PSDPlayer vs IMELMO Deathmatch Procharger Shootout

This sounds flippin awesome...if Danny's supercharged build is anything like the Fordota...you'll beat him with ease. :kick:
 
this should get pretty interesting..and Don..I will go in with you on the heads lifting..and I will go 3'1" (price is right style b!tch) LMAO

Good luck Doug..I hope it pans out AND stays together!
 
Doug.....I have been wondering how a big Whipple or Kenne Bell blower would work instead of a turbo on a 6.0L. What do you think about the roots style blower for a 6.0L??????
 
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.
 
Huge twin screw and big twins you say ?
How'sa bout this crazyness in Empire's shop right now ?
attachment.php
 
PSDPlayer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Forrest Nearing said:
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
Click to expand...

I was joking. Blower redline in that unit is 57,000rpm. If I am able to spin the motor 5000rpm I will need a 2:1 gear drive which doesn't exist at the moment and would need to go belt drive. At 5,000 rpm the only Winters gears available would get me only to 53,000rpm or 92% capacity. So I either have to develop another gear drive, which wouldn't be hard. Or belt drive it.

But I am pretty sure the volume from 139mm will do something to put this all back into proportion. I mean its only 82mm larger than stock. Which is more than the second turbo some are running currently.
 
oh, I know... It's a monster!!! I would definately gear-drive something that large.

don't get me wrong, I'm all for something cool and different, and I'm sure you guys will get some power out of it and definately get some coverage :)
 
Innovative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kleetus said:
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.
Click to expand...


I agree, it takes energy to make power...that's simple physics. However, if you size the turbo(s) right, they'll make more power than a blower every time. Like centrifigals, turbo's rely on rpm, so you have that to contend with. Roots and screws are instant boost and that makes for some nasty low end torque. I think the quote is "torque like a diesel". That's not to say a wild combination of a blower and turbo won't make sick power. Just a general theory and we all know how generalizations work.

I'd love to see something different. Dougs always up for a challenge, so I hope it works out and his combo makes even more power than he hopes for. :Cheer:
 
Kleetus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Vizsla said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ummm they would be if they sacked up and bought a 139 Procharger. :poke:
 
Kleetus said:
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.
Click to expand...

a turbo's energy isn't free, but it's cheaper than robbing from the crank! exhaust energy is just thrown away in a non-turbo application.

a turbo vehicle will make more power at a given boost level than a blower...

if blowers were all that and a bag of bisquits, why don't the OEM's use them? why don't stationary engines that operate in a very narrow RPM band or a steady RPM use blowers instead of turbos?

*hint* it's because centrifugal blowers are less efficient and more complex than a turbo
 
PSDPlayer said:
Ummm they would be if they sacked up and bought a 139 Procharger. :poke:
Click to expand...

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? :confused:
 
Forrest Nearing said:
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? :confused:
Click to expand...

And the link to the inexpensive, gauranteed compound twin turbo setups that are mass produced for these trucks that require no nitrous?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since each 6.0L that has 2 turbos mounted to it has different brackets, fittings, and turbos would each of those kits not be proprietary?

Where exactly would you mount both of your turbos on a 6.0L, which turbos would you use, how much power will the combination make, what will your pressures be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top