Change the gear and change the rpm its spinning at. I could have 10psi at idle. At 139mm it will move a ton of air when I want.
if you were getting out of 10psi at idle out of a 139mm, just how much power would it be robbing at 4000rpm!? LOL! and what kind of impeller speed would you be seeing? and would the bearings withstand that kind of RPM
I've had more than my fair share of supercharged and turbo charged vehicles. I would choose a turbo setup over a blower any day. On a heavy gasser, the twin screw does offer big block torque due to the instant boost.
Basically you are installing a belt driven turbo. It saves a lot of plumbing on a vehicle with no forced induction, but other than that I don't see any real benefit. It will have to be geared differently, since the centrifugals shine at the high rpm and top of the track.
IMO, we are light years ahead with turbo's in these trucks. Going supercharged is a step backwards due to parastalic loss. Now a huge twin screw(big enough not to cause a bottle neck) with some big twins might overcome the power loss, but that still remains to be seen.
Augh... I really wish people would realize that a turbo's power isn't free energy. It's powered by back pressure from the engine. It still takes the same amount of energy to compress air no matter what the method. Sure some compressors might be more efficient, but not like we're talking about 50% or some really big number...
If you're running a large enough compressor you don't need to turn it as fast, you can waste gate the excess, and you can get nearly instantaneous results, with less heat (from I'll call it over churning the air), and since it can turn slower, it will have less mechanical wear.
There is always a cost of doing business, compressing air is no difference.
Augh... I really wish people would realize that a turbo's power isn't free energy. It's powered by back pressure from the engine. It still takes the same amount of energy to compress air no matter what the method. Sure some compressors might be more efficient, but not like we're talking about 50% or some really big number...
If you're running a large enough compressor you don't need to turn it as fast, you can waste gate the excess, and you can get nearly instantaneous results, with less heat (from I'll call it over churning the air), and since it can turn slower, it will have less mechanical wear.
There is always a cost of doing business, compressing air is no difference.
I think that the members on here know turbo power is not free. If you think a supercharger is close to a turbo as far as parasitic losses are concerned, then you sir are wrong. The oem's have traditionally favored superchargers, but there are alot of different turbo engines about to be on the market, simply for fuel economy due to the more efficient nature of a turbo(check out the upcoming Ford gassers). Just an example - quite a few twin turbo mustangs running 700-1000 hp, not too many twin or single supercharger stangs doing that eh? Back to diesels, it costs almost no hp to spin a turbo and the idea of combining the two is a good one because the pitfalls of each are somewhat opposite meaning they should complement each other. IMO some engines will like it, some won't, just a cheaper easier way to get close to twin turbo performance. BTW it is not a new idea, remember the 2-stroke diesels with roots style blower and a turbo?
Augh... I really wish people would realize that a turbo's power isn't free energy. It's powered by back pressure from the engine. It still takes the same amount of energy to compress air no matter what the method. Sure some compressors might be more efficient, but not like we're talking about 50% or some really big number...
If you're running a large enough compressor you don't need to turn it as fast, you can waste gate the excess, and you can get nearly instantaneous results, with less heat (from I'll call it over churning the air), and since it can turn slower, it will have less mechanical wear.
There is always a cost of doing business, compressing air is no difference.
Ummm they would be if they sacked up and bought a 139 Procharger. oke:
by "sacked up", do you mean threw down a bunch of money on a highly proprietary design requiring custom machined brackets vs. an ultra-simple design that any redneck that can build an exhaust system can plumb?