Another Hall's deal!!!
08-07-2008, 01:56 PM
#2121
Zach,
Notching the crossmember was assumed in my other post.
The problem is that the motor is long enough that it's going to interfere with what's mounted to said crossmember, namely the steering rack. A notch in the crossmember is actually pretty damned easy to deal with, it's steering adjustments that get ugly (I'm hyper sensitive about steering/brakes as both are drastically more important than power to me, and keeping angles and such in check is VERY important to safety on a steet car). Also of note is that the front swaybar may be a problem too, I've not looked at their location on an F-Body. That's not a big deal though, lots of guys remove them anyway.
I'm also not sure what's involved with making Toyota A/C work, if that was wanted, though brackets could be fabricated to run a GM compressor with custom lines.
Scott,
PM replied. Oh, and do you still have a bottle heater?
SDB,
I agree. 2JZ is the hard way to get there for sure. If you want something a little "different" a 4.6L Cobra motor in a Fox Body would haul *** and isn't seen everyday (though there are several built) There are even off the shelf mounts to get you most of the way there. A whipplecharged LSx in an F-Body would be different too and a total street monster, plus no bottle to refill.
Notching the crossmember was assumed in my other post.
The problem is that the motor is long enough that it's going to interfere with what's mounted to said crossmember, namely the steering rack. A notch in the crossmember is actually pretty damned easy to deal with, it's steering adjustments that get ugly (I'm hyper sensitive about steering/brakes as both are drastically more important than power to me, and keeping angles and such in check is VERY important to safety on a steet car). Also of note is that the front swaybar may be a problem too, I've not looked at their location on an F-Body. That's not a big deal though, lots of guys remove them anyway. I'm also not sure what's involved with making Toyota A/C work, if that was wanted, though brackets could be fabricated to run a GM compressor with custom lines.
Scott,
PM replied.
Oh, and do you still have a bottle heater?SDB,
I agree. 2JZ is the hard way to get there for sure. If you want something a little "different" a 4.6L Cobra motor in a Fox Body would haul *** and isn't seen everyday (though there are several built) There are even off the shelf mounts to get you most of the way there. A whipplecharged LSx in an F-Body would be different too and a total street monster, plus no bottle to refill.
08-07-2008, 01:58 PM
#2122
11 Second Club
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-07-2008, 03:00 PM
#2126
Whipple/Kenne Bell/Autorotor/Lysholm blowers aren't technically positive displacement, they do compression in the blower (where as a roots does most of its compression in the manifold by "blowing" air into it, hence the basis of the term "blower"), and the methodology they use (much more area for the compression) means they come into full boost much quicker then a CSC. Full boost from 2000 RPM and adiabatic efficiencies near turbo levels.
Adiabatic Efficiency:
Roots: 40-50%
Turbo (properly sized): 70-80%
CSC (Procharger): 70-80%
Screwcharger (whipple, etc.): 70-80%
For those not versed, adiabatic efficiency has to do with how much of the work put forth into the device is put to use, and how much goes to heat.
A properly sized screwcharger will make power sooner than a centrifugal, doesn't have the exponential boost curve that a centrifugal does, and is approximately as efficient. It's also damn hard on drivetrain parts for that very reason (gobs of torque).
For a drag car, the efficiencies are really all that matter, and tuned properly, will run nearly the same, especially when you put a big stall on an auto with a CSC, as you can stall up to the boost range for it. On a street car, especially a stick, the screwcharger is a lot of fun, as your power is there, all the time, no lag. Nick said he wanted a stick, a whipple would be a lot more fun with that setup.
Last edited by digitalsolo; 08-07-2008 at 03:05 PM.
Guess who's car? 
08-07-2008, 03:12 PM
#2130
Ahh EPP shows up, that's what I get for saying Procharger... 
Drew, I thought you ICED down your intake, not Flavor-Iced down your intake....
EPP guys, you're supercharger nerds, any arguments with what I said? I realize you're Procharger biased...
Drew, I thought you ICED down your intake, not Flavor-Iced down your intake....
EPP guys, you're supercharger nerds, any arguments with what I said? I realize you're Procharger biased...
08-07-2008, 03:23 PM
#2136
LS1TECH Sponsor
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude....I was hungry, the flavor ices were too cold they were hurting my teeth, we needed some more HP....
it was a WIN-WIN-WIN situation....except I didn't get 400. hahaha.
Edit: Shocker,
You're no longer invited to my birthday party because you hurted my feelings.
it was a WIN-WIN-WIN situation....except I didn't get 400. hahaha.
Edit: Shocker,
You're no longer invited to my birthday party because you hurted my feelings.
Last edited by Azar; 08-07-2008 at 03:35 PM.
08-07-2008, 04:12 PM
#2137
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roots and whipple have nothing to do with each other. A roots blower (like an Eaton pre TVR or Magnacharger) is an inefficient piece of ****.
Whipple/Kenne Bell/Autorotor/Lysholm blowers aren't technically positive displacement, they do compression in the blower (where as a roots does most of its compression in the manifold by "blowing" air into it, hence the basis of the term "blower"), and the methodology they use (much more area for the compression) means they come into full boost much quicker then a CSC. Full boost from 2000 RPM and adiabatic efficiencies near turbo levels.
Adiabatic Efficiency:
Roots: 40-50%
Turbo (properly sized): 70-80%
CSC (Procharger): 70-80%
Screwcharger (whipple, etc.): 70-80%
For those not versed, adiabatic efficiency has to do with how much of the work put forth into the device is put to use, and how much goes to heat.
A properly sized screwcharger will make power sooner than a centrifugal, doesn't have the exponential boost curve that a centrifugal does, and is approximately as efficient. It's also damn hard on drivetrain parts for that very reason (gobs of torque).
For a drag car, the efficiencies are really all that matter, and tuned properly, will run nearly the same, especially when you put a big stall on an auto with a CSC, as you can stall up to the boost range for it. On a street car, especially a stick, the screwcharger is a lot of fun, as your power is there, all the time, no lag. Nick said he wanted a stick, a whipple would be a lot more fun with that setup.
Whipple/Kenne Bell/Autorotor/Lysholm blowers aren't technically positive displacement, they do compression in the blower (where as a roots does most of its compression in the manifold by "blowing" air into it, hence the basis of the term "blower"), and the methodology they use (much more area for the compression) means they come into full boost much quicker then a CSC. Full boost from 2000 RPM and adiabatic efficiencies near turbo levels.
Adiabatic Efficiency:
Roots: 40-50%
Turbo (properly sized): 70-80%
CSC (Procharger): 70-80%
Screwcharger (whipple, etc.): 70-80%
For those not versed, adiabatic efficiency has to do with how much of the work put forth into the device is put to use, and how much goes to heat.
A properly sized screwcharger will make power sooner than a centrifugal, doesn't have the exponential boost curve that a centrifugal does, and is approximately as efficient. It's also damn hard on drivetrain parts for that very reason (gobs of torque).
For a drag car, the efficiencies are really all that matter, and tuned properly, will run nearly the same, especially when you put a big stall on an auto with a CSC, as you can stall up to the boost range for it. On a street car, especially a stick, the screwcharger is a lot of fun, as your power is there, all the time, no lag. Nick said he wanted a stick, a whipple would be a lot more fun with that setup.
Wether you have a roots or a screw type supercharger you still have awesome low end torque. The biggest difference is you can run almost 2 to 3 lbs less on a whipple to achieve the same power rating of the eaton. Of course once you reach a certain limit (in the eaton's case 17 lbs) the whipple will be much more efficient.
Also with the mustangs ford designed the intercooler so well that 8 lbs vs 8 lbs on the whipple make almost no difference. The reason you gain a little is the whipple has less drag associated with it and it is much more efficient.
Also an error you have is that a centrifugal will continue to make boost at a liner rate whereas a positive diplacement blower loses it ability to make high boost as your spinning it past its max rpms (usually 18000 rpms) and are only going to make a lot of heat. A centrifugal, just as a turbo, is more efficent at higher rpm than the screw type but the centrifugal/turbo cant make boost under 3000 rpms like the positive displacement blowers can.
The torque curve on a positive displacement blower is awesome with an almost near horizontal max torque line from 2000 rpm to 7000 rpm. A centrifugal will have a linear torque graph with max torque coming in at a narrow range of rpm due to it building boost.
08-07-2008, 04:18 PM
#2138
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically he is saying that if your cruising at 2000 rpms and you punch it the positive displacement blower will have all its torque to the ground but the centrifugal will only have 1/4 of its max rated torue to the ground.
08-07-2008, 04:33 PM
#2139
The thing is if you can get it to hook its nice to have your torque there immediately without having to wait for it to build up. With the screw type blower you can put your foot on the gas and max torque is there. With the centrifugal type it wont reach max boost thus max torque until your at 4000 to 5000 rpms.
08-07-2008, 04:42 PM
#2140
On The Tree
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I know but I also know that people dont understand anything until you put it in a very easy to understand scenario. Sorry