Henry3959

Both are Roots-type superchargers using the latest Eaton TVS ™ rotating assembly.

https://www.harrop.com.au/shop/htv13...er?search=1320

https://www.harrop.com.au/shop/htv1900-supercharger

ECaulk

iTrader: (6)

No, it's still a TVS the thing is just ******* massive, 1.9L displacement on a 2.0L displacement motor...

jdbaugh1

iTrader: (1)

Well today I learned. I don't know why I thought that. So you would think a 1900 with a big pulley would be more efficient (less heat?) than the 1320 with a small pulley making the same boost?

ECaulk

iTrader: (6)

Comparing boost levels on blowers is pointless, just like comparing boost levels on a turbo.

There are a lot of things to consider, and I'm not the knowledgeable in superchargers just that you can't compare boost levels to thing power.

Henry3959

If it were linear and you put X amount of air that contains X heat in half the space you double the temp. It doesn't matter what you use to do it with. The BTU's remain the same but the temp doubles.

Henry3959

jdbaugh1

iTrader: (1)

Ok so assume they are setup with the equivalent pulley's to yield the same volume of air being pushed through the engine.

jdbaugh1

iTrader: (1)

I think you are referring to ideal gas law and compression of air in general but I am talking about the efficiencies of the superchargers.

Henry3959

The efficiency I see since both share the same technology is one doesn't have to be spun as fast and is also capable of moving more mass overall at its peak RPM. A 1900 has more physical mass therefore will be able to dissipate more heat at the same temp. At the same boost pressure each will have their lower housings subjected to the same temps.

My experience with the Balt in Denver I see with the 1900 has a much larger pulley than it did with the M62. It can move more mass and create more boost at a lower RPM. To handle the heat increase it has an oversize ZZP Heat Exchanger and secondary ZZP heat exchanger plus dual pass.

Henry3959

There has to be a limit to how much heat the OEM manifold can dissipate regardless of heat exchangers.

ECaulk

iTrader: (6)

You would have to pull the data from spec sheets Eaton provides to determine it. A few of the guys in the TVS or 1900 thread had a discussion about it awhile back

Slowbalt2000

iTrader: (1)

The thing about the 1900 is with how small our engines are, even a large pulley yields a very high PR. This puts you way off of the efficiency map. If you could get the boost down to a reasonable level while still spinning a decent blower rpm, thats where it will be most efficient. By adding an even larger pulley you arent helping much. PR and blower speed together are what affect the efficiency, not just simply "getting the boost down"

moparbishi

Went back to dyno yesterday. They were doing a 2 runs for $40 special. I put my adjustable tensioner on the tightest setting and it seemed to take care of my boost problems. It held 13psi till 7500rpm with max boost of 13.76

Ended up with 270hp 235 tq

Clutch, 17 in drag radials and 3in catback soon to come! Oh yeah I forgot to mention the car has 190k miles on stock longblock, tranny and clutch.

chevygirl2006

3inch exhaust is overkill for m62. Trevor jolley tested different exhaust sizes and the 2.25 netted better power. Stock with 2.25 or 2.5

moparbishi

I plan on going with a tvs in the fall or spring and don't want to be limited if I go with 2.5 exhaust. Should I stick with stock catback until I install the tvs? I want to get exhaust work done before I go with the bigger blower, but I just don't want it to hurt my power until then.

chevygirl2006

I'm on a tvs and 2.5 inch. You won't be limited with it.

Henry3959

Congrats! Nice output for our elevation.....

moparbishi

zzp recommends going with a 3in after 270hp. I know they're wrong sometimes, but if my goal is 350+ I'm not sure if 2.5 would hold me back

chevygirl2006

It's already been proven 2.5 is fine. But I don't think a 3in would hurt at that point and ya zzp has definetly been wrong lol

Henry3959

Good to know... I don't feel rushed to open up the factory exhaust as quick.

chevygirl2006

Well the factory 2.4 exhaust is crushed in some places. It goes from like 2.25 to even smaller and then back to 2.25. You want a mandrel bent one.

jdbaugh1

iTrader: (1)

Although a 3" exhaust may not be advantageous in this situation I don't really see a disadvantage. The price difference is minimal. Really the only argument against 3" exhaust is that it is louder but if you get ZZP's with cat, resonator and muffler I think it sounds really good. If you have an existing 2.5" exhaust system and are deciding whether to keep it or upgrade that is one thing but if you are getting a new exhaust system either way I can't find many reasons to not just go with the 3".

chevygirl2006

Because of dyno numbers. It's been discussed and proven. Just trying to help him.

jdbaugh1

iTrader: (1)

My point was if you are buying an exhaust anyway with potential plans for more power in the future, there is nothing wrong with a 3". If you have an existing 2.5" and are thinking about a bigger exhaust for power gains, forget about it.

moparbishi

I screwed up when I ordered my header and got a midleghth. At the time I thought I was going to go m62/nitrous and wanted low end power, but a tvs sounds like a better idea. My downpipe flange on the mildlength header is 2.5, so im going to have to weld on a 3in flange for the 3in catback. Yeah I know that might sound silly, but I can always switch to a longtube down the road.