What Supercharger should i use?

[94MTX3.2Swap]

Hello im the proud owner of a 94MXT SHO that has a 3.2 swap in it. Im looking to try and supercharge it aswell but dont know where to look for any or how to find them. If i could get any help with this i would be most greatfull.

Im somewhat of a newcomer to the wounderful world of the SHO but ever since i drove my first one i have been hooked. Ill say im not the most mechanicly inclinded person so i have been trying to learn what i can about cars(SHOs in general) so any additional information you think i might need to know would help out too.

if you want to see my beast my brother put a video of it together for me(Im active duty army in korea right now so i couldnt do it) and put it on youtube for me to view what he has done to her. just thought i would let you know in case seeing what im working with will help any in helping me out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zXfa_OWRrM

thanks for your time
PFC Berndt

 

[SuperHO]

1st Cav, baby! Hooah! i was 3d ID myself. as for the blower, you came to the right place. there's a wealth of knowledge on supercharging and tuning for forced induction here. curious question...how extensive is your knowledge on adding boost to cars in general?

 

[94MTX3.2Swap]

Pretty much non thats why im having my brother help me with this all and why i was trying to ask a somewhat general question so i can get as much info as i can.

 

[HootUSMC]

Post 420.

 

[SeanMc]

Take off the intake, make a custom manifold, and slap a whipple on there and run 20psi. Should be good for about 500whp.


In all seriousness, the only 2 kits available are one from Doug Lewis at Ford Performance Specialists, and from TrannyshredderTony...errr...Texantony at North Texas Performance (mimics the old shoshop setup). Tony has the highest not running HP SHO out there (he breaks transmissions frequently).

 

[yamahaSHO]

There is already a lot of knowledge available here via the search function. I'm not trying to turn you off, but the best thing we could do is answer more specific questions. Get a basic understanding of what you have to do to supercharge ANY car and build on that. You might find a turbo more to your liking though.

 

[94MTX3.2Swap]

I know what you mean ive been reading around this site and trying to learn what i can. that one thred about turbos messed me all up i dont think i understood much of it also didnt help the pics didnt load forsome reason. and now from reading around im kinda torn between either doing a turbo or a super... i guess here is a little more to the point question what would be more cost effective? say what could i do with spending not a load of money lets say trying to keep it around 7k.

 

[SuperHO]

a turbo setup'll be more cost effective, unless you're able to find the supercharger and piping for cheap. also depends on how much of the work you do yourself.

 

[yamahaSHO]

$7k should allow you to boost the motor and put suspension, brakes and wheels on the car. A turbo will be more cost effective as it is generally easier to fab one up, turbochargers can be had cheap, and you don't need quite as much fueling as you would with a comparable supercharged setup.

If the turbo thread threw you for a loop, start with www.howstuffworks.com.

 

[shomethe$$$]

The reason I didn't go turbo, constant stress and heat load on cylinder heads, burnt valves, car always running hot....a lot easier to blow a head gasket during tuning phase, since a SC car will lean out and stop pumping air but a turbo car will keep spooling and bye bye ring landings, been there and done that.

Turbo is more cost effective but not if your blowing turbo seals every other day, SC's makes more sense, look at the trend, a lot more SC cars and trucks on the road than turbo's, SC cars run for years, you can drive a SC car like a normal car, get better mpg's and a lot less oil changes. Why do you think NHRA drag racing is all SC's and turbo's were banned? one reason is because turbo's were too hard to control and unreliable

For $7k, you got more options. I'm in about $5500 but minus the Wavetrac, CM3 and bigger un-needed intake and fuel parts, I'm at $3500. 20psi and the heads might lift, I'm at 15psi with a ported m90, if i run ice, i can do 18psi, unless you got leaded fuel 15psi is enough for a stock block and reliability.

I want to see a twin-screw 3.2 build.

 

[yamahaSHO]

The reason I didn't go turbo, constant stress and heat load on cylinder heads, burnt valves, car always running hot....a lot easier to blow a head gasket during tuning phase, since a SC car will lean out and stop pumping air but a turbo car will keep spooling and bye bye ring landings, been there and done that.

This is false. If you lean out on an SC, it is still pushing air. The air driven by the SC is RPM related. If you're at 6k RPM, rest assured your blower is spinning many, MANY times faster than that. A turbo won't burn valves any easier and to be honest with you, you'll see more stress and wear with a supercharger at the same power levels (after the parasitic loss you don't see) than you will with a turbo. Your blower is creating heat and always putting stress on the motor.

Turbo is more cost effective but not if your blowing turbo seals every other day, SC's makes more sense, look at the trend, a lot more SC cars and trucks on the road than turbo's, SC cars run for years, you can drive a SC car like a normal car, get better mpg's and a lot less oil changes. Why do you think NHRA drag racing is all SC's and turbo's were banned? one reason is because turbo's were too hard to control and unreliable

You can actually drive a car like normal EASIER with a turbo. Turbo's too hard to control? Where do you get your information? There should be no reason to blow seals all the time aside from user error and poor installation.

There are a lot more SC SHO's on the road because someone made a kit years ago. If they would have opt for a turbo, it would have been the other way around.

 

[shomethe$$$]

Your right, I pulled out that info from my non-experienced behind.....sorry for the bother....OP.....listen to yamahaSHO, but it sure looks like he wants to turn you off from a SC setup.

 

[yamahaSHO]

I'm not for or against either the turbo or supercharger idea. Both are equally fun and have their "goods" and "not as goods" to them. A turbo is rather easy to fab up in your own garage, for the most part. It generally can be cheaper and it happens to have better driveability than the comparable SHO SC kits.

Either way, I think the best thing he can do is learn how all this work in a general sense. The SHO motor isn't anything more or less special in the 'suck, squish, bang & blow" category.

 

[jonmon6691]

SC cars run for years, you can drive a SC car like a normal car

This is fair, newer turbo cars require schedualed mainantence at very short intervals (Evo x anyone?). And superchargers do behave very predictably. However, the centerfugal type of supercharger that most SHO's employ have exponential boost so the power delivery can feel more like a turbo anyway.

a lot more SC cars and trucks on the road than turbo's

I don't know about this for sure, but I'm pretty sure there are a LOT more turbocharged cars on the road than supercharged. (I'm talking about all FI cars here, not just SHO's)

 

[jonmon6691]

I'm not for or against either the turbo or supercharger idea. Both are equally fun and have their "goods" and "not as goods" to them. A turbo is rather easy to fab up in your own garage, for the most part. It generally can be cheaper and it happens to have better driveability with the comparable SHO SC kits.

Either way, I think the best thing he can do is learn how all this work in a general sense. The SHO motor isn't anything more or less special in the 'suck, squish, bang & blow" category.

Just curious: shouldn't a supercharger be easier to implament than a turbo? No complicated exhaust fabbing and routing. The only thing I could think that would make supercharging difficult is the adding of a pulley.

 

[yamahaSHO]

This is fair, newer turbo cars require schedualed mainantence at very short intervals (Evo x anyone?). And superchargers do behave very predictably. However, the centerfugal type of supercharger that most SHO's employ have exponential boost so the power delivery can feel more like a turbo anyway.

The impeller of a centrifugal blower is pretty much the same as the compressor impellar on a turbo setup. They definitely don't feel the same in power delivery. A centrifugal blower will reach peack boost at the point just befor you let off the throttle. It keeps building and so does the torque.

A turbo, on the other hand, can hit max boost at a low RPM and hold it there. In many cases of smaller turbo setups, it'll hit peak boost in the low RPM and taper off as you rev it up (turbo cannot keep up with the demand).

Just curious: shouldn't a supercharger be easier to implament than a turbo? No complicated exhaust fabbing and routing. The only thing I could think that would make supercharging difficult is the adding of a pulley.

With a supercharger, you still have to fab up piping and make a mounting bracket that has to be strong and PRECISE. Either way, you have to fab up some piping and run an oil line and return. To ease up the turbo install, you can run an internal wastegate for some of the lower power setups.

 

[twr]

From someone that pretty much fabricated a S/C kit from scratch, the turbo option would be easier to fab. I was lucky and had two S/C'd cars to look at when I built mine. If I were to do it again, I would go turbo.

 

[yamahaSHO]

From someone that pretty much fabricated a S/C kit from scratch, the turbo option would be easier to fab. I was lucky and had two S/C'd cars to look at when I built mine. If I were to do it again, I would go turbo.

I didn't do mine from scratch (piping and bracket), however, I did put my 'kit' together instead of buying a full kit and if I were to do it again, I, like Terry would turbo as well.

However, if I ever decide to drop this motor in a RWD application, I think the extra room to do some piping would make this motor a beast (in a lighter car).

 

[krednjen]

There are some over simplified explanations taking place here. Both systems generate compression heat in the intake charge air. Turbo systems add heat transfer through the body of the turbo, and also heat soak the exhaust manifold, producing radiant heat. This is why it is so rare to see an effective turbo system without intercooling. SC produces more consistent power, for mild applications, but for higher peak hp applications, a street supercharger must be turned at a very high rpm. This increases torque loads in the lower revs tremendously, and can lead to premature component failure. Turbos on the other hand, usually spool more gradually, as exhaust speed increases. They are slightly more likely to cause pre-detonation, if not intercooled properly, or if you use a poor quality, or sticky wastegate. To compensate for this, most people tune turbos rich in the higher revs, to cool the charge (strange but true/rich is cool). This means bad milage while boosting, but a somewhat large turbo that does not spool in the low revs, can run an essentially stock fuel curve, till the onset of boost, returning great mileage under low loads. Turbos use engine oil for lubricant and cooling, breaking it down more quickly. Superchargers put loads on the snout of the crank, that the engineers did not anticipate, and by lifting the snout, cause premature wear of the front upper main bearing, depending on boost and belt tension. Mechanically spinning the supercharger, consumes a small percent of the extra hp produced, increaling load, and reducing mileage. Turbos use the otherwise wasted energy of the expanding exhaust to produce their boost. Small turbo=throttle response, big turbo=peak power.

 

[yamahaSHO]

Of course it is over-simplified... You MUST tailor to your audience.

There are some over simplified explanations taking place here. Both systems generate compression heat in the intake charge air. Turbo systems add heat transfer through the body of the turbo, and also heat soak the exhaust manifold, producing radiant heat. This is why it is so rare to see an effective turbo system without intercooling. SC produces more consistent power, for mild applications, but for higher peak hp applications, a street supercharger must be turned at a very high rpm. This increases torque loads in the lower revs tremendously, and can lead to premature component failure.

S/C's can be more consistant, however, not always in real world applications. My turbo car has been very consistant where as I constantly fight belt slip issues with the SC. Also, and S/C AND T/C will have to turn and VERY HIGH RPM for very high power. They both have to spin and the T/C is generally spinning at the higher RPM for a longer period while wrapping out a gear because it can build boost and hold it where something like the common centrifugal blowers used on SHO's will only be spinnig VERY high when the motor is spinning high as well.

Turbos on the other hand, usually spool more gradually, as exhaust speed increases.

My STi turbo doesn't spool gradually at all. I step on it and it spools instantly. My Vortech, on the other hand, is more of a gradual pull of boost.

They are slightly more likely to cause pre-detonation, if not intercooled properly, or if you use a poor quality, or sticky wastegate. To compensate for this, most people tune turbos rich in the higher revs, to cool the charge (strange but true/rich is cool). This means bad milage while boosting, but a somewhat large turbo that does not spool in the low revs, can run an essentially stock fuel curve, till the onset of boost, returning great mileage under low loads.

Is there such thing as 'good' gas mileage while boosting? The air coming out of my blower is quite warm, even at idle. While the SC doesn't transfer heat from the exhaust side, it does get heat transferred to it from HOT oil, as well as moving gears inside the case. It is agreed that charge cooling is a great idea for turbo setups, however, when you're getting into the higher boost, it doesn't really matter what you're using, it needs to be charged cooled.

Turbos use engine oil for lubricant and cooling, breaking it down more quickly.

I'd bet that MOST turbochargers out there use coolant to cool the turbo as well. Probably all late model OEM turbo setups have water cooling on the turbo.

Superchargers put loads on the snout of the crank, that the engineers did not anticipate, and by lifting the snout, cause premature wear of the front upper main bearing, depending on boost and belt tension. Mechanically spinning the supercharger, consumes a small percent of the extra hp produced, increaling load, and reducing mileage. Turbos use the otherwise wasted energy of the expanding exhaust to produce their boost. Small turbo=throttle response, big turbo=peak power.

This is one of the biggest problems. S/C's on these car generally put lots of wear on the front main because you have to tighten the belt so much. From experience with tuning S/C and T/C cars with different sized injectors, these Vortech's consume quite a bit of power to tune. I would guess in excess of 50hp.