will only have 4psi or so. With a turbo, you can have full boost from 3k to 8k! Turbo sounds like a better deal to me...

 

For the f-bods they offer 5, 7.5, & 9+ psi kits. Turbo kits are just now becoming available for the LS1s and they are prefered if you have the extra cash, or credit!

 

Its a Great supercharger.... for a vette. there are lots of problems with them right now though... like breaking belts and overheating.

 

 

heh, isnt that true...

 

 

ATI makes very nice centrifugal SC's. They come with intercoolers allowing them to run up to 14 PSI and some kits are available with a pop off valve. They will give you more low end then a turbo, but I have never seen one on a honda. In my opinion they are the best SC out there.

 

rule of thumb: small displacement motors dont make good platforms for belt driven superchargers. they dont have enough torque to spin the thing to begin with.

with the mini cooper S being the exception, you wont find any superchargers on a small displacement car. next smallest is 2.3L mercedes.

mini cooper S uses our friend the Roots blower (non centrifugal) as seen on Jackson Racing kits.

 

If you call ATI, speak with Dorian. He's the import tech there and has a VW that he's been playing with for years now. He's a friend from the streets here in KC.

 

falcon- I beg to differ....the centrifugal SC makes more torque on the low end. NOt as much ast a roots type, but enough to make the "drag effects you are talking about minimal. Even the roots blowers experience "drag". It all depends on the weight of the internals being moved, initially.

 

Sorta OT, but...

I wonder if SC's are only popular with the muscle car crowd because of 40 years worth of NHRA ruling. The NHRA has been anti-turbo since the beginning and I'm thinking the whole supercharger thing was sort of galvanized in all the gear head minds somewhere around 1962 due to their influence.

Honestly, I can't see a good reason to go SC instead of turbo on any car regardless of displacement. After all, a turbo is simply taking advantage of the huge amount of thermal energy released by internal combustion. A supercharger is like a big parasite on the motor, sucking away existing hp to do it's job.

 

so true

one of the reasons i think these centrifugal superchargers are so popular with muscle cars is that muscle cars usually already have plenty of low-end torque. so you can slap one of these puppies on get a dramatic improvement up top without incresing the problem of mad wheel-spinning torque down low. on a small-displacement, low-torque motor, however, i think these chargers combine the two worst aspects of each type of FI....the lag of a turbo and the parasitic loss of a charger. and i say this as someone who believes in the benefits of turbo lag in many situations...

 

yes all belt driven superchargers have parasitic drag.

can you articulate on your claim that "the centrifugal SC makes more torque on the low end" with some reasonable explanation? more torque than what? and whats the low end? below 6000rpm or below 2500rpm?

meanwhile, keep begging to differ.

 

i am also curious about this claim. do you mean perhaps more torque than stock? of more torque than a comprable turbo? how could the torque of full boost coming in at 3-4k compare with the same amount of boost coming in only at 8k? seems illogical.

 

that would be a bitch to install.

 

I had twin T66's on my Roadrunner, and there was one problem: TRACTION. On my 500 inch motor it went 0-4000 with pretty good torque, and in the span of about 900 RPM's it went from a N/A 7.5:1 496 to a 7.5:1 496 sucking back 22 pounds of boost. Traction was a huge problem. It would annihlate 345/55 BFG DR's from 70 MPH. I sold the kit to my friend who is building an all out drag 69 coronet, and I should have my D2R procharger in about 3-4 weeks.

But, personally, I think that the main reasons muscle car guys have stayed away from turbos is all the plumbing required with a V engine, the high prices of the turbo(s), and the fact that people have been slapping 6-71's and 8-71's onto their muscle cars for decades. Centrifugals have only been cheaply and widely available for maybe a decade, and most domestic guys just feel "safer" if they have a blower rather than a turbo.

*Edit* for spelling and grammar.


[Modified by boosted92, 5:14 PM 12/3/2002]