Here is the thing when dealing with positive displacement blowers; they require power to turn.
- The larger the rotor, the more drag you have, the more power it takes to spin it.
- The faster you spin the rotor, the more power it takes to turn.
- The more pressure you create in the manifold, the more power it takes to turn.

As I've always said; a 1.6L twinscrew will not be more efficient than a 1320TVS... however, it can potentially make more power. Despite the reduction in efficiency of the TS, it can move enough power, at a higher pressure to create more power in the mid-top end ranges.
A certain amount of this is due to the larger displacement, as well as it's ability to compress air within the blower.

 

Good info^

 

Yes RAW made a Lysholm 1.2 kit which I have modified and upgraded with a separate large cooler for the sc to keep Iat's down. One of the main problems with the original kit was the iat 2 would get to 180 under heavy load. With the added cooler they stay under 100 degrees.They have yet to produce a working kit, but with the help of my friend/engineer he fixed the snout from leaking oil and added a support bracket that connects to the alt bolt. I believe I am one of the few that have this kit.
Actually I put down 353hp with the twinscrew and meth and e100. I was seeing 16 psi at 2400rpms...lol the Throttle response and power feels like a fighter jet compared to the m-62 heaton. once I get the ported head expect atleast 20+hp and the powerband is sick!
But this blower is going to be maxed out at that point so I would like to see the 1.6 as an option. It is going to have to beat out the tvs1900 option though.

 

Im not trying to be an ******* at all, but, 353 is not that impressive for for meth and e100. All Im saying is I would like to see some realistic numbers say on 93 pump and meth maybe.

 

I'd say it's pretty decent....
The TVS is 10% larger with a higher redline, and seems to have made only 6% more power on a stock head.

 

This is on a stock engine with 60's that are maxed out if there was more fuel it would probally net more hp I was around 330 on 93 and meth and this is on a dynojet. The main thing with any larger displacement charger you need to flow more air so the head needs to be ported to acheive any good numbers.

 

ya but your on e100 thats why the 60s are maxed out, i know people maxing out 80's on e85, the 93 numbers are decent, you shut me up, what do you mean by stock engine?

 

Yea still got to get the fueling down, the reason i use e100 is for cooling and I make my own since it is not available here. Stock head and block....I do have full 3" madrel and 3" intake and a bunch of cooling.
Put me against a 400hp turbo car or tvs and I will pull them because the powerband is so strong all the way through. I roll with people on the street who trap 120'smph at the track.

 

hmmm, you got my interest

 

interesting. want to know moar!

 

Not to many people realize the potential of the twinscrew because there was not a working kit other than the one 2ksssc had. I have been through many things with this kit and therefore the knowledge of this info. My friend/engineer/tuner/machinist is really the one to credit. He advised me and helped in the whole process. I would tell him how much the ss members downed the kit and he said there's nothing wrong with that compressor just have to fix some things with the kit, now they are fixed its a beast. Rebel eventually added a oil return to tap in to the oil pan which i did not agree with so I got a large oil cooler and use it with the charger to keep manifold temps down. I did not want to sit on this $3000 paper weight so we made it happed. I believe I can reach 375 with this blower and ported head.... so a 1.6 would definitely be 400+ but you would need a ported head and a lot of cooling. Not only that but the car just sounds so sick and different from others...the whine is really loud! Lots of cooling , no knock = no boom on stock

 

they only reason im skeptical is becuase there has yet to be a working kit for our cars, i know how potent a twin screw can be.

 

me like to learn, you have my ear

i want to see installed pics too when they happen

 

My recommendation is wait till is comes out from a reputable company so your not stuck with a one off like me. I wish keene bell or whipple would release a kit since twinscrew is the only way for me

 

being that twin screws compress differently, here's how your three points above will apply to it:

- The larger rotors will cause more drag, requiring more power to spin it
- The faster you spin it's rotors, the more power it takes to turn
- The more pressure you create, the more it takes to turn, HOWEVER, a twin screw will require less parasitic loss with every psi gained.

Mathematically, it would probably be an exponential function...something like this:

Roots parasitic losses expressed as Y=e^(x)

Twin screw parasitic losses expressed as Y=e^(x/2)

where Y is power lost and X is pressure differential.

The larger rotors would be accounted for with a more linear function, and the speed of said rotors would be equal in a comparison. This would effectively make a roots type blower more efficient while X is small (lower boost pressures), but as X, or your amount of boost, increases, a twin screw will start to surpass the roots type supercharger in efficiency. At what point depends upon the variables, but roots type blowers typically operate best at boost pressures below 15psi. After this point, parasitic losses are climbing pretty high for every pound of boost.

If any of that was confusing, this was the best I could do in MS paint.



The Blue line represents a twin screw, whereas the red line represents a smaller roots type


Now, as with all positive displacement superchargers, a twin screw is most efficient as lower boost numbers are used. The graph only shows its efficiency losses compared to a roots type. The least power lost will always occur at the lower boost numbers.

 

lysholm makes a 1.6 twin screw http://www.opcon.se/index.asp?sPage=1&langID=1&cID=14
Its just with getting a cutom snout made and mounting it, your over 3k

http://www.opcon.se/www/files/lyshol..._lys1600ax.pdf

 

Yea the 1600ax is the one above mine. The snout, adapterplate, bypass and sc inlet would be atleast 1500 ,they should buy all of rebels and modify them, or maybe request a kit from redshiftmotorsports

 

Found some debate on another forum.



Let's take the very best the 2.3 Lysholm twin screw can do...and that is its "efficiency island" which is at a BLOWER RPM of 8,000 and 10-13 PSI of boost - it is at 65%.

The TVS, at the EXACT same location has an efficiency of 67-68%, and the TVS is spinning at 12,000 blower RPM. Advantage TVS by 2-3%.

What if we go the the TVS sweet spot? That is at 9,500 TVS blower RPM and 9 PSI of boost, and is 72%. How is the twin-screw doing at that point? It is spinning at 6,600 RPM, making the exact same boost, but its efficiency is only 64% - so an 8% difference favoring the TVS.

Where does the twin-screw have an advantage? Look at 16 PSI at 2200 M3/MIN...the TVS efficiency is at 61%, and the twin-screw is at 62%...so above 16PSI the advantage shifts to the twin-screw. At 18 PSI @ 2400 M3/MIN the TVS is 58% efficient - and the twin-screw is at 62% (actually off the twin-screw chart) - Advantage twin-screw by 4%..

I have read that interpreting this is kind of like looking at peak horsepower and torque. What is more important is not so much peak values but looking at "the area under the curve" on a dyno chart - and the TVS appears to have superior efficiency throughout more of the chart until we get above that 16 PSI level. Guess what a stock pullied Roush P-51 makes? You guessed it, 15-16 PSI - right at the top of the TVS designed sweet spot.

http://www.fnsweet.com/forums/05-09-...r2300-m90.html

 

This sounds good..

 

Thanks ******* god! At least some people understand why I say; the TVS is more efficient, but the TS has more power potential.

About a year or so ago, I had some guy argue up and down that a twinscrew would school a TVS in every aspect of performance... neglecting to understand the idea that the TVS has a far more developed lower range, like most roots blowers....
It's the age old debate; 'blower' vs 'compressor'.

 

well, the bolded kind of explains it
given that those who are pushing the TVS to the max are well over 20psi, this would imply that the twin screw is more advantageous. Again, a twin screw will provide a better top end than a roots type will. For the quoted post, yes, the roush is better off with the TVS, as it never reaches pressure ratios that put it into the area of the maps where the twin screw outshines the roots

Also, we're not comparing a TVS2300 with a 2300AX. The twin screw in question here is a good 22% larger as well, and the compressor maps likely will not be as close as two identically sized blowers of the two types. For the record, there's a reason mustang guys love the kenne bell blowers so much. They frequently push them to 30psi, which is waay out of a root's efficiency range. I wouldnt be surprised to see an ecotec run such boost numbers (though they would be one of the elite ecotecs on here that everyone would come to know, much how area is for the TVS now, and most who would get this setup would run numbers in the twenties)

for the record, i edited that post like 4 times, so if you're reading right now, refresh the page. lol

 

i was more closely referring to the tvs vs twinscrew

 

as was i...? im just being specific to our application, although i also mentioned where it is more advantageous for the OP of your quoted post as well

 

This is critical..

 

I am very impressed with your setup. Myself as well as others would like more information if possible.

Thank you for posting this. The advantage for the TS the 1600 TS vs. 1320 TVS debate is that you are using a bigger TS. The best comparison between the two would be identical sizes, such as you posted.

I remember some hot-rod type magazine posting a TVS vs TS comparison about a year ago, and giving all the credit to the TS, but what most failed to realize is that the TVS they used was a 2300, where the TS was a 3100. Of course the 3100 would perform better, especially in the top end.