Supercharger Kits For FC3S S4?
#26
Nothin But a G Thang
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One reason i really don't want to go turbo is that my car is mostly driven around the city in bad traffic, i like being able to run away from small groups of cars when i need too and to me a s/c seems like a great idea. i hate having to wind my gears out b/c i dont need to be going 60+ mph on regular streets and if im trying to stay in the power band i dont have much choice so to me a s/c would be a nice gain of low-mid range power.
#28
Enthusiast
iTrader: (5)
I don't know if this is true, but 7's seem to be more powereful in the upper rpm's compared to other cars even if they're not turbo. So supercharging should give it instant power then domination in the high rpms as well. Turbocharging would give the car more power (especially highway racing). But, where ur drivin at "Staticguitar" i would recommend u get a supercharger.
#30
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally Posted by Modified 7
I thought supercharged rx7's are robbed of all there top end power?
#32
Super Raterhater
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NY, MA, MI, OR, TX, and now LA or AZ!
Posts: 10,624
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I've got both, a turbo'd 6port and a supercharged 6port, and sadly, the turbo beats it in all aspects, off the line, top end, etc, the supercharged car just can't keep up. With a larger supercharger this might be different, but my turbo spools so fast that it really doesn't make much a difference.
#34
i love having all this knowledge from other arguing people, right at my fingertips, hey here's a sube ject change for you mechanics, my drivetrain is noisy in my custom 7, the previous owner said he had better driveshaft ends installed and its really noisy now, any tips, oh and is a short shifter worth $200, most specifically, the mazdatrix model?
#36
Super Raterhater
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NY, MA, MI, OR, TX, and now LA or AZ!
Posts: 10,624
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Well, it obviously strains the motor a bit more, reliability is about equal, with the supercharger being a little higher since they run generally less boost.
#38
Super Raterhater
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NY, MA, MI, OR, TX, and now LA or AZ!
Posts: 10,624
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
http://www.howstuffworks.com is a good example, other than that there's a book out that's a good read, or just hit up google.com and search for supercharger setups or 'how superchargers work' and you'll end up finding good info about the different types.
#39
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally Posted by BlueSteel
do superchargers hurt reliablity at all, like i've heard turbos do?
Originally Posted by BlueSteel
can anybody direct me to somewhere where I can learn more about superchargers? I searched and found just people buying, selling and comparing...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...=UTF8&v=glance
This website has good info:
http://www.superchargersonline.com/c...at.asp?group=2
#40
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Evil Aviator
A turbo would work better. There are really only two advantages to a belt-driven supercharger on an RX-7:
1) It's different.
2) The "feel" of the car is more positive because boost is directly related to engine rpm.
Other than that, a turbocharger setup is usually less expensive, offers a wider boost profile, will yield more power for a given boost level than roots or lysholm superchargers, is less prone to detonate than roots or lysholm superchargers, is easier to intercool than a roots supercharger, and will create boost faster than a centrifugal supercharger. A modern ball bearing and/or sequenced turbo will also create boost at about the same point as a roots or lysholm supercharger.
False supercharger "facts':
1) They create instant boost.
2) They give the engine more torque than a turbocharger would.
3) They are less expensive, less complicated, and easier to install than a turbocharger.
1) It's different.
2) The "feel" of the car is more positive because boost is directly related to engine rpm.
Other than that, a turbocharger setup is usually less expensive, offers a wider boost profile, will yield more power for a given boost level than roots or lysholm superchargers, is less prone to detonate than roots or lysholm superchargers, is easier to intercool than a roots supercharger, and will create boost faster than a centrifugal supercharger. A modern ball bearing and/or sequenced turbo will also create boost at about the same point as a roots or lysholm supercharger.
False supercharger "facts':
1) They create instant boost.
2) They give the engine more torque than a turbocharger would.
3) They are less expensive, less complicated, and easier to install than a turbocharger.
why is it that it is more difficult to intercool the subercharger...is it because of the room the belt driven mechanism takes up...if you were to keep the supercharger "cooler" do you think the power yields would be different or for the most part...the same, being the effectiveness of the supercharger will be less than the turbo no matter what you do
#41
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im just curious because i have seen a few supercharged Fd's that put out almost 500hp...but i keep in mind that replaces sequential twins...but im sure it does effect the high end alot...also it works great in larger displacement motors i.e. 5.0s but from what ive read here its not as effective in small displacement high comp. motors like the 13b...that bothers me for some reason
#42
Super Raterhater
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NY, MA, MI, OR, TX, and now LA or AZ!
Posts: 10,624
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
It's all about sizing really, most people generally run a 1.3l/rev or less roots blower, or small centrifigal, a 2.3l/rev or higher lysholm (sp?) would probably make quite a bit of power. However, the cost for the charger alone is damn near $3000.
#43
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Originally Posted by White Rice
why is it that it is more difficult to intercool the subercharger
Centrifugal and Lysholm superchargers compress the air in the supercharger, as does a turbocharger. Therefore, the downstream plumbing is not as critical, and the air is heated prior to leaving the supercharger. An intercooler can be added anywhere between the supercharger and the throttle body.
Originally Posted by White Rice
if you were to keep the supercharger "cooler" do you think the power yields would be different or for the most part
Originally Posted by White Rice
im just curious because i have seen a few supercharged Fd's that put out almost 500hp...but i keep in mind that replaces sequential twins...but im sure it does effect the high end alot...
Originally Posted by White Rice
also it works great in larger displacement motors i.e. 5.0s
Last edited by Evil Aviator; 11-24-04 at 12:40 PM.
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wayne, NJ 07470
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I own a NA Rx7, I also own a supercharged MR2. It has a roots type supercharger and an intercooler. It is currently running 12 PSI of boost and I can tell you I only have to wait for my foot to reach the floor for full boost.
Yes, a turbocharger is more efficient than an equivalent supercharger but these things are never equivalent. I could use a bigger intercooler and have intake air temperatures that are the same for the same amount of boost. You should instead be comparing Dollars per HP and if you get a used SC the cost isn't that bad in comparison to a used turbo.
Most people never get that last 15% of power/efficiency that their engine is capable of and nobody gets that last 15% without destroying a few engines along the way.
A roots type supercharger is a very acceptable alternative for less than 15 PSI of boost. For over 15 PSI a turbo might be the only way to go but I am thinking about sequential SC on my MR2.
My personal opinion is that the heat stress and back pressure caused by a turbo is worse than the parasitic drag of a SC.
ed
Yes, a turbocharger is more efficient than an equivalent supercharger but these things are never equivalent. I could use a bigger intercooler and have intake air temperatures that are the same for the same amount of boost. You should instead be comparing Dollars per HP and if you get a used SC the cost isn't that bad in comparison to a used turbo.
Most people never get that last 15% of power/efficiency that their engine is capable of and nobody gets that last 15% without destroying a few engines along the way.
A roots type supercharger is a very acceptable alternative for less than 15 PSI of boost. For over 15 PSI a turbo might be the only way to go but I am thinking about sequential SC on my MR2.
My personal opinion is that the heat stress and back pressure caused by a turbo is worse than the parasitic drag of a SC.
ed
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Jeff20B
1st Generation Specific (1979-1985)
73
09-16-18 07:16 PM
SakeBomb Garage
Group Buy & Product Dev. FD RX-7
8
10-09-15 10:05 PM
centrifugal, charger, chargers, end, fc3s, hurt, longevity, rx7, s4, super, superchager, supercharged, supercharger, superchargers, top