aveosummit
Premium Unleaded User
I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done.-H.FORD
Posts: 723
|
Post by aveosummit on Apr 27, 2006 12:58:40 GMT -5
I understand that, that is why you would have to create a new intake system, customizing....
|
|
|
Post by y2daniel1981 on Apr 27, 2006 18:05:56 GMT -5
I went to the site and it's just about the car, but no info about the supercharger other then where they had to put it [glow=BLUE,4,300] IT IS AN EATON SUPERCHARGER[/glow] Owner: Fast Fours and Rotaries Hometown: New South Wales Ride: ’99 Daewoo Lanos SX
Under the Hood: 1.6L 16-valve DOHC, Eaton supercharger, larger injectors, water injection system, reprogrammed ECU, 9.5:1 compression ratio, K&N air filter, Hi-Tech mandrel-bent stainless steel 4-2-1 header, 2.5-inch exhaust and polished muffler with 3-inch tip
Props: GS Motor Bodies in Australia
That's not really any info about a supercharger. We want info such as what they went through to put it in and the specifics on the supercharger since Eaton is a type but doesnt give any info as to trim/model
|
|
aveosummit
Premium Unleaded User
I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done.-H.FORD
Posts: 723
|
Post by aveosummit on Apr 27, 2006 20:17:41 GMT -5
Okay you are right, no true specs beyond a name... I have contacted the author of the article maybe he has some more to share...
|
|
|
Post by precisionboost on Apr 29, 2006 21:01:42 GMT -5
I was thinking that Supercharger from a 1.6L Mini might be a good start..... but then again... a turbo is so much easier and it's more efficent.
I don't like superchargers much.... they use power from the engine to make them run.... where as a turbo uses waist energy from the exhaust.
Yes it causes restriction and yes it does take away some power.... but no where near to that of a supercharger.
Plus... with a turbo you can be light on the gas and barely spool the turbo..... which allows you to get better gas mileage if you don't stop on the throttle all the time.... with a supercharger it's allways sucking power off the drive belt and it's allways pushing in more air/fuel so mileage is allways crappy.
Turbo's will allways make more power..... they are more efficent at compressing the air.... which results in lower intake temperatures and more power per PSI of boost.
Just my two cents on Supercharger vs Turbocharger
|
|
|
Post by y2daniel1981 on Apr 30, 2006 2:08:37 GMT -5
the Mini supercharger runs on the same belt as the waterpump
|
|
aveosummit
Premium Unleaded User
I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done.-H.FORD
Posts: 723
|
Post by aveosummit on Apr 30, 2006 4:10:26 GMT -5
I was thinking that Supercharger from a 1.6L Mini might be a good start..... but then again... a turbo is so much easier and it's more efficent. I don't like superchargers much.... they use power from the engine to make them run.... where as a turbo uses waist energy from the exhaust. Yes it causes restriction and yes it does take away some power.... but no where near to that of a supercharger. Plus... with a turbo you can be light on the gas and barely spool the turbo..... which allows you to get better gas mileage if you don't stop on the throttle all the time.... with a supercharger it's allways sucking power off the drive belt and it's allways pushing in more air/fuel so mileage is allways crappy. Turbo's will allways make more power..... they are more efficent at compressing the air.... which results in lower intake temperatures and more power per PSI of boost. Just my two cents on Supercharger vs Turbocharger I think that a supercharger is better but that is my two cents...read below.... Overview: Supercharger vs. Turbocharger By Brian Ferrari Jul 19, 2004, 17:00
Email this article Printer friendly page Discuss this story The intention with this article is to shed some light on the theories behind turbocharging the modern engine, and the wonderful advantages it gives us in both speed and basic engine design issues. This post is also to try and give people a better understanding of supercharger systems and how they work to make such a simple thing as an engine even simpler (speaking in terms of tuning). I personally am tired of seeing people bicker over the differences between the two basic designs, and would like everyone to note the vast similarities among them instead. So without further delay... I will start with this simple statement:
"It makes no sense to build a naturally aspirated engine if what you are looking for is good power output."
To understand why this is so obviously true, we need to break the concept of an engine down into its simplest parts. There are 4 main parts to an engine that concern airflow: -the induction system -the cylinder head(s) -the exhaust system -the camshaft(s)
Now if you think of the engine in terms of airflow and forget about fuel for a minute, it becomes a very simple matter really. What we want to do is best flow air through the cylinder head, from the induction system to the exhaust system and then out into the world again. This is best & most naturally accomplished by pressure variation, because as almost anyone with a high school education knows, air naturally flows from areas of higher concentration (pressure) to lower concentration (pressure). Now let's assume for a minute that we are talking about an engine at or near sea level, well we can just forgo the exact physics of things and say that at both the induction system's inlet & the exhaust's outlet we have equal pressure (just under 15psi absolute pressure). So in order to flow air into this system we must always be working a balancing act between the three fundamental sections of the engine, which are exposed to each other only through the camshaft's orchestration of the valves. So forget everything else you know about engines and start thinking of what's under your hood in this way for the rest of this post .
NA ENGINES (naturally aspirated) These must work within a maximum pressure variation of 0psi (which is really hard to create without massive pumping losses) and 14.7psi (maximum atmospheric pressure @ sea level). To add to the basic problem of how to flow air into and out-of this system, both ends of the system start out at the same pressure, meaning air doesn't naturally want to go IN or OUT. This can be accurately termed as a “pain in the ass”. Now engineers and enthusiasts alike have long been fascinated with how to make power from this setup, but I am talking specifically about supercharged engines here, and as I already stated "It makes no sense to build a naturally aspirated engine if what you are looking for is good power output." So forget about how you can best accomplish this through piston movement and it's effects on cylinder pressures, and understand that it's just a whole lot easier to get an engine to work if it's supercharged.
FI ENGINES (forced induction) From a pure engine design standpoint, it makes MUCH more sense to pressurize the intake system than to run NA. When only the intake system is running under pressure well above atmospheric, it becomes perfectly obvious that air is going to want to flow through the engine exactly the way we want it to, and both cam timing & exhaust sizing becomes much less important to getting the system to work right (as it was before in NA setup). The air will naturally want to flow into the cylinder head, and then after the very strong power stroke (thanks to all that air) it will naturally want to flow out into the lower pressure exhaust system afterwards. Everything in the engine will be working at pressure above atmospheric and the pressure differences will be greatest in the induction system, so all air will want to exit out the tail pipe quickly and efficiently. One other thing should be said here: turbos technically ARE superchargers. A supercharger is ANY device that pressurizes the intake to above atmospheric pressure, and turbos do this exactly like superchargers do. The only difference is in how a turbo gets the energy necessary to perform it's job, and also that the turbo contributes to supercharging the exhaust system (or more accurately a portion of it, the exhaust manifold).
THE CASE FOR SUPERCHARGING Since a crank driven s/c (s/c = supercharger) is what people are normally talking about when they use the term supercharger, I will no longer say "crank driven" to make the distinction between it and a turbo. Now using a supercharger makes a ton of sense simply because it only has a direct effect in pressurizing the engine on the side we want it to, the induction side. Since pressures will always be higher here than in any other part of the system (except of course during the engine's power stroke, but that's always sealed off from the rest of the system so we can forget about that complexity), it's very easy to make this combination a powerful one. NA engines often use large amounts of valve overlap to get the whole system to work properly at higher RPM, which has obvious drawbacks in that it's possible for the intake system and exhaust systems to interact in a negative way (since they operate at similar pressures). It's sometimes just as easy to get air flowing backwards through the system as it is to go forwards in an NA setup, which is one reason camshaft choice is so important to where in the RPM band best power will be produced. And here is where the beauty of supercharging is; neither valve overlap amounts nor perfect exhaust system designs are completely essential to keep everything flowing in the right direction. No matter how long the exhaust is exposed to the intake system through valve overlap, air should NEVER pass backwards through the system unless the supercharger stops working.
THE EVIL OF SUPERCHARGING The evil of supercharging is that some of the power we finally get from combusting the air/fuel mixture must go back into powering the supercharger. So here we have designed this whole system that works so well, yet we have to power it with some of our hard earned torque. This is not a good thing, but then again nothing so simple is ever going to come for free. Do superchargers work? Of course they do, which is why many racing engine uses the technology unless the rules prohibit it. The net result is more total power from the system, but a portion of this power must be sapped from our output to make it all work.
THE CASE FOR TURBOCHARGING This section is easy to write, because it's exactly the same thing as the supercharger portion. We have all of the same advantages, except for one major benefit. That benefit is that turbocharging runs off what is largely wasted energy, so that shucks drawback of needing to power the system with some of our hard earned torque is removed. In this way, a turbocharger addresses the one main drawback to using a supercharger, but as you will see in a second the supercharger addresses the one main drawback of turbocharging.
THE EVIL OF TURBOCHARGING Hopefully you now understand why it makes so much sense to forgo designing engines for NA use and just supercharge the sucker instead, at least when we are talking about how to best make power. And if you have been following what I have said, you will also understand the bad effect turbos have on our little perfect world of pressure variation. A turbo is an ingenious little design that harnesses the wasted kinetic energy we dump out through the exhaust system to actually force more air into the engine. This is good for the same reasons that supercharging is good, but it has one major drawback: it of course increases the pressure within a portion of the exhaust system. While turbocharging a motor increases the amount of air that can be flowed into it, it has a negative effect on how easily we can flow it back out again. This weakens our positive pressure difference between these two fundamental sides of the engine, and causes both cam timing & exhaust system design to again become extremely important to making good power. This is most certainly not a good thing, but can a turbo overcome this drawback with the other inherent good it possesses? It certainly seems so, because in most current forms of racing where the rules don’t probihit the use of tubos or slap restrictions on their use, the turbo reigns supreme in terms of engine power output.
Now I didn't post this to make a statement about which system will work better for your intended use, because the answer is (as usual) "it depends". Sorry, but if there was such a clear cut answer do you really think people would still be debating this topic? A long time ago someone would have proven everyone else wrong, and either turbos or superchargers would no longer exist. Remember, these systems were designed and in use on production vehicles long before most of us were born, so it's not like this is a new debate. The purpose here is to educate people on exactly why we would want to supercharge or turbocharge an engine in the first place. Also I wanted people to see, from a basic and theoretical perspective, how each system is different in its function and it's relative pros & cons. Hopefully this discussion of basic theory helped some of you come to a better understanding of FI engines, and that my leaving out any real world examples actually made it easier to understand.
|
|
aveosummit
Premium Unleaded User
I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done.-H.FORD
Posts: 723
|
Post by aveosummit on Apr 30, 2006 4:18:13 GMT -5
I must point out that it is a matter of opinon as to which is better and it also depends on your desired outcome....
|
|
exodus
Nitrous User
Posts: 886
|
Post by exodus on Apr 30, 2006 18:04:34 GMT -5
Instead of the screw type pictured above, another alternative would be one like this: I think that's called a centerfugal type supercharger, not positive though. The major benefit would be that you can retain the stock throttle body and intake manifold. If properly designed and mounted it can be in perfect position for the intake piping to run through the hole into the fender, with no bends. I know there's a write-up or link somehwere on this forum about the advantages and disadvantages of each supercharger type... But if I remember correctly the centerfugal types are geared towards peak horsepower, and aren't as efficient as screw types in the low rpm range. However they're still nothing to be scoffed at, there are plenty of vr6s with the same supercharger setup pictured above... they easily push above 300hp. To get the screw type charger to fit, you would need to fabricate an intake manifold that would cross the valve cover to the front and onto the charger. Much like how most VW intake manifolds are (the intake ports are in the front of the head, while the throttle body is above the exhaust ports on the rear of the head). The advantage to this would be more low-end, if properly designed, because of the longer intake runners.
|
|
|
Post by y2daniel1981 on Apr 30, 2006 19:51:21 GMT -5
yes it's a centrafugal
|
|
|
Post by AveoSam on Apr 30, 2006 21:44:38 GMT -5
yea its is.....on the deltamotor site they had a kalos tuned using a rotrex centrafugal supercharger
|
|
|
Post by precisionboost on Apr 30, 2006 23:54:09 GMT -5
the Mini supercharger runs on the same belt as the waterpump And this is a problem because? ? I've worked on a new mini ( nitrous install )... so it came to mind since it would be the the right size for the Aveo engine.... sure it would mean fabricating a custom manifold but I'm sure this is what the "howler" guys did for their lanos project. As far as this quotation by "Brian Ferrari" well.... ummm.... I don't want to come out and say he's not a good source of information but there are a half dozen things that I shook my head at. The one statement that really bugs me is when he said "turbos technically ARE superchargers" This is like saying.... "oranges technically ARE apples " .... just because an orange is a fruit and an apple is a fruit.... it doesn't mean that an orange is an apple or vise versa. The design of a typical Supercharger is completly different than a typical turbocharger...... sure they both pressurize air but that's where the similarities end ( just like apples and oranges are both fruits.... and that's where their similarities end ) Centrifugal superchargers are an attempt to keep the superchargers alive..... the inefficent screw type superchargers are eventually going to go away. When it comes right down to it.... a centrifugal supercharger is basicly the compressor side of a turbo set up to run off a drive belt..... if anything I would call this a supercharger/turbocharger hybrid since it has similarities to both types. Hmmm....it seems that I'm going to have to teach you guys some theory at some point.... It seems like most of the guys on this board are younger guys that are new to the tuner scene. I say this because there does not seem to be a whole lot of indepth technical talk.
|
|
aveosummit
Premium Unleaded User
I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done.-H.FORD
Posts: 723
|
Post by aveosummit on May 2, 2006 5:26:56 GMT -5
Well, The only reason that I post the article was to stir some discussion.
|
|
|
Post by justanotheruser on May 9, 2006 19:36:07 GMT -5
Precisionboost: That's why people like me come here, to take advantage of the years of wisdom people like yourself have to offer. I think I learned more about turbos/superchargers from this thread than I knew to begin with.
Of course, I didn't know until just now what the hell the N/A in "N/A Tech" stood for, either. I don't expect to be getting 300hp out of my Wave, but I'm learning and improving myself. What more can ya ask for?
|
|
|
Post by precisionboost on May 29, 2006 23:27:57 GMT -5
300 hp.... why not?
Sure the 2.0L is a better "turbo" platform due to all the components available but there is no reason why 300hp couldn't be squeezed out of a well built 1.6L
This engine made 148bhp on a Lotus test bench during testing and that was naturally aspirated. ( N/A )
|
|
|
Post by AveoSam on May 29, 2006 23:31:07 GMT -5
300 hp.... why not? Sure the 2.0L is a better "turbo" platform due to all the components available but there is no reason why 300hp couldn't be squeezed out of a well built 1.6L This engine made 148bhp on a Lotus test bench during testing and that was naturally aspirated. ( N/A ) any ideas of what they did to the engine to get it to put out that kind of bhp?
|
|