BlaCkPlaGUE

Then who is it targeted for? people who like to waste money? seriously aaron, I have no idea why this company went to so much trouble to make something that costs consumers a fortune that isn't revolutionary at all. Ideas for the seven should be new and exciting, something that hasn't been done before, but most of all, worth it if they want to sell a product. The SC kit fits the first two criterea, but the 'worth it' part just doesn't hold up. So naturally people are gonna complain, and they should complain.

Skippydog

Thats sick. My vert doesnt have any type of forced induction and it almost puts down the same numbers. What a waste. I understand that a supercharger looks cool and everything but it is suppose to do more then just be a chunk of eyecandy under the hood. With the added weight of the kit you probably diddnt really gain much beside a bit of low end torque.

SonicRaT

iTrader: (6)

As for gaining more from tuning, I'm sorry but you're not going to sneak 60hp out of just tuning unless you're dumping a gallon of gas in that thing. With 450 primary and 680 secondaries, you're really not going to be THAT rich. My guess is 190 at most.

HAILERS

I don't know a thing about supercharging......but doesn't a supercharger put out more than just a little bit more low end torque? Like a bunch more low end torque? Sorry folks, three grand isn't a lot of money. Get a job, or even better, get a positon. (humor with the remark about position).

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

I would imagine that it is targeted at those who are well established in life, with a little bit of disposable funds, who are quite in love with thier 2nd gens. These people want more power, but they don't want to make it into a loud, obnoxious, stripped down pain in the *** to drive. If this supercharger kit is showing those gains on a stock engine, then yes, it is a good amount of money. However, I would think that it makes a substantial difference through the range of the engine, so maybe absolute top end power is not the point. I cannot find a dyno pull on the website, so I could be totally wrong.

Face it: This is a niche product, designed for a niche market. It's going to be expensive, especially considering all the engineering and testing that was put into it. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. But don't whine about a high price on a product that you have no intention to buy anyway.

ddub

I did, at one point, have intention to buy this. I emailed atkins/camden numerous times during its development with questions and was eager for its arrival. And I do have the money to do so. But after seeing the gains, or lack there of, I've decided a turbo'd n/a project is more suited for my goals. I had both of them in mind and ever since I decided I wanted to go forced induction I've been weighing the costs/gains of each to decide what I wanted to do. Now I know.

I still don't think it's the price necessarily what people are bitching about, but the lack of gains this kit shows for its price. Yes it's expected to be this expensive, all along I was expecting this cost and wasn't surprised. But I think camden could've done a better job to yield more power, not only that but when it was first released the numbers they were quoting on the system were in a ported motor which threw off the initial "oh that's not a bad amount of power."

I'd like to see the dyno graph eventually as well and see how the torque curve looks and where peak power is reached and how long it holds in the rpms. We shall see.

kenn_chan

Guys do yu have the full specs of what he's done....Not yet should be yur answer. Is he running cats, will it be an easy to start, easy to use dailey driver? I personally don't see much more than 190 with an NA that doesn't have some kind of porting done, but I am probably wrong, (isn't a side port good for about 220?) is his engine rebuilt? does it have Full accesories Includeing air pump and AC..... I know for a fact that there are many people on this forum who sacrifice bothof those creature comforts to maximize ther engines power and acceleration if he has all accesories installed and operateing, and makes 200 with out straining anything than 3000 dollars is a steal thats an easy chunk of drivable HP that we last for ever and a day....I am falling asleep at my comp must sleep. will argue Pros and cons later.

Oh, and welcome to the forum dude.

kenn

ddub

AC and PS do not contribute to HP except for maybe 0.1 hp at the flywheel, seriously. When they aren't being used its nothing. All removing AC and PS is for is weight reduction.

I know for a fact that people have to idle the car over 1000rpms with this sc setup, which seems kind of odd to me, but oh well. As for daily driveability that's a good question.

kenn_chan

The horsepower required just to rotate the belts, with out the ac on is about 5hp, the ps is constantly moving oil, it just runs through a bypas circuit until you turn the wheel so it is a heck of a lot more than .1 horsepower also, and thats without turning the wheel. ask any body who seriously races SCCA or any other form of racing if it didn't make any difference then why in the hell do people spend perfectly good cash to by an underdrive pulley set? casue it turns the accesories at a lower RPM and requires less Parasitic drag therefore makeing available more horsepower.

edit

and also if he doesn't have his timing right that will make a huge difference in HP, as well as the carb or EFI setup.

tuning make a big difference, if you don't think so, let the guys at PEP boys install that wolf EMS you want so badly!

snub disphenoid

RX7FROMCAL, you might want to drop your boost 2 or 3 psi, that seems like a bit too much to run without an intercooler, and the heat produced from running the supercharger at that high a boost level may be heating up your intake charge so much that you lose power. Gary told me not to exceed 8psi.

Are you tuning by a boost gague and wideband, or are you just doing it by seeing what makes the most power?

Personally, my trip to the dyno (if my clutch master and slave cylinder don't blow simultaneously...again) is this upcoming Friday. I'm doing some wideband tuning, so I hope to see some better numbers than what you came out with...

ddub

If you seriously believe that, then fine.

But when your AC is off it makes negligible differences, and once you hit certain speeds the PS isn't being used anymore, so that makes no difference.

Seriously, people that think those pulleys are making a 5hp or more difference just confuse me, it's more about weight reduction than anything. And underdrive main pulleys are more to keep the water pump from cavitating (sp?) at high rpms than releasing lost HP through parastitic drag. The underdrive alt pulleys do help with less drive, but the difference is so minor it doesn't seem worth it on a street car.

Show me proof, dyno, of before and after removal of AC and PS if you think it changes it so much.

ddub

If it's on the dyno I'm sure a wideband is hooked up, I don't think I've ever seen dyno runs that don't have the wideband hooked up to log AFR's.

Oh and I think you make a good point about the intercooler. The intake temps are probably killing him at 10psi with no cooling. RX7FROMCAL you should invest in a cheap AIT (air intake temp) gauge to see what kind of temperatures you're running at, an intercooler of some sort might help a lot.

SonicRaT

iTrader: (6)

who cares if you don't see more than 190 with an n/a, you're ignoring the fact that he's NOT N/a anymore. Starting? What would that matter? Is that a comparison to some other methods (porting/turbo?) Because starting is always pretty much the same, save for maybe peripheral? And you say if he can make it without straining anything, but the supercharger produces drag on the engine and it is forced induction, which will wear just like a turbo will. Now, to end the debating, these are the only two certain things and the only things anybody should really be interested in.

A) his peak HP increase is nothing spectacular and quite a let down
B) his TORQUE has not yet been specified, this is the shining factor of the supercharger because it's supposed to provide torque in the lower range where the N/A & TII lack, however, a centrifugal also takes a little bit to spool fully, so it'll be interesting to see (in comparison to a roots/twin screw) This is is what everybody is waiting for, and why we really can't decide on the unit, because even though the top-end may drag (as we've seen) it still might give the car the initial off the line it really needs.

kenn_chan

Send me the money for two dyno runs, and I will. They cost about 8000 yen a dyno run at super autobox so you send me 16,000 yen about $155.00 us and I will. I personally see no reason to spend my money to prove you wrong!

While weight is very important the weight you lose from taking off your AC or PS is only going to go so far on a street car, figue what the base weight of the car, and divide with whatever HP you got. weigh the componenets ( assuming you remove it all and change out the steering rack and columm) and the Power to rate ratio is only going to change so much. now couple that with the parasitic loss and you might make a significat change on your power to weight ratio, but you could do the same by simply taking out your spare, jack, and passenger seat for the day of the race and get the same result. (oh and the diference in weight between a stock pulley, and a commonly found under-drive pulley is less than a pound, don't forget to figue that in if its less than a pound it won't even show on your HP/weight ratio, so once again why do people buy them? parasitic loss. and yes (for rotariescavitation) but people have been useing underdrive pulleys on V-8's for years, (why you might ask, it sure isn't cavitation)

schools out

the difference in rotating mass, coupled with the lowering of parasitic losses is the primary reason under-drive pulley systems were deisgned. the simple physics of the lovering of the rotating mass also has the benefit of allowing the engine to accelerate slightly faster, same as putting on a lightened flywheel

SonicRaT

iTrader: (6)

Dyno proven. With the PS and the A/c hooked up (neither being used) there was a .3hp difference in back to back runs. (belts were removed in between runs). Please, research before you post.

casio

man, i got so tired of people talking peak numbers, i just stopped reading. i hope i'm not being repetative, but has anyone considered the car's newfound torque curve? i'm sure the car has a complete new feel to hit, even though it still doesnt have high peak horsepower. also, i imagine he's on the stock ecu. most T2s with decent horsepower are ported with aftermarket turbos. a haltech and a good-condition stock turbo can make power (jacobcartmill), but most people are running rebuilt, ported engines with an aftermarket turbo and usually aiming for a new ecu. this guy has the stock n/a (?) ecu and bigger secondaries which i imagine are flooding the engine (450cc x 4 can handle 171whp). also, no intercooler? i imagine that car with good boost level (i cant see him pushing 10# and only making 171 unless its PIG rich), good computer/tuning, and intercooler (if possible) would make very decent power.

SonicRaT

iTrader: (6)

I've only mentioned it in almost 5 posts so far. Read!

As far as the N/A ecu. I use 720's with 1000cc injectors and run 12.4 on it with my turbo setup, I don't believe the ECU is THAT much at fault.

Back to pulleys, the reason why underdrives work is because they underdrive the waterpump and your alternator, which are your two BIGGEST drags. The others are just spinning in oil which doesn't take much effort. This is why with just the A/C & ps you don't see such a drastic change.

ddub

Thank you!

And I have nothing to prove to you kenn, I've read this debate time and time before, I don't need you trying to tell me I'm wrong when it's been beaten to death.

casio

hehe, i saw you mention it in the last one, but i was typing then!! i was reading, but i was getting tired of hearing peak numbers. i mean, yea, 171 is sad, but i know there's more in it; in the big picture anyways. i just hate people talkin peak numbers only. there's more to an engine. as important as it is, its not everything.

casio

i'm not saying good numbers can't be made on stock ecus, not at all, but its not a favorite for people to stick with. that's awesome that you're running those numbers on a stock n/a ecu. kinda crazy to me, but in a good way. thing is, he's running decently bigger secondaries and making about the same or a little less than some ported and tuned n/as with stock injectors. i'm willing to guess he's running way rich. i wish he had a dyno to show.

SonicRaT

iTrader: (6)

Yeah, what's sad though is what I stated, when I ran the same setup (with larger injectors) in an n/a ecu using the turbo, at 6psi i made well over 200hp :/

casio

see, thats what i dont get. i kinda refuse to believe its at 10psi. i don't know cfm charts at all, but do those superchargers just not flow air or what? could heat be killing him? i mean, he has boost, it should be making power.

kenn_chan

I am not gonna argue with you two brainiacks, I have been racing for over 20 years, since I was 16 and my grandfather and I built my first dirt track racer. I have dynoed cars many times, and you can see the differenceand depending upon P/S setup it makes a big difference a P/S pump is a very inefficient form of a hydraulic pump, it moves oil the whole time it turns, and the difference of it moving oil, and not moveing oil is significant, the piddiliy little amount of weight you save by removeing an AC pump about 15 LBS max for a US car, and a P/S pump even less will make change your P/W ratio not didley bubkisson a 2000 lbs car that makes 225 hp gives you a power to weight ration of 8.8 lbs/hp removing say even 50 lbs would only net you 8.6 lbs/hp the difference you are feeling is the fact that you don't have the extra losses involved with the parasitic loss + the slight weight reduction.

ddub

Then prove it, until then you have no proof.

I'm done arguing about that part, back to the sc discussion, that has been beaten to death...

casio

haha, stop saying "schools out." if you're such a great teacher, go write a book. **** like "school's out" just makes you sound like an *** with an ego. no one likes asses with egos.
he did dyno runs and found a .3 hp difference on that particular car. do you honestly think humidty and load magically changed between runs? you're making it sound like he was dynoing before and then during a hurricane. maybe it is 5hp on some cars and .1 on others. at least he gave a number claimed from a dyno run vs prior dyno run.

can we say 'the end' now ??