Official TVS Thread!!!
10-01-2014, 12:10 AM
#9229
Anyone have any tips or advice for me? Im going to be purchasing an Eaton m112. My friend and i are planning fab up a mounting plate, inlet and still make the bypass work somehow. This blower is almost twice the size of the m62 and considerably larger than the tvs. Im kind of worried about that, kinda not. Because it will take more power to turn it probably but then again it will make more power and safer power on the same boost. Thoughts? Would i blow?
10-01-2014, 07:05 AM
#9230
Anyone have any tips or advice for me? Im going to be purchasing an Eaton m112. My friend and i are planning fab up a mounting plate, inlet and still make the bypass work somehow. This blower is almost twice the size of the m62 and considerably larger than the tvs. Im kind of worried about that, kinda not. Because it will take more power to turn it probably but then again it will make more power and safer power on the same boost. Thoughts? Would i blow?
I don't know if running a 112 would be worth it
10-01-2014, 08:16 AM
#9232
That particular "bigger blower" is not the answer
*Note* Conditions may vary
3.1 Pulley - m62 (assuming full catless 3" exhaust)
- 13629 s/c RPM @ 6500 rpm w/ OEM Crank Pulley
- 1.8 PR 11 psi / 1.9 PR 13 PSI (Roughly 825 m3/hr (485 CFM)
- 54% Efficiency at redline
3.1 pulley - M112 (assuming you can get it down to 11-13 psi using a 3.1 pulley - Notgonnahappen.com)
- 13629 s/c RPM @ 6500 rpm w/ OEM Crank Pulley
- 1.8 PR 11 psi / 1.9 PR 13 psi (1450 m3/hr = 853 CFM - This will never happen on our 2.0L at 1.8/1.9 PR - You would be over 30 psi with our engine)
- 48-45% efficiency at redline
You see the downward trend here? If the M112 already sees sub 50% at only 11-13 psi... try and plot where it would be at 25-30 PSI
The only trade off is that you'll be spinning the m112 slower (Hardly a trade off; cost you money and robs more power)
*Note* Conditions may vary
3.1 Pulley - m62 (assuming full catless 3" exhaust)
- 13629 s/c RPM @ 6500 rpm w/ OEM Crank Pulley
- 1.8 PR 11 psi / 1.9 PR 13 PSI (Roughly 825 m3/hr (485 CFM)
- 54% Efficiency at redline
3.1 pulley - M112 (assuming you can get it down to 11-13 psi using a 3.1 pulley - Notgonnahappen.com)
- 13629 s/c RPM @ 6500 rpm w/ OEM Crank Pulley
- 1.8 PR 11 psi / 1.9 PR 13 psi (1450 m3/hr = 853 CFM - This will never happen on our 2.0L at 1.8/1.9 PR - You would be over 30 psi with our engine)
- 48-45% efficiency at redline
You see the downward trend here? If the M112 already sees sub 50% at only 11-13 psi... try and plot where it would be at 25-30 PSI
The only trade off is that you'll be spinning the m112 slower (Hardly a trade off; cost you money and robs more power)
Last edited by 100% METH; 10-01-2014 at 08:56 AM.
10-01-2014, 09:02 AM
#9234
Definitely
The 5th gen m62 is well within our displacement limitations
If (BIG OLE IF) you can keep it PR low enough and continue revving... it's not a bad little blower.
Can't escape the blower constantly wanting to cannibalize efficiency at X P.R. vs RPM
A Eaton R900 would of been a better candidate over the m62 from the factory.
The 5th gen m62 is well within our displacement limitations
If (BIG OLE IF) you can keep it PR low enough and continue revving... it's not a bad little blower.
Can't escape the blower constantly wanting to cannibalize efficiency at X P.R. vs RPM
A Eaton R900 would of been a better candidate over the m62 from the factory.
10-01-2014, 09:20 AM
#9236
Definitely
The 5th gen m62 is well within our displacement limitations
If (BIG OLE IF) you can keep it PR low enough and continue revving... it's not a bad little blower.
Can't escape the blower constantly wanting to cannibalize efficiency at X P.R. vs RPM
A Eaton R900 would of been a better candidate over the m62 from the factory.
The 5th gen m62 is well within our displacement limitations
If (BIG OLE IF) you can keep it PR low enough and continue revving... it's not a bad little blower.
Can't escape the blower constantly wanting to cannibalize efficiency at X P.R. vs RPM
A Eaton R900 would of been a better candidate over the m62 from the factory.
10-01-2014, 10:11 AM
#9238
That particular "bigger blower" is not the answer
*Note* Conditions may vary
3.1 Pulley - m62 (assuming full catless 3" exhaust)
- 13629 s/c RPM @ 6500 rpm w/ OEM Crank Pulley
- 1.8 PR 11 psi / 1.9 PR 13 PSI (Roughly 825 m3/hr (485 CFM)
- 54% Efficiency at redline
3.1 pulley - M112 (assuming you can get it down to 11-13 psi using a 3.1 pulley - Notgonnahappen.com)
- 13629 s/c RPM @ 6500 rpm w/ OEM Crank Pulley
- 1.8 PR 11 psi / 1.9 PR 13 psi (1450 m3/hr = 853 CFM - This will never happen on our 2.0L at 1.8/1.9 PR - You would be over 30 psi with our engine)
- 48-45% efficiency at redline
You see the downward trend here? If the M112 already sees sub 50% at only 11-13 psi... try and plot where it would be at 25-30 PSI
The only trade off is that you'll be spinning the m112 slower (Hardly a trade off; cost you money and robs more power)
*Note* Conditions may vary
3.1 Pulley - m62 (assuming full catless 3" exhaust)
- 13629 s/c RPM @ 6500 rpm w/ OEM Crank Pulley
- 1.8 PR 11 psi / 1.9 PR 13 PSI (Roughly 825 m3/hr (485 CFM)
- 54% Efficiency at redline
3.1 pulley - M112 (assuming you can get it down to 11-13 psi using a 3.1 pulley - Notgonnahappen.com)
- 13629 s/c RPM @ 6500 rpm w/ OEM Crank Pulley
- 1.8 PR 11 psi / 1.9 PR 13 psi (1450 m3/hr = 853 CFM - This will never happen on our 2.0L at 1.8/1.9 PR - You would be over 30 psi with our engine)
- 48-45% efficiency at redline
You see the downward trend here? If the M112 already sees sub 50% at only 11-13 psi... try and plot where it would be at 25-30 PSI
The only trade off is that you'll be spinning the m112 slower (Hardly a trade off; cost you money and robs more power)
10-01-2014, 10:20 AM
#9239
Nope...
Regardless it wouldn't be a fair comparison because realistically you wouldn't see 11-13 psi out of a m112 on a LSJ
You would need to run a 5.3" pulley at 6500 to see 7971.69811 M112 S/C RPM for a near equivalent cfm
Quite the centrifugal you got there... I mean roots..
Regardless it wouldn't be a fair comparison because realistically you wouldn't see 11-13 psi out of a m112 on a LSJ
You would need to run a 5.3" pulley at 6500 to see 7971.69811 M112 S/C RPM for a near equivalent cfm
Quite the centrifugal you got there... I mean roots..
Last edited by 100% METH; 10-01-2014 at 12:16 PM.
10-01-2014, 11:09 AM
#9242
10-01-2014, 11:10 AM
#9243
well initial run with the tvs this morning went better than expected. way lean above 5500rpm, but that will be fixed for the drive home. Feels pretty decent, sorta understand peoples love for these things.
But we shall see what a stock motor can do with one I guess. Gonna push thing thing for 400whp, and then i"m never touching another cobalt again lol.
But we shall see what a stock motor can do with one I guess. Gonna push thing thing for 400whp, and then i"m never touching another cobalt again lol.
10-01-2014, 11:22 AM
#9245
Nope...
Regardless it wouldn't be a fair comparison because realistically you wouldn't see 11-13 psi out of a m112 on a LSJ
You would need to run a 9.4" pulley to 6500 to see 4,494 M112 S/C RPM for a near equivalent cfm
Quite the centrifugal you got there... I mean roots..
Regardless it wouldn't be a fair comparison because realistically you wouldn't see 11-13 psi out of a m112 on a LSJ
You would need to run a 9.4" pulley to 6500 to see 4,494 M112 S/C RPM for a near equivalent cfm
Quite the centrifugal you got there... I mean roots..
Your math is wrong there. Either way you would have to run an under drive ati and a large pulley. That's not my point though. The m112 will make more power and be more efficient than a m62 if you actually want to make power.
