Does R3V want a m20 supercharger kit?

[CabbE30]

Interested!!

[einstein57]

It looks like i'll be looking for an m90 on the next 50% off day the end of this month.

I've been dreaming of a supercharger for my m30! If there was a m20 SC kit - I would have done that and kept the m20.

I know of a nice complete dinan turbo kit for your m30.

[u3b3rg33k]

Easy:
- Charger where AC compressor goes, with air/air intercooler. Lose AC
OR
- Charger bolted to custom or modified intake manifold, with no intercooler (like Downing Atlanta's kit for the M42). Keep AC

Medium:
- Charger bolted to custom or modified intake manifold, with air/water intercooler sandwiched between the two (like most of todays OEM setups). Keep AC

Difficult:
- Charger mounted on driver's side, with air/air intercooler. Keep AC.


A kit that fits on the driver side, allows air/air intercooling and keeps power steering would be highly desireable. The difficulty here is accessory and idler/tensioner pulley placement and fitment, as well as fitting intake plumbing for intercooling. There is a bunch of room on the driver side, especially if the stock intake manifold is ditched and some of the electric components relocated. IMO air/air intercooling is a prefferable over air/water due to lower cost, better efficiency, less prone to heatsoak, and simplicity.


I suggest m90 because it is easy to boost down with a simple pulley change, then the owner can ramp up boost by changing pulley size as the engine is modded to accept more power. One kit for stock and modified engines. One kit to rule them all.

A passenger side charger would greatly simplify charge piping, at least it seems that way to me.
as far as air/air being more efficient and less prone to heatsoak, I disagree. air/water will give you much more even intake temps.

There's a few OEMs that use air/water, and if you build your hx into the blower outlet / intake manifold (although for a simple kit, that may over complicate things), you save a boatload on packaging volume and compressible air volume.

here's a few googlings I did:

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_The-Complete-Guide-to-Intercooling-Part-2-/A_107760/article.html

http://www.enginebasics.com/Advanced%20Engine%20Tuning/Water%20vs%20Air%20Intercooler.html

http://www.frozenboost.com/stpg.php?page_id=water_to_air

real world examples of water/air: veyron, ford GT, ariel atom. All three near perfect examples of engineering gone right.

They even sell kits: http://www.frozenboost.com/product_i...5597fcb15d38dd
all you need there is an HX built to bolt onto your M90, and you're halfway done, and it makes keeping your AC much easier (thinner radiator = more room for stuff in front).
I'd pay a few hundred more for that over an air/air setup. I like my ps and ac.

[e30nub]

I applaud you for bringing the community together to provide amazing products. Sourcing ingenuity, quality design and fabrication from the core enthusiasts themselves, then bringing them to the consumer with amazing prices to boot. Brilliant man you are. Keep it up!

[dothadance]

i would luhooovve a supercharger.

[AlpineM325]

Very excited for this! Thank you.

[FLG]

Ah this is gonna be awesome

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Victell]

A passenger side charger would greatly simplify charge piping, at least it seems that way to me.

Right, which its why I labeled it 'Easy'

as far as air/air being more efficient and less prone to heatsoak, I disagree. air/water will give you much more even intake temps.

There's a few OEMs that use air/water, and if you build your hx into the blower outlet / intake manifold (although for a simple kit, that may over complicate things), you save a boatload on packaging volume and compressible air volume.

here's a few googlings I did:

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_The-Complete-Guide-to-Intercooling-Part-2-/A_107760/article.html

http://www.enginebasics.com/Advanced%20Engine%20Tuning/Water%20vs%20Air%20Intercooler.html

http://www.frozenboost.com/stpg.php?page_id=water_to_air

real world examples of water/air: veyron, ford GT, ariel atom. All three near perfect examples of engineering gone right.

They even sell kits: http://www.frozenboost.com/product_i...5597fcb15d38dd
all you need there is an HX built to bolt onto your M90, and you're halfway done, and it makes keeping your AC much easier (thinner radiator = more room for stuff in front).
I'd pay a few hundred more for that over an air/air setup. I like my ps and ac.

Your second link (which is not trying to sell air/water systems) says air/water is more prone to heatsoak. And your first link also says that air/water systems absorb the heat. Which is different initially from dissipation. Absorption can lead to heat soak.

Google heatsoak for OEM air/water systems and you'll find its not uncommon. Especially with the Ford supercharged engines. Air/water systems are great for drag racing and short runs, especially if you fill the tank with ice. But after a few runs heatsoak can become a problem.


more info from here

How can an air-to-air intercooler be more efficient than a water based intercooler?
There is an overwhelming quantity of ambient air available to cool an air-to-air core relative to the charge air thru the inside of the intercooler (The iced down water intercooler is the only exception to this argument.). At just 60 mph, with a 300 bhp engine at full tilt, the ambient air available to cool the intercooler is about ten times the amount of charge air needed to make the 300 hp. Whereas the water intercooler largely stores the heat in the water until off throttle allows a reverse exchange. Some heat is expelled from a front water cooler, but the temperature difference between the water and ambient air is not large enough to drive out much heat. Another way to view the situation is that ultimately the heat removed from the air charge must go into the atmosphere regardless of whether it's from an air intercooler or a water based intercooler. The problem with the water intercooler is that the heat has more barriers to cross to reach the atmosphere than the air intercooler. Like it or not, each barrier represents a resistance to the transfer of heat. The net result; more barriers, less heat transfer.

What are the relative merits of an air or water-cooled intercooler and which would suit my purposes best?
This depends on the circumstances. These circumstances are; street use, drag racing, or endurance racing (more than two minutes).

Street use: The air-to-air intercooler will prove superior in efficiency when sized properly.

Drag racing: The short spurt of power allows the iced water to cool the charge air to below ambient temperature.

Endurance racing: The air-to-air intercooler is clearly superior due to the shorter route of getting the heat out of the air charge and into the atmosphere. Endurance racing would preclude the use of ice water, thus negating the singular advantage of the water intercooler. Further, the air-to-air intercooler is maintenance free.

[u3b3rg33k]

Yeah I saw that in there. If you size it appropriately, the "might have heatsoak" issue isn't really a big deal. same problems are possible with a too small engine radiator or air/air FMIC. the FMIC is not a magic bullet. If you dump a bunch of heat into it and don't pull it out, you'll suck some of it into the engine as well...

The section you quoted "Whereas the water intercooler largely stores the heat in the water until off throttle allows a reverse exchange" seems to imply a system that was designed / sized improperly. Perhaps the OEMs have designed the system around intermittent use, IE the ford lightning. I know they run an AC line through the water for an added boost, such a system is obviously not targeted around a trackday.

As for the reverse exchange argument, why would more heat come back out through "reverse exchange" than out the radiator? both have the same temp air and water present, so whoever has more surface area wins the heat dissipation game.

One could make the argument that the efficiency lost due to interfaces between air and water could be partially regained by the increased efficiency of a radiator that has a better surface area to volume ratio, since it doesn't have to flow 500CFM of air, only around 1 to 2cfm of water.

From what I've seen, given normal street driving, there's not a big penalty over a FMIC, but in traffic, you may actually WANT the added thermal mass to even out temperature swings. Throw in a dual sensor fan controller, and have it run the aux fan to cool both the engine and intake.

By the way, the rally version of the GT-Four had an air/water setup, whereas all the normal ones had air/air. if that doesn't point toward heat soak being a non-issue, I don't know what does. Other examples include the Lotus Esprit, and Subaru Legacy, Masarati BiTurbo, and Saab used them as well.

But let me be clear - my main reasons for wanting water / air is keeping the pressurized volume of air as small as possible (engine response), and keeping the AC.

[Denny]

Yeah I saw that in there. If you size it appropriately, the "might have heatsoak" issue isn't really a big deal. same problems are possible with a too small engine radiator or air/air FMIC. the FMIC is not a magic bullet. If you dump a bunch of heat into it and don't pull it out, you'll suck some of it into the engine as well...

The section you quoted "Whereas the water intercooler largely stores the heat in the water until off throttle allows a reverse exchange" seems to imply a system that was designed / sized improperly. Perhaps the OEMs have designed the system around intermittent use, IE the ford lightning. I know they run an AC line through the water for an added boost, such a system is obviously not targeted around a trackday.

As for the reverse exchange argument, why would more heat come back out through "reverse exchange" than out the radiator? both have the same temp air and water present, so whoever has more surface area wins the heat dissipation game.

One could make the argument that the efficiency lost due to interfaces between air and water could be partially regained by the increased efficiency of a radiator that has a better surface area to volume ratio, since it doesn't have to flow 500CFM of air, only around 1 to 2cfm of water.

From what I've seen, given normal street driving, there's not a big penalty over a FMIC, but in traffic, you may actually WANT the added thermal mass to even out temperature swings. Throw in a dual sensor fan controller, and have it run the aux fan to cool both the engine and intake.

here's my setup....No heatsoak at all... Fan operated, stop and go traffic my temps are always good. On a Roots type the key is too keep the boost low....timing up...and a decent intercooler.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L4ryWgJ_ak...0/DSC00765.JPG

[u3b3rg33k]

I'm under the impression that the eatons aren't really "roots" blowers anymore; more of a hybrid roots/twin screw blower, and that the 3rd and 4th gen blowers are noticably more efficient than the early ones.

Eaton is a rather interesting company - they make everything, from car parts to server equipment, to aerospace toys. That they've significantly improved on the rather old roots design is of no surprise to me.

Of particular interest on the eaton "roots style" blowers is that unlike the true twin screw blowers, it has no internal compression, so when it's not doing work, it has much less parasitic drag than a "twin screw". Good for a DD (and it's probably why they use that - similar DD loss to that imposed by a turbo). I'll just throw this up instead of retyping it:

http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsServices/ProductsbyCategory/Automotive/AutomotiveAftermarket/Superchargers/FAQ/index.htm

[Victell]

But let me be clear - my main reasons for wanting water / air is keeping the pressurized volume of air as small as possible (engine response), and keeping the AC.

True, though positive displacement chargers have a quick response time anyway. My preferrence over turbo.

As far as air/water vs air/air, both can made to work well. I'd just rather have air/air for its simplicity.

[Denny]

GE,

Would you be able to custom build a replica of the OEM M50 crank 5 rib pulley? but in 6.5" format? instead of 5"

Reason am asking is because with my setup I used the OEM 5" and here are the Calculations for boost pressure.


Crank Pulley Circumferance = cm 12.446 - 4.9"
S/C Pulley Circumferance = cm -6.60 - 2.6"
Ratio = 1.885 / 1 = 1.885


@ 6500 rpm = 12,257 S/C rpm


M62 supercharger output capacity = 1 L/ rpm = 12,257 L
(LPM*.03531 = CFM) = 432 CFM of air


2.5 engine can inhale 252.6 CFM of air


Excess air = 432 – 252.6 = 180 “boosted” CFM


Boost = excess CFM / normal CFM * atmospheric pressure
180 / 252.6 * 14.7 = 10.5 PSI pounds boost

So I should be getting around 9-10 PSI of intercooled boost.

BUT that is 9 PSI at 6500 RPM and 4.5 PSI at around 5000 RPM

With a 6-6.5" crank it would bring that boost amount of boost down low say 2500-3000 rpm which would make for an amazing DD and auto-x machine.

My car is running really strong max I brought it up is around 5000RPM so far. I finished tuning last night for up to that and its running really strong.

Just troubleshooting a hunting idle issue am having sometimes...goes lean and stumbles..

[Victell]

http://nieminenracing.org/season_2011engine.htm

[u3b3rg33k]

Dat intercooler!