That Rotrex Super is sweet. Is that another type of centerfugal charger?

 

No you must remember the content of my statement.

The entire reason to go with a supercharger is to eliminate lag and make low end torque. If you are going to bother to boost a car with a centrifugal, then you might as well just turbo. I never said that it was ****, just that out of all of the superchargers, it was the least impressive design.

Yes so I see you are only interested in trolling my posts and trying to find faults. Why are you wasting my time. Ass.

 

Yes but it's clutch makes it variable and under a no load situation it almost has no draw on the pulley.

 

How did I troll your posts??? I simply found a major fault in one of your posts. Now you are getting butthurt because I am not worshipping you like everyone else. Face it dude you didn't write all this stuff. Just own up to it. Also like I said do some research on prochargers, they are owning everybody in everything they compete in. One of the classes they compete in they were penalized and forced to use a smaller compressor size then the competing turbo because their supercharger made 1000 more hp then the competing turbo!! But since you know so much, I guess I am wrong and they aren't very impressive. Nice insult too. Real intelligent.

 

look wasey13 brian is throwing out many facts that can shed light on many topics that others may find harder to find than most ... the whole simple fact that he is taking time outa his day to help shows his dedication to the community ... your comment from the 'ghost' account you made simply shows that all you are here to do is nit pick without contributing anything at all ... if you found fault with any of the articles you should have submitted some information to correct it instead of saying things like,

"Know what would be really cool... if everything in it was fact based, instead of having blanks (things you know nothing about) filled in with oppionions, your's or whomever's."

Your choice of words and disrespect towards the person that is only trying to help is proof that you are not in anyway here to help.

 

I am helping the community too. By showing you guys that you shouldn't put so much faith in this guy's copy and pasted information. Show me where I disrespected him?? Was it in the same way he called me an "Ass."??? Also I did show information, I mentioned Procharger twice and explained that they are by far more superior compared to turbos and other superchargers. But the great all knowing Brian and his brainwashed yuppy(you) didn't see that, because nobody likes to be made look dumb and/or wrong.

Also explain how giving you WRONG information is helping you?




PS...nitpick is one word. More contributions from me.

 

You, IMO are trolling because you offered a negative juvenile comment directed not at my post, but at me personally. That was done on purpose to get a negative reaction from me. You didn’t even use your account, you had to use a second account that you made just to post once. So please stop pretending that I am negative for any reason but YOUR Attitude towards me. In my mind, you are a bit of a Douche because of that Post. Now, that may be a wrong ingression, but, that was your fault and you continue to impress me for sure. Get off the kick and post constructively as a discussion rather than try to discredit my post by insulting me.

Why not offer a solution if you are so convinced rather than just say”Procharger”.."Go See Procharger". I don't give a **** if you find my info good or not, it's more useful than whatever you have posted. I stand by it, it is meant as a knowledge base for those that have yet to learn about the basics of Forced Induction.

This is a "Small Engine Forum" The prochargers that are there range from "Lawnmower" to "Massive Drag Cars". Just like Turbos... We are all about finding the best way to add HP to suit our car. If you add a Centrifugal, you might as well invest in a turbo for the Cobalt. It will be better performer and not require HP losses form a belt. An Eaton will offer an instant bonus over the centrifugal that it will be ready to give low end boost and boost all the way through the powerband. The whole reason we choose a Supercharger over a turbo in the first place is to reduce lag. That is it, a Turbo is the better power adder unless LAG is brought into it, and the S/C is always.. No Lag, No Lag.

I stand by my original statement that the Centrifugal combine the worst of qualities of the S/C and the Turbo. You have to spin it so fast the it behaves just like a turbo. I never said it would not make HP or that it didn’t have a following of happy users.

The Centrifugal is good because it's simple to install and obviously makes good HP over N/A. The comment was that the centrifugal is belt driven and does not perform well at low end like an Eaton S/C. The S/C is chosen over turbo for the sole purpose of eliminating LAG. This is the only reason people are doing Bi-Charging in the first place. The Centrifugal has to spin so fast before it makes any major gains that you have to be over 3000 RPM on a small displacement car and it's robbing HP... WHY NOT JUST INSTALL A TURBO, that will do the same thing and require you to downshift to a power band and not take HP to drive the belt. I never said that it was ****. Reread the original post, I said that of all the selections of superchargers, this one although it is easy to install will pound for pound, give you the negative qualities of a turbo, unlike the others it was being compared to.

 

its obvious you don't know the difference between constructive criticism and disrespect ... brian here has his information backed by illustrations and quotes from various sources what did you say in your original comment from the ghost account? it had nothing to do with helping build the thread and everything to do with grabbing the attention of anyone that had read the thread for information to basically tell them that anything they had read up to your post was false. And to comment on your info about an alternative means of adding performance, all you said was this is better look look look more numbers look its better ... you didn't mention the process, you didn't say why so basically you did nothing to contribute

 

So it has to be like this... 'Excuse me sir, Brian, but your OPPINION on centrifugal superchargers is incorrect. A centrifugal charger offers the BEST of both worlds, no lag(belt driven) and makes power all the way up to redline (like a turbo). They are more efficient then almost all turbos and superchargers. They are also easily cooled. Hope I didn't hurt your feelers by disagreeing with you and showing that you are indeed wrong. Live long and prosper.'

Is that better mirage?

This is just one of the the mistakes that I brought up(most obvious), but I will leave the rest alone because it seems that nobody cares about useful, correct information on this site and will believe anything they read if it has pretty pictures.

 

:calmly: Enlighten us so that we may all learn. Just be sure not to come off abrasive, and go into a little more depth. You just came off the wrong way, that's why people are jumping on you. Take a deep breathe and relax. I don't think anyone is out to get you or are mad at your disagreence, just not happy with how you expressed it.

Let's start over and try to give wasey13 another shot. A little less heated this time.

 

I Feel so OWNED







Dude, It's still accurate even after all that you have posted in my thread.

 

Read what you wrote... and what you quoted out of the encyclopedia. One big contradiction. You said, "That a centrifugal supercharger only offers the worse of both turbos and superchargers and wasn't good for big horsepower." So have you visited procharger.com yet??

 

here is what I got outa the article ... the cent. sc is effecient when creating boost but because of its design it takes power away from the engine to drive the belt thus it lacks the ability to create low end boost and when it finally does create boost it creates large amounts of heat like a turbo ... no?

 

http://www.procharger.com/tech.shtml

 

your not serious are you? the procharger system is an intercooled cent. sc setup ... you bashed an entire article that was written on a normal cent. sc without an intercooler ... even their site shows an illustration of a regular cent. sc before the procharger(intercooled) setup I am seriously not the most techy car person here but I can clearly see that your link only helped brians article

 

READ MORE THEN JUST THE FIRST PAGE.


Revolutionary Self-Contained (SC) ProChargers
ATI’s SC ProCharger models are the first and only gear-driven centrifugal superchargers to feature self-lubrication, and contain the industry’s most advanced technology. The best-selling P-1SC-1 shares many of the design elements which deliver the record-setting durability and performance of ProCharger competition superchargers, and is also quiet and street legal. With their rugged design, these ProChargers are the only self-contained superchargers durable enough to be backed with a 3 year warranty and powerful enough to harness the benefits of intercooling.

The patented SC design eliminates the need for oil lines and punching a hole in the oil pan, thanks to an exclusive oil pump. This pump aerates the oil to create the oil mist lubrication required for the ProCharger’s precision bearings and gears. This oil pump (aeration pump) does not require priming at start-up, and oil changes are required only every 6,000 miles. Additionally, instead of being forced to utilize engine oil or the grease in sealed bearings, SC ProChargers are lubricated with an extremely high quality synthetic oil which is specifically engineered for high speed use, and produces the least frictional heat and parasitic load. The self-contained design also eliminates the heat that is transferred to a supercharger by engine oil in oil-fed applications, and avoids the risk of clogged supercharger oil lines, oil drainage problems, or engine oil leakage.

By combining advanced supercharger transmission design with the highest quality oil, SC ProChargers produce a larger net power gain because they run cooler and consume less power than comparable oil-fed designs. SC ProChargers also feature an internal step-up ratio of 4.10:1 for improved belt tracking and traction, and maximum low-rpm boost and power.

 

I would just like to point out that if I was selling a product and wanted to sell it to people who look at my "Dot Com", I would select the best product in the best conditions to run all of my tests on. If I was Garrett Turbo USA, and I wanted to sell on a graph, I would do all my tests on a giant T-60 hooked to a Powerstoke 6.2L capable of massive airflow with good efficiency, Best case.

Holy crap, Go read the first thing I say in the thread..

Although you are trying to do as I said and correct me on a minor detail, the underlying fact is that this is supposed to be FI 101, not FI 301.

I still stand by my entire article, even after the witch hunt. You are missing the point of the thread, a general concept and description of power adders. Centrifugals are less efficient when compared to a similarly sized and capable Eaton Twin Screw and they are totally out gunned by a properly sized well designed Turbo.

Once again, I never said that they were **** or Not Capable, "Differently Effective"

The point of a S/C instead of a Turbo is to eliminate LAG. The Centrifugal only becomes effective much higher in the revs when compared to an Eaton twin of same qualities. Thus, why bother, why not just Turbo and make better use of tuner time.

Therefore, Statement is accurate.

 

Once again, taken out of context.

 

Stop back-pedaling and read all of prochargers site. Centrifugal superchargers are one of the MOST efficient superchargers. And are capable of making more power down low then MOST roots and twin-screw superchargers. And I already showed proof that prochargers OWNED turbos, especially in one competition class. Just relax Brian, I know it sucks to be wrong, that's why I never am. Live with it though.

 

You have yet to prove your point..
I'm still waiting for it, I have been for 5 Days now.



I'm not backpedaling. All you do is Plug that LINK I read it, it's a nice piece of kit but the simple fact remains the same...I guess you are not reading what I'm posting..

So I will lower myself to your level and type nothing of interest and just send you a link..

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/tech/0107scc_garage/

And..

While the higher efficiency of the centrifugal supercharger is appealing, the design does have its downside. At low speeds, a centrifugal compressor can hardly pump at all, meaning there is very little boost at low rpm. This can be solved by spinning the supercharger faster, relative to the engine, but overdo it and you end up with too much boost at high rpm. This is where a turbocharger has an advantage. A turbo can be spooled at low rpm, and the wastegate used to keep it from overboosting at high rpm.

The end result of the centrifugal supercharger's high-rpm nature is a very peaky powerband. The Vortech Civic Si made an astounding 272 hp at the wheels, but the power curve is nearly exponential in shape, meaning that most of the time the car makes far less than peak power. As always, it pays to look at the whole powerband.

Peace. Still Waiting for a ton of mindblowing info.

 

Touche!

 

here here!

 

You are right it does pay to look at the whole powerband. Prochargers make more power then turbos and superchargers across the ENTIRE power band. Especially where it counts... in last half of the powerband, where ALL types of racing spend most of their time. I am guessing you just can't read or know very little about what all you wrote. Procharger's centrifugal superchargers right now are better then everything out, PERIOD.

-17 national championships in the past 3 years (11 in the past 2 years)
-World's fastest PUMP gas car (8.08 in the quarter on 93 octane)
-World's fastest LS1 powered car (7.94 in the quarter)
-World's fastest 5.0 mustang. (6.47 in the quarter)
-Some Prochargers are capable of making 1000 hp over a turbo of the same size
-http://www.procharger.com/racing-news/04overview.html
-THEY ARE THE BEST!

Are there any turbocharged cars making 2500+hp?

And from my last post that you forgot to read or were unable to read...

 

So what was your point in all of that, they win alot, but the fast still remains that they are not as effecient.

The Original Statement in the context of the thread is still true.


"maximum low-rpm boost and power" compared to another brand or style of centrifugal.. not proving much here...

 

i am not used to supercharges but i would love for everyone else to know its there i saw on one picture they had a blow off valve is there a way to put that on a cobalt ss 2.0L ??????????