And here I thought I was insane testing the waters when Euthanasia and I bolted the Magnuson TVS 1900 on my car...

a 2.4 bottom and a massaged head + a 2.3 whipple flowing more than 1000 cfm?

You planning on running near 40psi? You'll need to pulley the blower down significantly to make it flow anything worth a damn w/ only a 2.4 and head work + bolt ons... Boost is boost and all, but your lacking some serious displacement to even try and spin that blower into it's sweet spot.

If your engine will be able to handle 40+ psi, go for it... Kind of dumb though, since that blower will be creating boost far out of it's efficiency
range.

Guess the only advise I could give you is to keep the blower cool

 

Sounds like an expensive hair dryer.

 

its what he wants though

 

I think alot of this is along the mindset of a Vortech or Procharger type supercharger, a positive displacement supercharger (though the roots does this like crap, a twin screw proper like the autorotor or whipple, lysholm etc does it right) needs to only match engine RPM (not slip) to displace all the air it's volumetric efficiency dictates it generate, this is where the engine works for it.

On the Adiabatic effective % side the whipple is 25-50% better at the job than the Eaton Roots/TVS, and only 5% worse than a turbo on the bad end of a high spin output. I will be running the lower end of the supercharger mostly, it's more likely to cause boost blow out up top. This is where the supercharger works for it.

With everything considered the blower's heat level will be negated with alternate means.

Between two paired heat exchangers intake charges should remain low temp,
Heat Extractor hood will allow air cooling which on an evo nets anywhere from 10-40% cooling depending on ambien heat temp,
Oil coolant systems will be in place as required by endurance anticipation,

If it's hot after the dyno runs we'll see about additional means, but even so I don't see the supercharger struggling with more than 36-38psi, which is all I will need. We'll have to get beyound the Eaton rules when I show you the dyno with a really hard working twin screw. The 1.6 will not supply air demands of a 4 cylinder to meet goals, it could dyno queen it, but not track field it, would require extreme nitrous aids.

I'm not worried about heat here, there is more an issue with the fuel system maintaining pressures at the 8 to 9k redline. I havn't decided which redline to go to, I'll have to see which results the dyno tells me before I set in stone the limits on the standalone. The Aeromotive system uses two pumps and should remain at a reliable lower to mid pressure, but that's not certain because I've not gotten to see the fuel sheet for a four cylinder running a supercharger at this level. Turbo yes, the dynamic is different though for supercharger, you usually use a bit less fuel because the Air Fuel ratio doesn't have to be as rich to cool the engine.

 

You will not get that pressure, period. The power to drive that blower to that level will all be negated. I don't think you've done all of the research you need.

Let me know how the turbo lag is from your supercharger.

EDIT: Without the flat broad torque curve, what's the point in running a supercharger?

 

i dont get all your evo hate...talking like they own the world at everything and are the end all be all.




and also can you explain to me the coloration between a heat extracting hood on an evo and that of a cobalt?

 

You have many obstacles up ahead, lets see how you over come them.

You plan on posting a detailed pregression with a baseline dyno and so forth?

 

Yes I do, today after talking to whipple I'm going to test out the 1.6L and if it doesn't meet the requirements I'll update it to the 2.3L. This is a kit they're going to start selling shortly and it'd be good to see what it does. I'm not going to give up on the 2.3 a 1.6 is more going to be a appraisal so there are less broken parts when the big guy comes down.

If all goes well I'll try and include Air/Fuel and if the shop supports the sensors I'll include IAT's and pressure readouts.

The relation to the Evo Heat Extractor hood is because it's one of the more popular well known functioning hoods, mine will look alot like the 03-04 Cobra/GT500 but not everyone is familiar with it.

I hate Evo's because on track they are the trash talking look at me's that need to be set down in a good depression I'm going to send them when a much lower hp Cobalt destroys them.

 

your not breaking 350 on blower without ethanol...sorry
i can tell by the join date that your new to this platform so I will try to make this easy and polite
... either sleeve, forge, port, stud block with TVS and nitrous...or Turbo!

 

Read the post bro, she runs E-85 already. And the block will be a race ready 2.4L, the TVS isn't efficient enough to do the job. Join date or not this is not my first rodeo with a build.

If it takes hauling it out to ZZP and dropping it off for a winter so be it. If it takes alittle more demented power goal to run the 2.3 and I can mount a larger tire I may just go wide body and throw out a stock look in favour of an all out build.

 

good luck bud!

 

If the Evo killing project is successful I will apply that project knowledge to taking on Skyline GT-R's next go around.

 

I don't get the whole evo hating approach, there is always a faster evo, dude near me got a 702 awhp e IX on nitrous, a front wheel drive blower car ain't touching that

 

Don't hold your breath on the Whipple 1.6L They have been saying the same **** for about 2 years now. I have a extra Lysholm 1.6L I'll sell you.

 

What kind of #'s are you gettin with this Lysholm?

 

Still working on the kits. But 1 kit should be done this week.

 

On the track that doesn't mean anything, a 250fwhp Cobalt SS beat both the Evo and a Skyline with far superiour numbers on that years time attacks in '05.

Euthanasia, you get me a ready to bolt on 1.6L kit we talk price, but no test bunny stuff. Whipple is different because I have tons of spare parts for them at my friends garage which I can buy or take at little to nothing, but if whipple want's to be difficult I can test the 1.6L phase with Lysholm see how it rolls out on track.

Again it's all about dynamics, an AWD car will have tremendous initial acceleration thru 3rd gear, but most higher horse RWD's will take advantage in the 4th gear. FWD, well we own the better initial turn in grip the other types can't really match, turns are where wins are made, not straights.

 

What happen to the lysholm thread?

 

Road course no, drag strip yes, sorry out here in pittsburgh we're all about the numbers in a straight line

 

I laid it to rest. I'm only the doing 2 kits

 

some very basic numbers. say a stock m62 cobalt at 15psi makes 250bhp or so.
from this, we determine about 30PSIa is needed for about 250bhp.
Your stated goal is 600whp, which is about 700bhp.
You also state the blower will require 275bhp to turn. So you need enough boost to fuel what would be near a 1,000bhp motor if the blower were to be powered externally.

Rule of thumb, 200% of original pressure results in 180% of original power.
so, using this, 60PSIa results in 475bhp, and 120PSIa results in under 897bhp. now, lets factor in your displacement will be larger than the stock 2.0
120PSIa/(2.4l*2.0l)=100PSIa. Now, lets say you gain 12% flow with the ZZP ported head (ZZP's numbers, roughly). Now you only need 88PSIa, Lets drop that down to 75PSIa using the assumption that you are putting in a decent sized cam as well. Now, that leaves you with a requirement of about 60psi of boost you need to make from this blower.

So, go get 60PSI from a blower and come back to me with the results (especially since whipple's last gen blowers dont recommend boost higher than 33PSI, and I doubt the new gen is much higher, if any)

On top of this, this is all assuming 100% thermal efficiency... Thats definitely not going to be the case...so it looks like you'll need even more boost to compensate for those losses.

Go look at the 140AX's compressor map and tell me what kind of efficiency range its in at 4BAR (i doubt the map even extends that far...the old maps maxed out at 2.2BAR) and whatever expected CFM flow rate is needed to reach 1,000bhp



This is all using horrible approximations, and theres plenty of err stacking, but it gives a rough idea of what you're asking...

(disclaimer: I only read page 1 and 2 and the very beginning of page 3)

 

This would look alot more like a car running the TVS, the Twin screw runs Turbo like efficiency, help me out, someone with a turbo tell me how much you gained on one pound of raised boost approximately?

And the whipple I'm aiming for has 90VE 88AE, not shabby, alot higher than the Eaton. Capable of supporting 38lbs of boost, will need only 28. Ohh crazy right? Well if you where running an Eaton which really can't even keep that boost stable yes, twin screw producing much more efficient cooler boost, not so much.

The thread title may suggest it's all about the induction, it's alot more about the dynamic I'm counting on to push the extra 200hp out I'm sure your all wondering about.

 

i assumed 100% efficiency....so no, it doesnt matter if its a TVS or a M62 or a twin screw or even a centrifugal....

you think you're hitting 600whp on 28lbs? 28lbs isnt even enough boost to hit 600whp on a turbo car, let alone a belt driven compressor....

unless you're implying you're using nitrous to get you there, then its just not going to happen. and if you use nitrous, then no one will care. We're only interested in no-nitrous numbers....anyone can spray more HP into the motor as long as the internals are tough enough and you have the fuel for it...

 

The Time Attack Cobalt made 283whp off nitrous, and 380whp on nitrous.

 

Troll thread trolls hard.