supercharger?

[Swordsmith]

I just read an article on the Drive-E in the 2015 Volvo S60 T6. It seems they use a small engine with a turbocharger like we do, but they also use a supercharger. The theory is that the supercharger kicks in immediately to add power at low rpms where small engines feel weak, buying time for the turbocharger to engage once the engine revs up.

I know folks have looked at a supercharger for the 1.8 but how about doing this for the 1.4T?

 

[Scot]

VW has a 1.4L super/turbo as well.

If you think about it, a supercharger for small engines with low torque (because of small displacement) makes sense for just the reason you state. I've been wondering if one could be adapted, but there's precious little room for the belt drive in our cars.

 

[sonic_braaappp]

Its extremely difficult to tune a twin-charged car, which is why most people don't do it, but it's not that great to be honest, in small cars such as ours, it would only truly be good for more wheel spin lol more power can be made with a single turbo

 

[Swordsmith]

The idea isn't to add more power overall, it is to add power specifically to the low end.

Right now, the car is wimpy, OK, Rocket, shift, wimpy, OK, Rocket, repeat. This should in theory make it OK, rocket, Rocket, shift, OK, rocket, Rocket repeat.

I know, NLS would eliminate all but that first wimpy, OK part, but I find it tricky and a little nerve wracking, and I really don't do it.

There's also a lot of work going into reducing spin and hop...

 

[sonic_braaappp]

The idea isn't to add more power overall, it is to add power specifically to the low end.

Right now, the car is wimpy, OK, Rocket, shift, wimpy, OK, Rocket, repeat. This should in theory make it OK, rocket, Rocket, shift, OK, rocket, Rocket repeat.

I know, NLS would eliminate all but that first wimpy, OK part, but I find it tricky and a little nerve wracking, and I really don't do it.

There's also a lot of work going into reducing spin and hop...

and i get that, but one thing i've always liked about cars with just a turbo IS the lesser low end power, because you don't just sit there and roast your tires.

If you can afford a nice set of nitto's or DOT slicks, wouldn't be as big of a deal, but when driving around, we all know that a quick little race or what not could happen at any time lol

Making a lot of power/power throughout the entire power-band is the easy part, traction is the problem, and without traction, big power (or to much low end power) is essentially a hindrance instead of an advantage.

But of course, if you're able to harness the low end power well enough with proper traction, by all means go for it and i'll root for you the whole way, its just that superchargers take power to make power, so the gains wouldnt really be worth it (in my opinion) on such a small motor when compared to the price to get it done

 

[Eric Smit]

people always say a supercharger takes power to make power, but I seem to recall a certain large automaker using a supercharger to reach 707hp, with a warranty.

 

[Nuhgets]

people always say a supercharger takes power to make power, but I seem to recall a certain large automaker using a supercharger to reach 707hp, with a warranty.

Red key fab, please!

 

[laborsmith]

Chevy will have its own supercharged engine when the LT4 is put in the Z06. It will be interesting to see the results of a 3500lb Vette (650HP/650TQ) vs the over 4400lb Hellcat (707HP.650TQ).

Both SC and TC bleed off power unless you are of the belief that the TC does not when spinning. I am not.


Laborsmith

 

[sonic_braaappp]

notice all those are large displacement v8's though? the more crank horsepower a vehicle has, the easier it is to turn the screws in the supercharger, therefore its easy to make big HP numbers on a v8, but on a smaller displacement, especially as small as our 1.4's, i can't see it being cost effective to do. not saying it wouldnt yield any power gains, just not enough to balance the cost of the unit.

and not saying that laborsmith, but i've been at this for a while and on small displacement 4 cylinder engines, turbo's are capable of producing higher numbers than a supercharger at much safer temperatures.

not saying superchargers are useless, but in my opinion its a waste to put one on a 4 cylinder.

Another example of that is the cobalt ss supercharged models in 05-07. stage 3 only yields it MAYBE 260 horsepower, fully bolted and retuned you might see 280. all that will cost you about 3 grand in parts (i know, i did it with cobalt) whereas you could get a hahn turbo swap kit for it for $3999 , put the kit on a bone stock cobalt and hit 350 at the wheels, get an aftermarket exhaust and bigger injectors and raise the power to about 400 with ease, total cost ending around $4500 for 400 wheel horsepower in a car that only has 205 at the crank. even upgrading to the TVS harrop supercharger on those cars only yielded up to 340 horsepower before having to modify engine internals to get more because of how the supercharger works

and holy crap i just realized how long this comment is so i apologize lol

 

[ChrisJ]

people always say a supercharger takes power to make power, but I seem to recall a certain large automaker using a supercharger to reach 707hp, with a warranty.

And you spend fuel to make that power where a turbocharger does not. In fact I'm pretty sure a supercharger uses a noticeable amount of power and fuel even when idling.

That Golf you posted was a 1150HP 2 liter. Got any supercharged engines producing 575hp per liter?

 

[RMinNJ]

Sadly I googled it and the switchable blower/SC from the Mad Max movies was fake.

Always wanted the red switch on the shifter and to see the belt and pulley kick on..

 

[ChrisJ]

Sadly I googled it and the switchable blower/SC from the Mad Max movies was fake.

Always wanted the red switch on the shifter and to see the belt and pulley kick on..

I think there was a similar thing in the movie "My Science Project" where he flipped a switch to turn the blower on.

http://youtu.be/-tv6Bd_4KVY?t=48s


Funny thing is that car stock would do 120+ limited by gearing.

 

[Eric Smit]

And you spend fuel to make that power where a turbocharger does not. In fact I'm pretty sure a supercharger uses a noticeable amount of power and fuel even when idling.

That Golf you posted was a 1150HP 2 liter. Got any supercharged engines producing 575hp per liter?

and that thing was a monster. spinning awd until 60?

alas, you have a point. there are days when arbitrarily siding with the underdog doesn't pay off.

 

[ChrisJ]

and that thing was a monster. spinning awd until 60?

alas, you have a point. there are days when arbitrarily siding with the underdog doesn't pay off.

If anyone tried to compare their Sonic to that car no matter how modified, they would just give up.

 

[Eric Smit]

If anyone tried to compare their Sonic to that car no matter how modified, they would just give up.

that car makes every other 4 cylinder obsolete. hahaha. and it look bone stock with the hood down; even the extra gauges are hidden.

 

[sonic_braaappp]

i always preferred making my gauges less noticeable lol

 

[sonic_braaappp]

factory boost gauge on the a pillar was the only gauge visible to other drivers lol

 

[mitdr774]

And you spend fuel to make that power where a turbocharger does not. In fact I'm pretty sure a supercharger uses a noticeable amount of power and fuel even when idling.

That Golf you posted was a 1150HP 2 liter. Got any supercharged engines producing 575hp per liter?

The Eaton M45 that was on my cavalier consumed roughly 1/3 of a HP while cruising down the highway per information from Eaton. At the speeds I was spinning it, it should have been consuming roughly 40 HP. I was overspinning it, making 7.5 PSI on a good day, and putting 220 to the wheels. That being said, a MP62 or MP90 would have consumed far less power to spin, been capable of more pressure on my build, and been good for more than 220 WHP.

At the measly 7.5 PSI with the Eaton my car was good for a 14.2@99 mph. Switching to a T3/T04E 57 trim .60/.63 AR at 8 PSI allowed for a 13.9@103. The turbo run was done with bigger injectors than the S/C build had as the 310CC injectors included in the GMPP S/C kit were a bit small even for the S/C build.

Fuel economy was equally crappy with both types of forced induction.

For one night I ran a turbo fed supercharger. It was good for far more than the ECM could handle. By 3500 RPM I had 17.5 PSI in the manifold. Keep in mind that the WG reference signal was pre rotors so as to keep the S/C at 7.5 PSI from overriding the WG with its 7.34 PSI spring. I guess when you are running a 2 BAR program it freaks out when pressure exceeds 29.4 PSIA.

 

[CheapFuneral]

I think the supercharger/turbo system would be silly. If your gonna do something just throw in another turbo. Something that spools faster, and something that will spool the larger turbo. Then u get better low and high end gains with less loss.

For the record putting the supercharger pully on a switch would be easy. Think A/C compressor. The pully would spin all the time but u have a clutch and u flip the switch the clutch kicks in and BOOM big horses.

This is the box I'm over here, outside it.

 

[sonic_braaappp]

I think the supercharger/turbo system would be silly. If your gonna do something just throw in another turbo. Something that spools faster, and something that will spool the larger turbo. Then u get better low and high end gains with less loss.

For the record putting the supercharger pully on a switch would be easy. Think A/C compressor. The pully would spin all the time but u have a clutch and u flip the switch the clutch kicks in and BOOM big horses.

This is the box I'm over here, outside it.��

essentially the same idea, but superchargers aren't designed to have pulley float like the a/c compressor, if the pulleys spinning, the rotors are spinning. i think it would make a supercharger less reliable to have something make the rotors engage with the pulley (similar to a clutch engaging) simply because the high rpm's at which the pulley is spinning.