Directfreak

iTrader: (2)

A Custom Made 63-1 Turbo

Felix Wankel

25G with a 17cm turbine eh? Sounds familiar. Where'd you get that from?

Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

supercharger more lowend power and i think were all lacking enough of that

setzep

maybe this pic will help some of you decide whats cooler

diabolical1

iTrader: (3)

i prefer turbocharging to supercharging, and my reasons are totally subjective. i think turbos are easier on the motor itself, i think they have far more potential, and lastly, i love the sounds of them. i hate the "whining" that i've come to associate with superchargers.

NOTA V6

I wish mine would arrive...

diabolical1

iTrader: (3)

for you guys that are running or are going to run turbos (by the way, i'm a jealous, playa-hatin' bitch and i fully admit it - I hate you ALL ) how are you going to deal with the space problem up front when you mount the intercoolers?

nice work guys!

yes, i must agree

NOTA V6

Mine will sit on top of the oil cooler in front of the rad and condenser. If things run too hot, the AC will have to go...

1st gens have lots of extra space in that big pointy nose.

setzep

Space problem? nah... look here

setzep

Lots of room

Manntis

I'm at a loss for words, setzup. Best I can do is "sweet!"

Sterling

Yeah, setzup - You suck!
(green w/envy)

diabolical1

iTrader: (3)

yeah setzep - you blow!
but seriously, nice set up, man! and i like what you did with the paint - makes it look like a BRAND NEW car. nuff nuff kudos to you, bro'

nah ... but what i meant by the space problem, wasn't that everything will fit, i was more asking how is it going to work as far as cooling? doesn't the incoming air basically have to get through two cores (oil cooler and intercooler) before it has a chance to get to the radiator? by the way, i can't really see which radiator you have, so is the oil cooler beneath it, or does it have to go in front of the intercooler?

setzep

I'm not too worried about the I/C and the oil cooler getting in the way of the radiator cooling. You see when you are just driving around (no boost or very low boost) the I/C won't be hot much less warm so it won't be "preheating" the air. When I do get into boost and the I/C starts to throw heat into the radiator it won't be for extended periods of time (remember when you floor a turbocharged engine it doesn't take 20 sec to get to 120mph like a n/a rotary would).

Here is a pic of how the oil cooler is in there now but that may change when I take it back out to clean it. The pic is kind of missleading, the oil cooler is acctually not in the way of the I/C at all.

CODE BLUE 2

Sterling, actually your wrong about the Camden superchargers, as they have perfected them. In the past they did have some problems, but now they have basically ironed out everything.

Yayarx7- do you really think turbos are easier? Too funny.

Defprun- Never under estimate the power of a supercharger till you have one....LOL

I agree with Sterling, know your **** before you make assumptions. Its a FACT, that the longevity of a supercharger is greater. The longevity of a Turbo is less, its FACTS, call any shop or shops and they will agree. FACTS are Turbos put more stress on your engine.

Say you break an Apex seal, you can kiss your engine good bye with a turbo in it, or greater chance. Superchargers are much more simple.

For racing which would you think they would pick? A supercharger or a Turbo?, FACT....supercharger.

OMG the sound of the superchargers are just too awesome, as you might figure I have a supercharger on my first gen. I have had no problems with it. If your going to get a supercharger, get it from Atkins Rotary, they gaurantee them period!!! I could go on and on fighting on which is better between the both, but its simple Facts that you should look for.

Im speechless on how I love the supercharger...and Atkins Rotary is just too cool. They are taking my little Supercharged car to Sevenstock this year. They are awesome if you have questions about what you might want to do to your car..."come see it if you will be at Sevenstock"

I think people are just so use to putting Turbos in their cars, and afraid for change....Im extreamly happy with supercharging, only bad thing......GAS ....

Take care all....

fatboy7

Anything that has to place several hundred pounds of force unevenly on a essential engine bearing is a recipe for shortened bearing life.... FACT
Explain to me how a turbo is more complicated than an SC? Turbos have fewer moving parts. A simple low boost turbo system doesn't have to have any more parts than a SC, either. Compare apples to apples. You can't tell me that a SC system running the levels of boost most high hp TC RX-7's run (15-20+ psi) that it would still be simple. In fact, it would be more complicated ... a large IC, and water/alchol injection would practically be a must on pump gas. Fuel injection, and electronic ignition would be right up there on the list too...
What percentage OEM supercharged cars do you see on the road beyond 100k without SC replacement? Conversly, what percentage turbocharged cars do you see on the road beyond 100k without turbo replacement? Tell me what shop(s) fill you full of such bullshit as FACT, because I'd like to give them a mouthful.
If your apex seals break, SC, TC or otherwise and you can kiss your engine goodbye. Detonation probablity increases with boost pressure, intake temperature, and advaced timing. Which makes the most heat at the same boost pressure? SC by a long shot. Which has the higher chance for detonation at the same boost? SC hands down. How many SC rotaries running 15-18 psi on pump gas? Next to none.
If your into racing an you think a SC is good for more power than a TC... you might be a redneck...
No, not so affraid of change. Affraid that after they've spent the 3k+ to slap on a SC, that they'll get a car that still isn't that fast, but just feels fast.

smnc

I'm with ya 110% COOL BLUE 2
I'm slowly working on a custom supercharger project myself.
I hope to have it completed by the end of 2004.

XLR8

iTrader: (52)

I am seriously questioning my choice of forced induction. The #1 reason I chose SC was for the simplicity of the setup. No need for Hatech, IC & piping, BLOV, wastegate, manifold, etc.

However...I don't want to limit myself in power and reliability, which seems to be the SC's problem. I want at least 350hp reliably and achieving that with the Atkins could be quite a task.

A turbo project will take much longer and more complex, but I am beginning to think it is worth it

I finally found my perfect car.........it deserves the best I can offer

Sterling

Well, I'm really kinda disappointed in their non-intercoolability, even if they have actually ironed out problems. Even the Ford Lightening elephant trucks that use an Eaton 1.5 liter blower use a small water intercooler in draw thru configuration.

I know from Jeff20b that Dave makes good on his warantees, and I think they went from helical gears to straight because of misallignment problems. So I don't doubt they've corrected other problems, but honestly I had'nt heard of any specifically.

I was'nt questioning build quality, but rather design. It's not the best example of a roots blower, but it obviously works well, as I have NEVER heard anyone complain about the one they have. But then again, I don't hear too many people bitching about how terrible their turbo performs, either.

Everyone bats a stick at this "Supercharger vs Turbocharger" piniata like a buncha blindfolded kids, and "look-out!" Polls and threads like this, about this, just invite a big sloppy ****-fest of half truths and falic-fallacies. You have to sift thru it all, and then half way thru the arguement say, "Oh wait...are talkin intercooled and blow through, or what?"

What it comes right down to is that turbos are turbos.
They are usually in a blowthru configuration, usually with injection and a management system, and unless you're, well...kinda stupid, you're also running an IC.

Blowers, however, come in alot more variety. They seem to be found equally in blow-thru or draw-thru, ICed, or not ICed, and with injection or a carb. Lotta different dogs in that mutt.

Point is, at least for me, when someone says "turbo-charged", I kind of assume it's in blow-thru w/ an IC.
But when they say "superchargered", I have to ask about configuration and cooling. It's kinda crazy to compare one to the other because the comparisons I see on this board are way too vague. Be specific!

Obviously, turbos work very well. But why the turbo crew has to be so adamant about how terrible superchargers are, I just don't know.

...And now the jack-in-the-box:

What The ****!?!
If superchargers are really that crappy, then good for you turbo guys. I mean, it'll just insure that there are less cars out there that are as fast and furious as yours, right?
Kinda like men having an abnormal animosity towards homos. What the hell...it just means more women for them!
Leave people alone!
Code blue, you're at least just singing the praises of a product you're happy with without having to stomp all over someones dream of a really cool turbo project.

I wish I could see more opinions based on their own experience like Code Blue, for supercharger, turbocharger, or any other damn thing, that does NOT involve bashing the **** out of the alternatives.

The most bewildering thing about this thread to me is that I am not the author, like the board lists me as!
But I think I'll start a similar thread inviting ONLY those persons who have actually owned BOTH a supercharged rotary AND a turbocharged rotary of the same displacement to spill their thoughts.

...I'll bet there are very few people that can meet that requirement for a purely objective opinion based on what must be a collection of very cool experiences!

fatboy7

Sorry everyone, that last one was a bit sharp... It does really bother me when people offer opinion as FACT. The supercharger vs turbo charger debate has continued for decades now, and It won't be the end of it here in this thread. Neither is perfect, each has pros and cons.

As a compressor, based purely on how little extra heat it adds to the charge as it compresses, the turbo is clearly the winner;80% efficiency has been attained, whereas superchargers range from 50% to 70% peak depending on the type and design.

As a method of driving a compressor, each has merits. TC uses energy from the exhaust, SC directly from the engine's own rotational power. In neither case the energy is free. I'm a firm believer in turbocharging, and not just for rotaries, but any gasoline engine. I base my opinion off of my knowledge of engines, and the laws of physics, not blindly because the guy whos nuts I swing from said so.

Only heat engines whos exhaust has 0 degrees Kelvin (absolute zero) have no energy, and whos volume containing walls have zero thermal conductivity are perfectly thermally efficient. Gasoline engines are far from this. Only around 30-35% of the energy released by combustion ends up spinning the crank. probably close to 30% of the heat ends up in the oil and coolant systems, which just waste it. The remaining third roughly ends up out the exhaust.

Adding a turbo does decrease the percentage of energy that reaches the crank, it increases pumping losses. Depending on the turbo this restriction can introduce a loss of around 2-10% of the engines usable output. But on the otherhand, it takes a descent portion ,probably 5-30% of the wasted energy in theexhaust heat and velocity and uses it to compress air. Superchargers take all of it directly from the crank; between 10-30% of the energy turning the engine.

To sum up where the energy goes:
Turbocharged engines
27-32% goes to turning the crank
4-15% goes to compressing the air
33% goes out the cooling system
25-31% goes out the exhaust

Supercharged engines
22-29% goes to turning the crank
4-11% goes to compressing the air
33% goes out the cooling system
33% goes out the exhaust

From the information above, the choice should be clear, but it isn't. There are other factors involved. But looking only at what makes it to the crank, what all out power potential to the crank it has, no one can say that superchargers have the advantage. Can they get close... maybe, but you have to comprimise something. Nothing comes for free. SC definately have an advantage for low end torque, any way you look at it. So where do you need the power, and how about delivery? SC typically "spool" faster, some infact always keep the air seen at the throttle plates under boost, hense require no time to "spool". Other SC's make differing amounts of boost depending on rpm. Centrifigal ones in particlarare more closely related to the turbo in apearance and in function. These compress the air more efficiently than vane, screw, and other roots type, but have a feeling of "spooling" because they don't make much boost until the rpms start climbing. Turbos biggest hit is that they don't have instant reaction. Once they get up to speed though they are great. If you need instant power, you need it instantly from a start (low rpm) or don't have time to wait the split second for the turbo to come online, then supercharge your car by all means. I would think twice about turbocharging a truck for example, supercharging is much more practical in this case. If you are willing to keep your rpms up to where the turbo comes up to speed quickly, and rarely have to make a strong pull from low rpms, then a properly selected turbo will likely make more power.

Thats fairly unbiased; you can bicker over the numbers untill you're blue in the face, but they should be fairly close to the real deal.

Now back to my opinion: On a very light, rev happy sports car, like an RX-7, you'll never need to do a low rpm pull, cause your not towing anything. You make like to though, and if thats the case than supercharging might be more fun (the real purpose of modifing your car, right?). If your more inclined to let that sucker scream to redline on a regular basis, than a turbo will probably make you happier, only because it is fundamentally more efficient once going. Either can be reliable, but horsepower costs money to make and money to maintain, so both have practical limits.

Again sorry, CODE BLUE for the sharp responce. I hope you truely enjoy your SC. I'm sure your car is as fun to drive as mine. But I bet mines quicker :p

CODE BLUE 2

Hey Fatboy...

I value everyones opinion...I agree and disagree...but we all know how much arguing can go on about this subject...

I dont thrash on Turbos....I love Turbos...but just the same love Superchargers....Its all in preference...

Too bad you live so far....Id give my car that chance to race ya.....Ive seen some pretty damn fast Turbos and have seen some pretty fast Superchargers...which probably includes your car and my car...

Anyways all...Atkins Rotary has redone my whole car....and my car will be there at SevenStock representing "Atkins Rotary"...anyone coming to SevenStock come say Hi...

I'm leaving in the morning...so take care....Just gotta love all of these 7's.....

I think everyones 7 has that personal touch...theres something about all of them that make them just too awesome....

REVHED

lol Show me one class of racing that uses superchargers other than drag racing. Turbo's are used in WRC, Indy and they were used in F1 as well. Top Fuelers would be turbocharged too if they were allowed BTW.

I'm glad you're enjoying your supercharger and I'm sure it's a quick car. But try to have some idea of what you're talking about before passing off bullshit as facts.

680RWHP12A

i couldn't agree with you more Revhead!!!

DriveFast7

iTrader: (1)

http://www.speedvisionwc.com/
The Acura NSX in GT was using a supercharger.
Our beloved Mazda Rx-8 will be supercharged (aftermarket by Paul Yaw and hopefully others) and in GT class.

http://yawpower.com/

mar3

iTrader: (8)

Please limit examples of SC in race classes to the important ones...the SV GT series can't even get reliable sponsorship or TV time on a major channel...

Turbo, maihn...that's the way to go especially with that old, hot rotary exhaust...