Nick
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,483
|
|
Mar 15, 2006 19:01:04 GMT
|
it makes good tv. anyone with any brains or real interest in cars knows half of TG is mediawaffle, who cares though its funny.
anyway turbo's superduperchargers..etc etc.. yes i agree with all of above:p
|
|
idea stolen from rattely eddie.
this weeks car count "5"
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2006 19:12:29 GMT
|
Yeah lots of work just get an M45 for £80, or a really cheap turbo!
J
|
|
|
|
SteB
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,408
|
|
Mar 15, 2006 19:48:59 GMT
|
As above, Rotrex and Vortec chargers are basically chopped up turbos.
With the amount of M45s coming off Minis these days, its definately the cheapest and possibly best option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2006 20:03:17 GMT
|
its this sort of thing that gets me through the day, sitting on the trian 'why not make a blower out of a turbo'
or walking to college (no car atm ;D) thinking about building a hemi powered fiberglass shelled roofers transit van ;D
etc etc,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2006 21:32:12 GMT
|
Rotrex are pretty good, heard some rave reviews of them. None of the disadvantages of a conventional supercharger (bar some losses due to drag) and much less lag than a comparible centrifual supercharger or a turbo. A lot of it is down to setting everything up right, not the kind of unit you chose as well But they have none of the advantages of positive displacement chargers so you may as well turbo it.... You still have to wait for it to spool up and you have to drive it, they are also seriously loud, and its not a pleasant sound either The whole point of a supercharger as opposed to a turbo is the torque right off idle, which you don't get with a centrifugal type, so what is the point ? A positive displacement supercharger may be slightly less efficient (arguable in the case of the lysholm) but it does work very well for a road engine, it improves Volumetric efficiency in the lower end of the rev range where its needed, then tails off and becomes less efficient as the revs rise and the engine peaks and starts to tail off. The centrifugal chargers only reach their efficiency range as the engine is coming to its own peak and starting to tail off so not great for a road engine... you may as well run a Turbo and drive it for nothing to get the same effect. The best all round solution is still the Lysholm, only let down by cost of manufacturing, which is why you only tend to see them on high end vehicles, the standard Kompressor Mercs run Eatons, the AMG Versions run IHI Lysholm chargers, the Ford GT runs a Lysholm made under liscence by Eaton.
|
|
|
|
|
is it possibleDeleted
@Deleted
|
Mar 15, 2006 21:34:09 GMT
|
Hemi powered fibreglass transit van, now there's a thought.
Nothing beats a Hemi Willys
Nothing beats a Hemi Transit
;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2006 22:04:30 GMT
|
i could just imagine it, space fram chassis, and basically build a whole fiberglass shell for a trannsit.
patina'd up roofing signs on the side, fake rust, and a sign on the back 'keep at least 3' clear at all times'
this sign would be for the hydraulic wheely bar thats been made to look like a lift on the back of the lorry. for a bit of comatose traffic light dragstripping.
like i said, i spend quite a bit of time thinking this stuff out ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2006 22:10:55 GMT
|
cool idea, i think it would look the plums in white with window cleaner livery! ;D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2006 22:32:43 GMT
|
No. It must be done with brighter-white-bits where the new owner has removed previous signwriting, leaving 'bobs kosher building - 077 99 2 0 5 6 6 0 8' in the negative space.
*n
|
|
Top grammar tips! Bought = purchased. Brought = relocated Lose = misplace/opposite of win. Loose = your mum
|
|
|
|
Mar 15, 2006 22:39:14 GMT
|
No. It must be done with brighter-white-bits where the new owner has removed previous signwriting, leaving 'bobs kosher building - 077 99 2 0 5 6 6 0 8' in the negative space. *n hahahahahahahaha yes yes yes yes yes!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
is it possibleDeleted
@Deleted
|
|
you can't beat the sound of a proper supercharger
|
|
|
|
том
Posted a lot
"If in doubt, flat out!"
Posts: 2,707
|
|
|
mmmmmmmmmmm blown ;D
|
|
1988 V8 Rangey Bobtail :: 1968 Volvo Amazon 133 Ratrod :: 1977 Land Rover 88 :: 1985 Opel Monza GSE :: 1983 MKII Fiesta
|
|
|
is it possibleDeleted
@Deleted
|
|
I would give my left nut for that `tina!
|
|
|
|
том
Posted a lot
"If in doubt, flat out!"
Posts: 2,707
|
|
|
(i'd give my right nut, left nut and probably a butt cheek or two for most of Nightmares creations, both past and present)
|
|
1988 V8 Rangey Bobtail :: 1968 Volvo Amazon 133 Ratrod :: 1977 Land Rover 88 :: 1985 Opel Monza GSE :: 1983 MKII Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
thats looking great nightmares, its exactly the look I'm after when i build my squareback!
Will we be seeing it at the strip this year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't he sell it at last RCS?
*n
|
|
Top grammar tips! Bought = purchased. Brought = relocated Lose = misplace/opposite of win. Loose = your mum
|
|
|
is it possibleDeleted
@Deleted
|
|
By the way, this is how big a 6-71 is if you keep it in the kitchen:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't need a left nut, just three grand! LOL I saw some interesting testing a while back, same motor was built using several different 'chargers. A single turbo, a centrifugal and a positive displacement blower. The torque & power curves were then mapped over each other. I was surprised at the results. The problem with the old school posiitive displacement system is that they have poor thermal characteristsics leading to RPM limiting performance. They are fine for most of the old school V8s they get used in because lets face it you're not going to rev one of them up much more than 6500 RPM anyway. The positive diaplacement kit made the most low end, for sure, but we are talking like 1500-2500 RPM as its big advantage range. The turbo was very soon on its case and wasted it over about 3500 RPM. So if you always drive from 1500 - 3000 revs or so the positive displacement makes more power, but the way the turbo romped away at the top end means if you drive hard you would see far more power with the hairdryer.... The centrifugal was not spectacular in comparison to either. However packaging constraints may take you down that route, and compared to a stock or street friendly NA tuned motor its still a serious increase in go-go. Its certainly not as simple as "exhaust driven turbo bad = positive displacement blower = good" I've never heard a Rotrex blown car go so no idea what they sound like, but thats what sound deadener and stereos are for. David Vizard likes them and the guy is God as far as I'm concerned... I'm pretty sure its Alan Allard's supercharging manual which shows a Rotrex power curve against a centrifugal and a PD and this demonstrates definite superior characteristcs over the centrifugal at the bottom end and the PD at the top. I don't recall any data explaining how this testing was done whereas the other article went into quite a lot of detail. However where supercharging comes along I'm not going to question Allard too far... You also have to conside what compromises have been drawn by the designer/installer in each implementation. Also if someone who doesn't know exactly what they are doing "improves" it... I'm still fighting with a car which has lower performance since being fitted with a high performance carburettor!
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|