a different way to get rid of boost lag?

[tirerob]

discussing all things turbo with a friend of mine last night. boost problems came up with his 04 eclipse N/A with a turbo kit. while we were trouble shooting his dad came by and says," bolt a blower on it. no more lag, just like my (600hp) impala. there, fixed." and walked away leaving us to ponder. well, our engines Are build for boost. lots of it. has it been done? even as a experiment? a blown 2.0...it would at least look/sound cool. roots and vane supers are LOUD n whiny. and no lag, theyre always boosting. hmmmmm

[jimbo058]

True, there is no power lag using superchargers, but there is a price to pay. First, they drink gas while turbos can help gas mileage, as long as you don't have a heavy foot. Second, superchargers suck up alot of power to run them.

The Shelby Mustang engine produces 800hp, but 150hp is lost to running the chargers' belt drive, leaving it with "only" 650. The car must still have cooling systems as if it produced the whole 800hp, which add alot of weight to the car. Don't get me wrong, though, if I could afford the Shelby and the gas it burns, it would be in my driveway, yesiree !!!

[SD_GR]

has it been done? even as a experiment?

Yes.

However, I was never interested.

[EJ257]

Forced Air Technologies out in AZ has done some work with twin-charging the Subaru motors. I never really saw much in terms of results, much less long-term ones.

As for getting rid of turbo lag, what's the specs on your car, now?

[zax]

Twin-charging is cool in theory, but I'd much rather have a 2L turbo motor than a twin-charged 1.4L.

[RayfieldsWRX]

The Shelby Mustang engine produces 800hp, but 150hp is lost to running the chargers' belt drive, leaving it with "only" 650.

Wow, I didn't realize that superchargers created that magnitude of loss.

[SD_GR]

Wow, I didn't realize that superchargers created that magnitude of loss.

The loss will vary with motor and implementation.

The S4 used the Volumex only for low RPM before the turbo kicked in, and I think they must have had a real science project trying to figure out the transition between VX and turbo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTfHQxLSJ9w

EDIT: Here is S4 footage I'd not seen before. Like Subaru did later with the new age Impreza, they had to fix the nose of the S4 back then too.

S4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViGgVVNrhtI

[Heide264]

There are several main variants of a super charger (not excluding a turbocharger). Most of which, I personally don't feel are the correct fit for an impreza.

Also, I have yet to see a super charger / turbo charger build that impressed me.

[EndlessSea]

Wow, I didn't realize that superchargers created that magnitude of loss.

as a guy coming from the mustang world. i had an 05 GT before the wrx. i can tell you that they dont. they do use power to drive the pulley, as i am sure you already know. but not the nearly 20% that he is claiming

[STiDriven]

as a guy coming from the mustang world. i had an 05 GT before the wrx. i can tell you that they dont. they do use power to drive the pulley, as i am sure you already know. but not the nearly 20% that he is claiming

True - but 10% is not uncommon. A quick search:

In all-out racing applications, turbochargers are the undisputed power champs. The rules of thermodynamics dictate this. It takes a considerable amount of power to compress a large amount of air. To generate enough airflow to produce 1,000 hp from your EVO would require sacrificing about 80-120 whp just to turn the compressor. A turbocharger recovers most of this power as waste heat that would otherwise go out the tailpipe. A supercharger takes this power from the crankshaft, subtracting its power requirements from the total. This is called a parasitic loss and is why, especially with high-powered applications, the turbo always wins.

Read more: Supercharged - Turbo Magazine

The point is - to make HUGE power on a supercharger, you need something to start with. You are not going far with a 2.0l. On smaller motor turbo's are the way to go for bang for the buck; unless you just want to be different.

[Ingo]

I'd say it depends on just how much charge you're going to blow into the engine. The charger is nothing but an air pump, takes power to move air and build pressure. The more of that, the more power it takes...

Pretty simple, really.

[Ingo]

Besides, if I wanted a V8 i'd get it. I had it, didn't like the way it drinks. That's where the turbo comes in. . .
Still have the hemi truck, for towing camping trailer (only) and maybe drag home some building materials or such. Otherwise the kinda 'adaptable" engine size based on the turbo makes good sense. Or "changing" compression ratio or whatever you might compare with. Anyways, static charging makes no sense to me, for that I'd just call for a bigger engine - been there, done that. And right now gas prices are on the attack again, the short lull in climbing prices (even dropping) is over...

[Mikie13]

as a guy coming from the mustang world. i had an 05 GT before the wrx. i can tell you that they dont. they do use power to drive the pulley, as i am sure you already know. but not the nearly 20% that he is claiming

That 20% probably combines a the amount of drivetrain loss as well...

[wrx650]

Interesting example of super and turbo charging. The video is pretty cool.

http://www.thesmokingtire.com/2012/t...fastest-lotus/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeremydingeman]

damn wrx650 beat me to it.