Which supercharger design/brand do you fancy /o/? Why?

>>17322070
depends on the application

I love maggies for LS V8 street cars because they move 450+pounds of torque to 1500 rpm

>>17322070
Quick rundown.
>roots/eaton/twinscrew
Originally designed to make 2 cycle diesels function, NOT to produce power. They were used typically in conjunction with a turbo.
Then a hotrodder in the 50's realized they could take one for a 6 cylinder diesel (because a fuck huge diesel v6 is abut the length of a passenger vehicle v8) and do forced induction if they grafted it onto a standard intake manifold.
Note: the 6 in "6-71 blower" is for 6 cylinders, an 8-71 is for a v8 diesel.

Paxtron was the premier centrifugal supercharger.
Their original ball-drive unit went through many, many different upgrades. Paxton was bought by granatelli and the last rendention of the ball-drives is the GSS (granatelli signature series).
A designer for Paxton came up with the a nice gear-drive unit that was able to produce more power and was more reliable. Paxton thought that customers would not like the whiney gear noise so they shelves if. The designer and a salesman left Paxton and started vortech with the design (thus vortechs use the same Paxton mounting brackets and support pieces).
A designer at vortech wanted more money so he took the knowledge he gained while there and started powerdyne.
Another designer at paxton came up with a belt drive unit, but Paxton declined on using it for fear of failure rates (it was codenamed "black belt" while in-house).
That designer took his design and left Paxton and started procharger.

>>17322152
>typos
Fuck it, I've had a few beers, sue me.

>>17322070
Eaton are my boys

>>17322152
Wow! Great info

Them niggas need to start putting engineers on contracts with ironclad non-compete clauses

In addition, the air charge in a twin screw actually travels down the outside of the screws, along the case. The intermesh of the screws in the center is what displaces the charge and forces it into the cylinders.

As for the original question...
Vortech with a gear drive timing set.

>>17322187
They seriously dropped the ball.
Every fab shop I've been in had a clause for technology developed while employed is property of the company.

>>17322152
This is good. Thanks.

Oh ya- a wheel company in California bought the rights to the sn/gss ball drive units from Paxton.
Owner is old school and hates the internet, so another guy makes a few bucks doing the paperwork on eBay and you get a drop ship from Cali if you order parts. Its legit if you ever rebuild one and have to deal with him.

File: potvin.jpg (67KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x600px

>anything but a direct crank driven supercharger

>>17322152
Twinscrew does not equal roots friendo and I don't think twinscrew has been around that long
>>17322070
Roots are cheap dependable and very good at making horsepower
But the twinscrew is proably the best supercharger you can get if you got the money they are really the only supercharger that actually creates boost while the roots just shoves air into the engine
My favorite is a littlefield 871

Are the Whipple 2.9 liter blowers quality?

I see them getting put on everything V8 in my area.

I think partly because they sell the blower, injectors, air to water intercooler, all supporting parts and chip flash for about $7500.

How do they compare to other blowers?

File: 1481475423447.jpg (1MB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1536px

>>17322070
positive displacement

instant power

>>17322236
Twinscrew is a modified roots.
I really don't want to write a book tonight. Maybe if I had everything copypasta'able I would explain it all in detail.
I was covering the basics in my alcohol induced, happening weekend stupor.
BTW, top fuel superchargers are estimated to be a 900hp parasetic loss.

File: js1.jpg (155KB, 750x650px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 750x650px

this kind

>>17322258
Whipple is a brand (founded by Art Whipple) of twinscrews.
Excellent blower.

>>17322271
>900hp
at what RPM tho?

>>17322070
As much as I love the looks and instant torque of a PD blower (roots/twin-screw), most kits just aren't designed to handle extended periods of full-throttle boost which either leads to high IATs (and limp mode) or your engine just plain overheating. They're fine for street driving or a few passes at the drag strip, but they just can't handle the demands of a road course. Even factory-supercharged cars like the c7 zr1 and Mustang GT500 either overheat or go into limp mode when pushed hard for an extended period of time.

That's not to say you can't use a PD blower for road racing, but it usually requires some serious upgrades and/or re-engineering your car's cooling systems.

That's why I like a Vortech or Procharger setup with an air-to-air intercooler. IATs remain fairly consistent and you don't have another heat generator sitting right on top of your engine. Interestingly, the self-contained oiling system for the newer Vortech and Procharger units actually run cooler than the older models which share the engine oiling system.

>>17322258
Both Whipple and Kenne Bell make great twin-screw blowers. Whipple tends to be more popular because it's a bigger shop and has better customer service, but Kenne Bell makes just as good a product.

>>17322330
12,378.296 rpm¿

File: 1461732081844.jpg (13KB, 259x227px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 259x227px

>>17322152

Posters like you are the reason I still lurk /o/. Thanks.

>>17322152
neat info.

>>17322368
Only run an intercooler if you're ++7psi, otherwise you'll lose more charge density due to the increased volume of the cooler and duct work.
After 14 pounds you have to run it. 7-12 is debatable.

>>17322152
Old 6cylinder diesels were typically inline. Is that what you meant?

I agree that centrifugal are superior though.

>>17322452
That's true to an extent, but an intercooler allows a high-compression factory motor to handle more boost in the first place due to the cooler air charge. Without an intercooler, you can only run 4-6 psi (YMMV). Running more than that won't be worth it because the decreased ignition timing required to prevent detonation on the warmer air charge will offset the larger amount of boost.

>>17322152
FYI, twin-screws used to beat the pants off of roots blowers due to the lower efficiency of the latter. Eaton units were nicknamed Heatons due to all the heat they generated. However, the newer Eaton designs are considerably more efficient. I saw a test between a similarly-sized newer Eaton unit and a Whipple twin-screw and it was a wash overall in terms of efficiency. The Eaton was more efficient at lower RPMs, while the Whipple was more efficient at higher RPMs.

File: hqdefault.jpg.cf (1).jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

>>17322463
Nope, I mean v6 2 strokes.
Can't see the turbo but I'm not having luck finding pics that show a clear shot of the super and turbo and exhaust ports.

File: 2cycleengineJPG.jpg.cf.jpg (45KB, 533x399px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 533x399px

>>17322585

File: 1496445651932.png (915KB, 620x798px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 620x798px

Turbos are superior to superchargers

General question about superchargers, why do they seem to result/run less boost than turbo chargers? When I hear a person's build with a super charger, they usually run 5 to 7. Meanwhile, turbo people including myself run like 20 pounds of boost. Is it the delivery method of superchargers or do they make the air even more dense than a turbo? How come they produce low boost numbers but still produce good power/torque increase?

None
Supercharger shit is shit

Give me turbos for superior power, cost, power delivery and reliability any day

>>17322634
faggot

>>17322676
faggot number 2

>>17322634
Of course they are, but they become a pain in the ass when you're dealing with a v6 or v8 due to the additional exhaust bank. You either have to merge the hot side piping into one pipe or go twin turbo, which increases cost. Either way, you're dealing with a more difficult install that often requires eliminating or moving a bunch of crap in the engine bay. Some cars even require major suspension modifications just so you can use forward-facing headers.

>>17322675
The amount of boost you can run has less to do with the method of boost and more to do with the engine itself. A high-compression naturally-aspirated factory engine with shitty rods and pistons isn't going to handle much boost before running into problems. Expect somewhere between 6 to 10 lbs of boost max on pump gas. An engine that was designed for boost, on the other hand, usually has lower compression and forged rods and pistons, so it can take somewhere between 10 to 20 lbs of boost on pump gas.

Keep in mind that a supercharger is run off the engine crankshaft (usually by a belt, but sometimes by gears or directly connected to the crankshaft), which means that it actually takes power to spin the supercharger. A turbo will make more power for the same amount of boost because it's using exhaust gases to spin it. There is still some loss in efficiency due to exhaust restrictions with a turbo, but nowhere near the power losses involved in spinning a supercharger using the engine's crankshaft.

Turbos any day of the week, much harder to instal and tune for but the power output payoff is so worth it.

File: IMG_1909.jpg (68KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 320x240px

My roommate has a Whipple on his Yukon. Pretty nice.

>>17322712
At the expense of trashing throttle response
>inb4 just learn ur car

I drive for fun, NA is life.

>>17322687
In denial stupidcharger faggot

>>17322152
Neato thanks dood

>>17322676
Name one 4 second turbo car.

>>17322070
Why do the valve covers have covers?

>>17322152
Goddamn this is nice.

How hard and costly would it be to supercharge a car? Vs turboing it?

>>17322070
Rotex, there is a nice kit for my car available (and on order)

VW G-Ladder because I have 2 of them (well I have 4 of the superchargers but 2 cars with them)

File: 1461154533619.png (777KB, 774x701px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 774x701px

>>17322684
>>17322687
look at this supercharger cuck having a meltdown kek
>>17322705
thats why you should go with inline 6 master race

File: 1430791462296.jpg (18KB, 240x251px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 240x251px

>>17322723
>"I-I make no power b-but at leats I have response!!"

>>17323144
the cucks in NHRA banned turbos, just like they did with OHC

>>17323157
AESTHETICS. You know, for people who never look under the hood that need to be 'wowed' with excessive extra parts, complications and labour costs.

It's retarded. People who can work under the hood are punished, people who can't are rewarded with a massive slap across the face for their ignorance in the disguise of 'muh edokated perchiss'

File: latham_supercharger_2_by_426maxwedgie.jpg (218KB, 1024x623px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1024x623px

Latham

Turbo's ruin sound

>>17322152

I'm being pedantic here, but superchargers were actually first made to pump air into mines before being applied to 2 cycle diesels.

>>17323200
SC is about half as expensive when all is said and done