You wont believe THIS....................

[centaurus3200]

exactly as tim said. i was going to post that your SS motor has a lot of miles on it with no problems.

there are differences though. the IC helps a lot with detonation, which hurts cranks as well as pistons and rings.

the main difference seems to be that you have nothing dragging on the crank with turbos. blowers are run off the crank and it's a fairly hefty load. especially for an engine with questionable oil pressure at low rpms, by design. that's what hurts rod bearings from my understanding.

see ya,
Robby

Wow, just got back from vacation (and an abscence from the board) and 6 pages on this Roots. VERY SWEET. So cool to see alternative boosting methods. That car sounds very good. And for the price, very nice. Once you get some numbers and times from this car, a great argument could be made for SHO's and Bang for the buck (which is never the case with FI). Great poineer spirit. Very impressive.

As far as the rod bearing wear, I would not be too concerned. My turbo has 50k miles on its rod bearings, and I see boost much quicker than centrifugal guys. Not as quick as a Roots, but I still do not see rod bearing failure as a big concern. But it does warrant an inspection/replacement schedule on a much shorter interval than NA cars.

Hope you come to the indy convention. Would be very sweet to have four routes of FI there (SS-FPS, Powerdyne, Roots and turbo).

As far as the $400 layout, please help people understand that a cheap old SHO and $400 does not make a reliable powerful vehicle. Please never forget the maintenance and supporting modifications that will be necessary to harness this power for years of corvette-spanking performance and mouth-wide-open enjoyment.

Once again, congratulations.

 

[Machspeed]

As far as the $400 layout, please help people understand that a cheap old SHO and $400 does not make a reliable powerful vehicle. Please never forget the maintenance and supporting modifications that will be necessary to harness this power for years of corvette-spanking performance and mouth-wide-open enjoyment.

Once again, congratulations.

Just remember 400 dollars is how much tyler spent. If you want one im sure youd have to pay him for the labor to make the thing.

 

[Toolman]

exactly as tim said. i was going to post that your SS motor has a lot of miles on it with no problems.

there are differences though. the IC helps a lot with detonation, which hurts cranks as well as pistons and rings.

the main difference seems to be that you have nothing dragging on the crank with turbos. blowers are run off the crank and it's a fairly hefty load. especially for an engine with questionable oil pressure at low rpms, by design. that's what hurts rod bearings from my understanding.

see ya,
Robby

I see. I was thinking that the boost itself was being attributed to rod-bearing failure. I can understand how adding the stress to the crank with another accesory could add some wear and tear.

 

[SHOMA]

Just remember 400 dollars is how much tyler spent. If you want one im sure youd have to pay him for the labor to make the thing.

$2500 is his price...

 

[SonicRiot]

$2500 is reasonable. You try fabbing that thing to fit! I wish I had those skills. Pre-made intakes for most V8 blowers are quite expensive too. It would be nice to flowbench that thing and see if it can be improved or take advantage of the dual ports in the heads. I can't see the workmanship in the pics, but it looks good from here!

Thanks AutoSHO for explaining the extra stress on the main bearings.

Toolman, you are right that boost will hurt the bearings, but usually only under detonation. S/Cs do put a large load on the crank, just like any accessory. That is one area where you can smile and not worry as much. Your pistons will blow up before you spin a main bearing. Or you'll spin a rod bearing...

Who cares? She runs strong for now and She's TURBOED!


Josh, didn't mean to start a fight. It's all cool. I get what you're saying.\

But on a side note, where does the extra cubic inch come from in the Vulcan if they share the same stroke and bore? I would assume the cylinder heads...

And one last thing... What's the launch like on this car? Do we have a contender for an SHO with a decent timeslip that correlates well to it's power?

 

[SHOguy 92]

$2500 is his price...

I'm quiet impressed...... I'll just stick to building my own

 

[SHOnuff93]

When i actually drive this thing i will let you all know how it feels.

Also, to the guy who is still stuck on the $2500 price i'd want to replicate it, get over it. I wasn't doing this to help every SHO owner have a blower for $500. I did this to see if it was possible and make my car a bit unique. The only reason i even considered replicating this was because you all seemed so interested, I never intended to turn a profit.

Thank you SonicRiot for understanding what it takes to complete something like this.

 

[flosho]

When i actually drive this thing i will let you all know how it feels.

Also, to the guy who is still stuck on the $2500 price i'd want to replicate it, get over it. I wasn't doing this to help every SHO owner have a blower for $500. I did this to see if it was possible and make my car a bit unique. The only reason i even considered replicating this was because you all seemed so interested, I never intended to turn a profit.

Thank you SonicRiot for understanding what it takes to complete something like this.

2500 for everything needed, save for the m90, to bolt the m90 on? That is more than reasonable to me. If I could afford that at this time, I would be purchasing one, even without having a SHO.

 

[DemonNeno]

So here's an idea or two to throw around... Do you have to run the injectors directly off the rail? Or can you design some equal length AN-line to the injector? THis would be a way around having to seat the lower manifold on the fuel lines? I've never tried or heard of this being done?

Also, What if you created a seperate lower and "mid" manifold? The lower consisting of equal length angled-runners and the "mid" allowing a collector pan of mild width & height, followed by a mikey-style intercooler?

I can photoshop ideas together if they are of any interest to you. Otherwise, may the gods watch over your brave, torque-craving soul sir!

P.S. - for all you out there who think this will be a "cheap mod"... :laugh_ti: Seriously, give it up!! I'm gonna soil my pants here! Getting a NA car to properly tune is a pain. You think the lack of secondary runners will make this to be the absolute easiest mod ever?

Oh yeah, if this car is as impressive as we are all hoping it will be, expect many tranny failures with gross torque gains. Not to sound pessimistic or anything, but it's true! I do love the lack of the bulky manifold, though! Indeed, how easy are those plugs to reach, now?! Talk about pain-free valve cover re-torques.

 

[Mike Kopstain]

Not to toss more confusion into the mix, but you might also consider inserting velocity stacks into each a runner. I can see this being a benefit on the this particular setup.

 

[NotSoSlowSHO]

Beat ya to it Mike
I just dont have the lingo down

The more I think about it, the more simple I see it really is.

here's my ideas so far since seeing this creation:

1. move the SC towards the front of the car more, down, and rotate a hair to fit above the gap between the radiator cover and the front valve cover

2. fabricate an intake to match. Maybe custom plates with cylinders for the proper hose to clamp too to make it easier. Attatch plates to both the lower intake and the bottom of the SC, then run hose to connect the two. Side effect in terms of intake velocity would probably be very positive as well.

3. manipulate the pully system to adapt to the change

4. fit stock hood :evil_gri:

Also, I could throw some ideas onto AutoCAD if somebody privides some sketches

 

[Mike Kopstain]

Beat ya to it Mike
I just dont have the lingo down





Also, I could throw some ideas onto AutoCAD if somebody privides some sketches

D'oh! I lose!

 

[SHOguy 92]

D'oh! I lose!

Remind me what you lost? :corn:

 

[flosho]

Beat ya to it Mike
I just dont have the lingo down





Also, I could throw some ideas onto AutoCAD if somebody privides some sketches

If I knew what exactly to sketch I could draw you something, but I have not a clue.

How bout we get some pre-premilary sketches.

 

[Mike Kopstain]

This is what I had in mind gentlemen. Remember, I'm not an artist and I should not be allowed to use Microsoft paint. Nonetheless:

Sticking one of these in each of the runner holes on the bottom floor of the new plenum would restore some of the lost runner length, increase velocity, reduce intake pulsations, and most likely flatten the power curve a little. This engine's torque curve should be interesting. I would imagine it wouldn't look much different than:

I think that the SHO is capable of having a flatter torque curve then this, but the innefficient blower on there is probably not. At 7000 rpm it's spinning pretty fast and the motor is going to be ingesting some hot air.

I can't wait for a dyno slip and a 13 second pass.

 

[95SE]

velicity stacks are controversial when a positive displacement blower is used. They have discussed this in great detail and debate over at www.v6power.net

They seem to help with a centrifugal setup, but don't really do much of anything when a roots/screw blower is used. Seems the more boost you have, and the quicker it comes on, the less the need for runner length. Look at the supercoupe, which uses virutally no runners other than the ports in the heads. My supercoupe makes over 350 rwtq at the 1,500 rpm that I started the dyno pull at (manual transmission).

At 7000 rpm it's spinning pretty fast and the motor is going to be ingesting some hot air.

True, though it really depends on how fast the blower is spinning. But an early supercoupe blower will be very inneficient out of its operating range. Even going to a ported 94-95 style would make a tremendous difference. It was worth 50rwhp at the same overdrive ratio as my early model supercharger on my supercoupe. The gen II's had a raised inlet port that was closer to the rotors, that made most of the difference. Couple that with a properly ported and timed outlet and you gain a lot in efficiency, and outlet temps are reduced dramatically. I'll post pics later comparing the Gen I blower he is using with the Gen II I am talking about.

Jeramie

 

[FrOsTyShO]

So not to sound like an idiot or anything, but i dont get how you bolted that up. Did u bolt that metal box that u made to the lower intake or did u have to make a custom lower too? If you could explain this to me i would appreciate it. Also, i dont disagree with the price of $2500 for you to remake this, i'd charge the same, but can you make plans or measurements of the piece that you made and sell them for less money or would you perfer to make them yourself. And one more question, did you ever consider that you could use a different roots blower, perhaps say a kenne belle blower? thanks

 

[Mike Kopstain]

velicity stacks are controversial when a positive displacement blower is used. They have discussed this in great detail and debate over at www.v6power.net

They seem to help with a centrifugal setup, but don't really do much of anything when a roots/screw blower is used. Seems the more boost you have, and the quicker it comes on, the less the need for runner length. Look at the supercoupe, which uses virutally no runners other than the ports in the heads. My supercoupe makes over 350 rwtq at the 1,500 rpm that I started the dyno pull at (manual transmission).

Well it depends what you want and where you want it. I can see your point however. My setup is the same (no runners) and I'm pulling 370ft/lbs at the wheels.

True, though it really depends on how fast the blower is spinning. But an early supercoupe blower will be very inneficient out of its operating range.

My point exactly. It's going to be hard to keep the blower in it's maximum efficiency range with such a high-reving motor. I would skip the Gen II altogether and put on a Gen III. They can be had for $150 - $200 as a lot of us pull them off in favor of gen V's. Then again, we're both just bench building a car that's thousands of miles away from us.

 

[95SE]

My point exactly. It's going to be hard to keep the blower in it's maximum efficiency range with such a high-reving motor. I would skip the Gen II altogether and put on a Gen III. They can be had for $150 - $200 as a lot of us pull them off in favor of gen V's. Then again, we're both just bench building a car that's thousands of miles away from us.

Very true, I think the gen III GTP would have been a better blower to start with.. Built in throttle body ******, and built in bypass valve. I was just suggesting the gen II supercoupe blower because it would require very little modification to his existing fabrication parts.

Ideally, a whipple would be in order! Those things are so efficient, you could probably see some higher boost levels without the need for an intercooler.

 

[Mike Kopstain]

Very true, I think the gen III GTP would have been a better blower to start with.. Built in throttle body ******, and built in bypass valve. I was just suggesting the gen II supercoupe blower because it would require very little modification to his existing fabrication parts.

Ideally, a whipple would be in order! Those things are so efficient, you could probably see some higher boost levels without the need for an intercooler.

Not to go too O/T but some of our companies team members are pulling 16 - 17 lbs of boost non-intercooled with the Whipple 2300ax. It's a truly amazing blower.