Supercharger Project | FerrariChat

Supercharger Project

Discussion in '308/328' started by smg2, Jun 7, 2006.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    #1 smg2, Jun 7, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I thought i'd create the thread where i catolog my progress. i finally got he specs on the Vortec units and made a mock up. since i'm also working on the gas tank lines i figured i'd kill a few birds with one stone, so cam puleeys and SC will be done all together now.

    i started by clearing out some space. i still need to remove the fiberglass intake scoop, but that requires moving the A/C too. i haven't done that yet, i removed the gas vapor canistor, it'll will need to be re-located. the coolant pipe on my car was slightly in the way, a simple adjustment of the rubber hose fixed the issue.

    so for now it ;ooks real good location wise. it will allow the use of the brackets to the cam cover and keep in plane with the crank. the intake is facing the wrong side do to the tight clearance we have. a custom molded intake hose t ofeed the SC will be easy enough. as you can see the current location will allow for a straight shot into the CIS. fits under the lid and is far enough away to stay cool.

    i think too this location also is very similar in the 308 for space.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  2. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    #2 smg2, Jun 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    talk about brain fart!!!
    the flippin head unit is backwards ie clockwise, i need it CCW. no fear, i re-mocked the head unit and went for another placement. not as 'clean' but still fits and works. i like it's rotation as it allows for better bracket location. the other issue to handle is the belt. the last pic shows the layout and two options on belt wrap for now.

    maybe i need to stop working so late.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  3. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    checklist:
    fuel lines to CIS need adjustment
    coolant pipe needs re-routing
    WUR and bypass valve need new positions to allow for more room on inducer
    stock fiberglass duct -removed-
    oil feed/return lines
     
  4. ernie

    ernie Two Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Nov 19, 2001
    22,614
    The Brickyard
    Full Name:
    The Bad Guy
    This is gonna be interesting, I like it.
     
  5. Ricambi America

    Ricambi America F1 World Champ
    Sponsor Owner

    Dude, that'll never work. Those paper housings will burn up when the engine gets hot. Also, I don't think that blue tape will hold it in place for very long.

    I'd switch to duct tape and cardboard.




    :)



    (Keep us updated!! Looks very cool)
     
  6. Mike C

    Mike C F1 Veteran
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Aug 3, 2002
    6,081
    Southeast USA
    Full Name:
    Mike Charness
    Obviously the stock airbox goes away, but then how is air filtration handled?

    Looking good!
     
  7. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,741
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    I'm not sure which vortex unit you are planing on, but most are available in CW or CCW rotation
     
  8. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    right, CW and CCW is avialable on most all. if you notice in the first layout the unit is facing the engine with the shaft facing the body. in that configuration the motor would be turning impellar backwords, so i would need a CCW unit. the next set of pictures is how the CCW unit sits.

    normally the head unit would face towards the 'front' of the motor and then the std. CW rotaion would work, however becouse i have to turn it around to get the clearance needed for the pulley it now needs to be CCW. hope that makes sense.
     
  9. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    #9 smg2, Jun 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    Okay, i'm going to admit my mistakes now. the first layout is correct, yep thats right correct. anyone want to guess why? see i mised it until the Vortech design guy pointed out my mistake. the drive gear reverses rotation on the impeller so my first layout is correct.

    please ignore the second as it's wrong.

    i promise to no longer work past 1am. anymore screwups and i might end up with a flux capacitor!



    NEWS!
    you heard it here first, Carl of 928 Motorsports fame told me he has been wanting to develop a SC kit for the 308 for awhile now. so we'll see if that happens, i guess a little competition isn't bad. my head start is he's never looked in the engine bay and was suprised to find out the engine is transverse mounted, maybe i should have kept that to myself. ah well.


    i have finally gotten the engineers input from Vortech on the correct unit and the map showing our engine layout. basicly it'll start producing boost around 3000~3500 rpm and by 4k it'll be at 2psi pushing 13.57Lb/min under NA @ 4k the engine draws in 11.7Lb/min. so it's efective boost range that you'll feel will be from 4k to redline. here is the numbers:
    4k ~ 2.5psi
    6k ~ 5.4psi
    7k ~ 7.6psi
    8k ~ 10psi

    the max rpm i set was 8k @ 10psi taking the max HP to 325hp
    the Head unit is the V-9G, by far the most effeciant uniot for our application. from 5k~8k we are in the center effeciacy island of 74% and right through the middle too. Vortech was suprised as that is the best layout one could ever hope for. they at first tried to push the V-1 but we sat to far left and too close to the surge line for my taste.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  10. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    #10 smg2, Jun 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    for comparason here is the V-1 SC head unit. similar results on the map but to the left, still good. the advantage of this unit is the updated gear box. however it is larger. i mocking this one also for fitment. the reason being as i want to feel out the differences, the V-9 is slighty more effeciant but has a weaker persay gearbox. the V-1 is stronger but a little less effeciant.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  11. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    #11 smg2, Jun 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  12. show time

    show time Formula Junior

    Jan 5, 2006
    670
    Scottsdale AZ
    Full Name:
    Chris
    WOW looks all too familiar when I had a custom SC designed for my Mustang...Looks awesome keep it up...
     
  13. ernie

    ernie Two Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Nov 19, 2001
    22,614
    The Brickyard
    Full Name:
    The Bad Guy
    It may be quiet, but people are watching. ;)
     
  14. enjoythemusic

    enjoythemusic F1 World Champ

    Apr 20, 2002
    10,676
    Worldwide
    Full Name:
    Steven

    Yes, we are watching... and this winter i think SOMETHING will be done to the car by someone.
     
  15. ernie

    ernie Two Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Nov 19, 2001
    22,614
    The Brickyard
    Full Name:
    The Bad Guy
    To your car? Don't tell me our local mad scientist is gonna lay his hands on it.
     
  16. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,741
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    Scott,
    I'm not completely sure why (I.m pretty sure it's the flow profile of the heads), but 308QV engines are air pigs and I'm pretty sure the 308 2v and the 328 are the same.

    When I was during my first SC set-up, I wanted 6-8 psi, which translated to 10 in my twisted world. I decided to go with an eaton roots (so there was a lot of thermal expansion contributing to the boost) and the engineer recomended a 62ci. I bought a 90ci figuring it let room for future upgrading. Long story short, I had that poor thing spinning to 16000rpm (it has a 14000 redline) to get 10psi. At 16000 rpm it pumps about 58 lb/min of air (90x16000/12^3/13.5X.95). 58 is a LOT more than 40. On a QV or 328 I don't think 40 will give you more than 3 or 4 psi of boost.

    The unit I have now flows about 80 lb/min to yield about 20 psi and a little over 500hp....80 lb/min should yield 750+ hp according to the blower people and the research I did.

    The bigger unit that will flow 60 lb/min is probably the one one need even if it is a couple % lower efficiency .
     
  17. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    i think whats throwing you is the way the superchargers are calculated for air flow displacement. the twin screw is fixed displacement so it's easier to get the VE based on size and RPM. the centrifugal is not a fixed displacement so it needs to be tested and then you can see it's VE based on RPM. then we need to plot the engines needs onto it. hence the difference between the maps.

    the VE of a 4valve usually runs 10% better than a 2v so your 4v will get more air per cycle than the 2v.

    to need 60lb/min i would be at 23psi with a PR of 2.6. i would also be heating the air to 250*F and lose 25%Ev off the head unit. target HP would be 450hp for that level. from that we can see the down side of the centrifugal to to the twinscrew or simply a turbo. yes the V-1 SC would handle those needs, but it would be a larger unit than needed. if one wanted to toss the A/C to get more room and redo the head gasket, i'd say go with the V-1 crank up the boost and add in an intercooler. the lower efficiancy would be offset somewhat by the increase in displacement and power. but i do think 23psi for 450hp is not the way to go with that design, a turbo would do it better and accross the rpm range.
     
  18. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,741
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    OK, but don't be surprised when you don't get the boost you planned for. I'm trying to help you aviod the mistakes that I've already made.

    The superchargers I've tried rate flow by inlet CFM, so I converted that to lb/min at STP for you to be able to compare to the mass flow numbers that centrifugal units (turbo or SC) are rated in. No confussion.

    I'm also using about 500 lb/hr of fuel with my current set-up and I used about 300 with the old set-up. That's enough fuel for 800hp and 500 hp on engines that actually made 520 and 360 respectively

    The reason for the high fuel usage is that a lot of fuel is going straight out the exhaust unburned along with the extra air that's being pumped through. 308 engines have a terrible blow-down problem and are extremely wasteful of air and fuel because of it.

    This also makes it hard to size a compressor because much more air is required than the math says should be required. I actually talked to the vortex guys when I designed both systems. The first time was looking at a V1, I don't think the V9 was out yet, that's when I made the exact same graph of boost at rpm you posted and decided I wasn't happy with it and went another direction. The second time I was planning a variable ratio drive and gave votex another call, but I finally just gave up on them because I couldn't get them to believe the numbers I was giving them and do the math right. The numbers are what they are and confirmed with 2 separate compressors, so it's not some kind of fluke where the first compressor just didn't flow the way it was supposed to.

    A third data point is the turbo Paul (turboQV) has on his car, it's a 60-1 compressor which flows 65 lb/min and it makes 15 psi. A turbo does a little better with blow-down than an SC due to the increased pressure in the exhaust, but 65 lb/min should be good for 650hp, he makes 400 if I recall.

    Now you know why my heads are off and being ported, I want to fix the blow-down problem and keep the air and fuel I'm pumping in the engine to be burned. I'm also planning on re-timing the cams to a 114 or 116 lobe separation angle, I currently have them at the euro 109 instead of the US 107.
     
  19. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    i understand, but the centrifugal charger is not producing even boost as you know. it builds with speed. as such at redline is where you'll tickle 10psi it drops under that. a turbo would build it faster and keep it constant across the board better as it's not rpm dependent.

    my calcs show at 60lb/min 450 crank HP. so if he's getting 400 wheel ( i assume) from 65lb/min than thats on target of my calcs. there is always a percentage of error. i think the positive displacement charger is going to lose more air to blowby becouse it develops it sooner than the centrifugal. not to say there isn't any loss.

    gotta run, i'll type in more later

    thanks mark...
     
  20. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,741
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    I'm giving you data for the 7700 engine rpm point, no other point because that is the point you're using to set the design.

    Paul's getting about 400 crank hp, not wheel hp, but there is probably a touch more flow left in the compressor, so say 60 lb/min to get 400. With a SC, I only got 360 from 60 lb/min, and that would be the differences in efficieny and blow-down. I'm now making 420 rwhp and using about 80 lb/min to do it.

    Any way, know you have that data I have, I hope it helps.
     
  21. Javelin276

    Javelin276 Formula Junior

    Jan 16, 2005
    512
    Idaho
    Full Name:
    Thor Zollinger
    Looking at the two compressor charts, if we go with the V1-SC and we do need to push it up to 58 lb/min like Mark recommends, it only requires another 1000 rpm or so (and stays about the same efficiency) where the V-9G is pushed up another 5000 rpm and into a much less efficient band.

    I know the V-9G is smaller and easier to shoe-horn into the car, but the larger compressor may be the best bet.

    I did some quick calculations too, and my numbers came out inbetween the two of you. Just my 2-bits worth.

    Thor
    www.JavelinArt.com
     
  22. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    a tale of two cities, the V-9 works great and better than the V-1 for the gains we're after. anything over 10psi and you should really consider an intercooler. so if you want to turn it up a notch than the V-1 is a better choice for more boost but not as efficiant from 0-12psi as the V-9 is, a trade for more boost. but at 58lb/min the air temps are way over 250*F.

    the problem here is that twinscrew compressors operate far different from a centrifugal. the twinscrew does not increase it's displacement as it increases speed the same way a centrifugal does. so there are slight differences in required lb/min between the two.

    okay the calcs are different between the two so i just ran the numbers for both side by side. to achieve 325hp from stock:

    centrifugal;
    9.85psi / 39.31lb.min

    twinscrew;
    13.81psi / 45.66lb.min (640cfm)

    at first glance it would seem the twinscrew is at a disadvantage, but were talking redline rpm. the twin screw would be developing more power sooner due to its fixed displacement. if we picked a 90ci blower it would need to spin out to 12,307rpm. a 90ci moves .052ft3 per rev. now thats a paper calc, god only knows if the 90ci accutually can achieve this without losses. the maps from the centrifugals help in the choice.

    the only thing i can think of is we are doing our calcs different.
     
  23. smg2

    smg2 F1 World Champ
    Sponsor

    Apr 1, 2004
    16,332
    Dumpster Fire #31
    Full Name:
    SMG
    even the v-1 would not be a good choice for 60lb/min your so far up the map if you let off the throttle you'll hit surge. and spining the unit to 65k rpms isn't good for it's life. at that level you'll need a larger unit, but then the trade off is even less lower rpm operation. for gains past 50% go with a turbo or a twinscrew. the centrifugal would be hell on the street.
     
  24. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,741
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #24 mk e, Jun 11, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I'm very confused now for 2 reasons. First, I'm not doing any math, I'm guess giving you test data. These are real flow vs boost test results for a qv engine. Second, if an engine will make 325 at 9.85 psi with a centrifugal compressor, it will make 325 at 9.85 with a twin srew....actually a touch lower because they are higher efficiency. But at any rate, the hp is a function of mass flow, so if 325 hp requires 39 lb/min of air, then that is a constant regardless of boost, intercoolers, compressor type, it varys only if the engine itself is changed in some way. There must be something wrong with your spreadsheet.

    The only math I did was to convert the inlet cfm of my compressor maps to mass flow to compare to your compressore maps. I used 13.5 cfm/lb for the convertion, that's all the math I did.

    I think both the compressors you're looking at will work for you, but as you mention, will require a blow-off valve to aviod surge if you are building a blow-thur system.

    The only thing I really wanted to warn you about is the pulleys. When I did my first system, I did what you're doing and talked to the engineers, got a compressor and the pulley they recomended for 8 psi and 10 psi...and got 2.5 psi and 3 psi of boost respectively. Trying to get it up where it belonged, I ended up with a 2" blower pulley which requires the belt to play a middle C it was so tight and it still slipped a bit. A 3" or 3.5" blower pulley is where you want to be with at least 180 degrees of wrap...and if you guess way low on flow to begin with, you'll end-up spending a lot of money re-making pulleys.

    You might want to think about a second blow-off valve, the first one is what they sell as a blow-off valve and is vacuum controled and will prevent any surge problems. The second one would be a simple pressure-relief valve mounted after the throttle body. The reason is that you are going to have a couple things working against you.

    The injected engines make peak torque at 5500 and peak hp at 6800 with redline at 7700. The torque dropping at 5500 means the VE of the engine is dropping, so it wants less air per rev, but the blower is delivering more. The hp dropping after 6800 means the engine's air flow (volumetric or mass flow) peaked at 6800 and is dropping, but again the blower is delivering more. So, if you set the drive ratio on the blower to give 10 psi at 7700, it may only be 6-7 psi at 6800 and maybe 3-4 at 5500 and you won't hit your hp goal which was based of boost at 6800 rpm.

    On my graph the problem shows pretty clearly. If you look at the yellow line, you can swee it start to rise at 5500, then really turn up at 6800. And remember, this is with a scew type blower, so the volumetric/mass flow at almost perfectly linear with rpm, not expontential. A second pressure relief valve would let you set the boost at 6800 for hp and not be WAY over boosting at redline. You could probably assume the blower is perfectly linear and map the engines flow to code into your spreadsheet which will give you a much more accuate prediction of manifold pressure at any given rpm.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  25. Mike C

    Mike C F1 Veteran
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Aug 3, 2002
    6,081
    Southeast USA
    Full Name:
    Mike Charness
    Did you see the Voretc complete charge-cooled kits for Mustangs? About $5K complete, plug-and-play for a claimed 54% increase in HP.

    http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/news/2006_gt_ho.html

    I wish it was that easy for our cars! Of course, maybe it will be when Scott is done with this project... :)
     

Share This Page