Man this is great. Many supercharger dreamers and only one proven swap, zbrown, and his car wasn't even that fast. Anyone watch his video winding up first and second gear? I've seen ported NA's sprint faster than that . . point being his setup did not produce more than 175 rwhp by my rough estimate, based on how long it took to expend his first two gears at WOT with a full weight S5 NA + 50 for the supercharger. I know of no supercharger setup on an FC NA making above 220 rwhp. The old paxton nelson centrifugal supercharger kits would dyno at 210ish rwhp.

No one has stepped up and proven that superchargering an FC NA works out in the end. Zbrown has not reported any performance numbers and for all we know, his car may not even be running now. There is much more involved in creating a forced induction setup, especially on a rotary, than hooking up a blower and adding larger injectors, at least if passable longevity is a design goal.

 

The TII kicks azz. It was bred for competitive driving, in Japan there was only the TurboII motor. Superchargers are great, for V8's.
Here's a simple fact, excuse me if they're not to accurate but it's been a while since I took that engine rebuilding class in college.
A supercharger uses about 10 horsepower for every 100 horsepower that it supports while a turbocharger uses 3-5 horsepower for every 100 horsepower it supports.
Also another good point is the "on off effect" of a turbo. When you have a supercharger it is always on its always forcing air. A turbo can be on vacuum which is sometimes considered the off time. Basically think about it like this, when your coasting down the street with a supercharger it's spinning on boost, "always". When you're coasting down the street with a turbo it's free spinning, more or less at rpm's under 3500 for most turbos. I can prove it to, look in any book on forced induction, still don't believe it, throw a super on a dyno and follow with a turbo and look at the power curve on coasting and deceleration.
Basically all I'm trying to say by all this is a turbo is more efficient in both the power it creates by the power it uses and the fuel consumption that it causes.

 

Sorry, but your info is only partially correct.

A. All superchargars are not created equal. The hierarchy goes like this : straight lobed blower (weiand type or camden), then eaton type hybrid roots with refined ports and 60* twist to the rotors, then 3/4 lobe lysholm type like early whipple or the oem Mazda Millenia S unit, then 4/5 modern lysholm type (all lysholm type superchargers are actually compressors, not blowers).

B. Superchargers that are in oem installations have bypass valves that only close when there is no more vacuum in the intake manifold, meaning, boost can only build when the driver signals the engine to get louder, using the gas pedal. Supercharger is not always on, during cruising driving it is freely spinning and drawing a few hp at most when not boosting.

summary: superchargers can't be generalized against turbosuperchargers, because the hierarchy of belt driven superchargers covers many efficiency levels . . . .

 

Zbrown blew his motor due to overheating I believe, blowing motor not related to the s/c setup (know this much). He put a TII engine in after blowing the engine.

 

Dan said an SC wouldn't fit? He may have changed his mind since then.




Lastly, that's injected. Aside from the Holley possibly having fitment issues, it's a step in the wrong direction.

 

Well, if the 176 was flywheel, then that increase was even *less* than what I quoted, so I'm not sure what you mean. If it was rwhp, then it was more like what I said. Basically, they had a ported engine with racing beat exhaust, which typically (from all the dyno sheets posted around here with similar setups) yields about 140 at the wheels, thus why I said the increase was so much less than what everyone was claiming. Not sure what you mean though.

 

????????Turbosuperchargers?????????

 

Im Running 10psi On My Sc Soooooo We Shall See What Happens When It Goes On The Dyno

 

I'm just trying to get some hard numbers, and was wondering if anybody got a clarification from Atkins.

"Turbo" and "Turbocharger" are slang for the technically-correct term of "Turbosupercharger". It's just one of those things where the slang is used so often that the correct term sounds strange. Other examples include hub cap vs. wheel cover, shock vs. strut, NOS vs. nitrous oxide, high voltage vs. high amperage, ft-lbs torque vs. lbs-ft torque, true dual exhaust vs. uncollected exhaust, mag wheel vs. alloy wheel, etc.

 

Do you ever get the feeling that you're talking to a wall with a lot of these guys when it comes to S/C setups?

How's your car coming anyway? Done anything new recently?

 

Yeah, when I ordered I asked Gary Brooks directly and he told me it was 176hp to the rear wheels. If it isn't, you guys will find out from me in a week or two.

 

Which is about a 20-30 increase over the engine they were using. Hmm.

 

What I said would NOT fit is the 86-91 EFI S\C kit under the hoodline of a 1st gen . IF you go with an microtech than you can do the EFI kit that way than it will fit under the hood line.

Dan Atkins

 

I love talking superchargers so that's probably why I post about them. My setup is 60% completed. My engine has had some side seal issues and I have refined my ports 3 times in order to protect the seals. In the course of assembling the engine 3 times I have had vacuum leaks (massive) and coolant O ring anomolies . .

tonight I assembled motor # 4 and it runs well enough, except for glowing header, no vacuum, etc. all signs of a massive vacuum leak that I must track down.

I have many pics of ports and my supercharger project but I'm still in the process of fixing my digicam card reader for my pc so I can upload them. Picture a supercharger that looks somewhat like an M90 but with a stouter nose and narrower main section, directly above the spark plugs and in line with the tops of the rotor housings where the mazda emblems are . . picure an fmic directly in front of the radiator at the very top of the opening with end tanks poking through large torch cuts in the sheet metal of the engine bay . . visualize a throttle body to supercharger inlet adapter so complex that not only was a 170 degree curve required in the 2.5" pipe, but then a 2.5" to 4"/6" oval adapter section fabricated from sheet metal formed and welded together created to mate with the odd shaped Millenia S intake lysholm compressor intake section . .

I've been away from this particular part of the forum but been very busy . . I'll have pics when my pc is able.