Twin supercharger????
I think a better thought would be going with somthing such as a procharger cintrfigual charger is you want to twin SC there is no room for two of ours under the hood and it would just be easier to get a whipple or KB
why?
why would you want to do this?
Sure... you might get extra boost... but it wouldn't be any faster... and you would have double the parasitic loss....
remember... superchargers take power to make power...
why would you want to do this?
Sure... you might get extra boost... but it wouldn't be any faster... and you would have double the parasitic loss....
remember... superchargers take power to make power...
IM either going to use 2 supers or 1 big one for my car Im almost 100% shure there is room but it would be tricky biggest problem is the heat exchanger and getting a belt long enuff. so basicaly you looking at big money if you cant do the fab work yourself.
Originally Posted by Gory
IM either going to use 2 supers or 1 big one for my car Im almost 100% shure there is room but it would be tricky biggest problem is the heat exchanger and getting a belt long enuff. so basicaly you looking at big money if you cant do the fab work yourself.
edit: nvm. i see u fixed it... a bit
Simply put is this.
With enough money and time. Anything is possible.
if your serious about this route, I personaly would do the following:
Custom Hood (to make more top room to "stack" parts).
then the custom engine work needed.
However, personaly I would just get a 100 - 300hp supercharger, and make whatever mod's needed to run it. (with upgraded internals)
With enough money and time. Anything is possible.
if your serious about this route, I personaly would do the following:
Custom Hood (to make more top room to "stack" parts).
then the custom engine work needed.
However, personaly I would just get a 100 - 300hp supercharger, and make whatever mod's needed to run it. (with upgraded internals)
Originally Posted by SilverStreak
why?
why would you want to do this?
Sure... you might get extra boost... but it wouldn't be any faster... and you would have double the parasitic loss....
remember... superchargers take power to make power...
why would you want to do this?
Sure... you might get extra boost... but it wouldn't be any faster... and you would have double the parasitic loss....
remember... superchargers take power to make power...
remember...turbos don't take any power to make power
Originally Posted by p7x
WHAT!?!? There is no parastic loss. Depending on the size of the turbo would depend on the boost and the HP but I will quarantee you that a 2.0T will be faster than a 2.0SC.
remember...turbos don't take any power to make power
remember...turbos don't take any power to make power
WTF? Why in the hell would someone want 2 superchargers?
People, if you want to make tons of power on these cars......erase the word "supercharger" from your mind. Go Turbo!!
People, if you want to make tons of power on these cars......erase the word "supercharger" from your mind. Go Turbo!!
Last edited by BooSSted; Oct 4, 2006 at 04:05 AM.
Well if you go with a twinscrew like the whipple w140ax, it has less parasitic loss than our current S/C, moves far more air (over x3), can compress it higher (30psi effeciently) , and actually has a higher adiabatic efficiency (~80%) than that turbo (60~75%) your blattering on about. And don't even talk about volumetric efficiency. Plus it doesn't need an intercooler at our boost levels, though you can use one to improve power even more. Gotta love those insane efficiency numbers and what they do to heat production.
Only thing that would really suck is you would lose that sweet S/C whine.
Just so everyone understands, there are tradeoffs for every form of force induction, and that includes the exhaust driven centrifugal supercharger (aka Turbo).
Now quit being a turbo supercharger fanboy on a roots supercharger car site. Otherwise it looks like your just trying to start fights.
Only thing that would really suck is you would lose that sweet S/C whine.
Just so everyone understands, there are tradeoffs for every form of force induction, and that includes the exhaust driven centrifugal supercharger (aka Turbo).
Now quit being a turbo supercharger fanboy on a roots supercharger car site. Otherwise it looks like your just trying to start fights.
Originally Posted by SilverStreak
why?
why would you want to do this?
Sure... you might get extra boost... but it wouldn't be any faster... and you would have double the parasitic loss....
remember... superchargers take power to make power...
why would you want to do this?
Sure... you might get extra boost... but it wouldn't be any faster... and you would have double the parasitic loss....
remember... superchargers take power to make power...
Yes there is more hp required with a high L supercharger, but the gains at the wheels are far above what you lose from parasitic loss!
I'm just not going to continue on...you guys want info on the other superchargers, go to the RL forums and search for twin screw supercharger.
But no, Cobalts don't have enough room for a larger supercharger because of needing an adapter plate, which isn't anything hard to make.
Originally Posted by vandy0419
Do you ever read about superchargers? Twin screws are insane! You get a high cfm at a lower boost and lower boost means lower IAT2s which means more timing. You have got to be freaking kidding me!
Yes there is more hp required with a high L supercharger, but the gains at the wheels are far above what you lose from parasitic loss!
Yes there is more hp required with a high L supercharger, but the gains at the wheels are far above what you lose from parasitic loss!
I would only think about using two superchargers if I had a V8. One supercharger for each intake manifold. I only know of one car that uses a twin supercharger set up and thats the Koenigsegg.
Originally Posted by BooSSted
WTF? Why in the hell would someone want 3 superchargers?
People, if you want to make tons of power on these cars......erase the word "supercharger" from your mind. Go Turbo!!
People, if you want to make tons of power on these cars......erase the word "supercharger" from your mind. Go Turbo!!
read my new forum rule.
we are talking about twincharging with TWO superchargers.
READ.... Comprehend... post.
Originally Posted by InfinityzeN
Well if you go with a twinscrew like the whipple w140ax, it has less parasitic loss than our current S/C, moves far more air (over x3), can compress it higher (30psi effeciently) , and actually has a higher adiabatic efficiency (~80%) than that turbo (60~75%) your blattering on about. And don't even talk about volumetric efficiency. Plus it doesn't need an intercooler at our boost levels, though you can use one to improve power even more. Gotta love those insane efficiency numbers and what they do to heat production.
Just so everyone understands, there are tradeoffs for every form of force induction, and that includes the exhaust driven centrifugal supercharger (aka Turbo).
Now quit being a turbo supercharger fanboy on a roots supercharger car site. Otherwise it looks like your just trying to start fights.
Just so everyone understands, there are tradeoffs for every form of force induction, and that includes the exhaust driven centrifugal supercharger (aka Turbo).
Now quit being a turbo supercharger fanboy on a roots supercharger car site. Otherwise it looks like your just trying to start fights.
two superchargers... r u serious... look at our engine bays.. we have a hard enough time trying to convince someone to try a M90 swap due to the lack of room. have you even opened ur hood recently.. where are u going to stick another supercharger?



no more smoking after work lol