ok, if you don't know what is going on in that pic, don't post here. I just bought an ati procharger with monster-ass intercooler, piping, wastegate, msd timing retard box (retards timing according to boost), and aeromotive fpr w/ mechanical gauge. All of this came off of a 383 stroker. Now I did not buy this for the rs, I'm just toying with this idea. I know I will have to get that "driveshaft" custom machined, custom brackets, and re-locate the battery to the trunk. The procharger is good for 30psi, and yes I know a low-comp. rebuild will be in order. Post your ideas, thoughts, and suggestions. TIA

(thanks to phil for the legendary unknown supercharged 2gnt engine bay pic )

Lane Adams

1998 GST Spyder
1995 GSX
1995 TSI AWD

go for it! then make a writeup and become a god of 2gnt. i want to see someone on the board, boosted without a turbo. it must be a very different feel with a supercharger.

2016 WRX STi Limited (current)
2001 A4 1.8tqms (donated)
1991 GVR4 #1933 (sold)
old.dsmregistry.com/detail.php?carid=218 (dismantled)

My first suggestion, don't drop compression.
Second get a lot of good fuel info from the turbo section if you don't know how to set up a fuel system. Or just duplicate one of the higher end fuel set ups: Adj. FPR, upgraded pumps and injectors. You may want to concider an 8 injector set up to keep driveability and idle.
Third the pulley shaft, with such a long run I worry about flex. So I would have whoever is making the shaft, put a u-join in it to take some stress out of the system.
Fourth, bye bye AC, and power steering most likely.

I'd love to see it.



15.9 @ 86.7mph

Injen CAI, 55mm TB, P&P Intake, Crower Cams, Hooker Header, ERT/Catco Cat, GS-T Muffler, AFX UDP, Crane Ign Amp, S-AFC

might be stupid...but you might want to check if the directional of spin is even correct.

>Third the pulley shaft, with such a long run I worry about
>flex. So I would have whoever is making the shaft, put a
>u-join in it to take some stress out of the system.

I think those shafts are run through a bearing tube so that they won't flex or have exposed motion....I could be dead wrong though.

I think you should consider the size of the supercharger. If it came off of a 383 and can build 30 psi boost, then it probably isn't ideal for a 122 and 10 psi. I'd find the model number and try to find specs for it. Procharger may provide compressor maps or something. If you are really going to attempt a supercharger install, then I think you should start with a properly sized supercharger. With some ingenuitiy, time, and money, there is no reason why you can't build a 420 supercharger system.


Corbin

'95 ESI-T
HRC+FMIC+ETC...



Gimme fuel...Gimme fire...Gimme that which I desire

I was about to say that. I get a funny feeling this supercharger is too large to make any usable power.

05 Mazda RX-8
06 Lotus Elise

the axles go snap.


Jon

1997 Eclipse RS

14.21@101mph 10/4/02

>I think you should consider the size of the supercharger. If
>it came off of a 383 and can build 30 psi boost, then it
>probably isn't ideal for a 122 and 10 psi. I'd find the model
>number and try to find specs for it. Procharger may provide
>compressor maps or something. If you are really going to
>attempt a supercharger install, then I think you should start
>with a properly sized supercharger. With some ingenuitiy,
>time, and money, there is no reason why you can't build a 420
>supercharger system.
>
>
>Corbin

well, I have a p600b (http://www.procharger.com) its the smallest supercharger they make, but mine has been upgraded to handle more boost. When it was on the sbc, it was making I think 26psi, but with proper pulley diameters I should be able to find a happy medium, no? Keep the input coming.

Lane Adams

1998 GST Spyder
1995 GSX
1995 TSI AWD

That pic in the beginning of the thread, is that your's and is it done already or is it photoshopped? Personally here's my thought on the matter. I'm very partial to turbo's because they are much easier to upgrade, don't take power to make power, and are more efficent. In the long run I think it's going to cost you more in custom work to supercharge your car than to turbo it. However, if you're like me and want to do things that no one else has done, more power to you. I will tell you this though, if you think one has traction problems with a turbo car, wait until you drive a supercharged car!!!

Good luck man!

N/T Wiseman DSMTuners.com
N/T Guru Southeast DSM

that pic is supposedly real, yet nobody knows whos car it is. Def. not mine. There are two reasons I am asking about this, 1) It hasn't been done by many people b4 (apparently one, and nobody knows who it is), 2) I got a killer, killer deal on all of the stuff, mucho less than I would pay for a turbo with intercooler, piping, etc. But like I said before I didn't necessarily buy all this for the eclipse I just bought it because of the price.

Lane Adams

1998 GST Spyder
1995 GSX
1995 TSI AWD

>That pic in the beginning of the thread, is that your's and
>is it done already or is it photoshopped?

A few corrections are needed for your post..

>Personally here's
>my thought on the matter. I'm very partial to turbo's because
>they are much easier to upgrade, don't take power to make
>power, and are more efficent.

turbo's are easier to upgrade then blower style superchargers, not centerfugal ones (which is what he's talking about) and you won't ever need to upgarde that procharger.. so that's a mute point

second, turbo's take power to make power. PERIOD. although some superchargers may take a little more power.

third, turbo's are the LEAST efficient for how you measure a boost creating systems efficency.. which is how much heat it creates to make a certain amount of boost. turbo's are very inefficent in this manner, they create alot of hot air to make that boost.. blower style superchargers are the most effiencent. while the centerfugal ones are much like turbo's, they do create alot of heat to make the boost, so ya need an intercooler, just like with at turbo, to keep the temps down. but they don't have the exhaust system connected to them.. so they tend to create a little less heat and have pretty decent efficency ratings.

_____________________________________


http://www.dsmregistry.com/detail.php?carid=1133
*form follows function*

~Luke
Facebook
1969 Cougar - 11.91 - 380HP
2007 GSXR 750
1999 OZ - SOLD - 15.26 NA - 14.71 on 75 shot

>That pic in the beginning of the thread, is that your's and
>is it done already or is it photoshopped?


That's an OLD pic, that's why you haven't seen it, you haven't been around here very long. That pic is AT LEAST 3 years old. The guy had it custom supercharged and supposedly had a lot of problems with it and took it off. That's the ONLY supercharged 420A I have ever seen on the net.







________________________________________________________________________________________
Car Sold


http://hometown.aol.com/ohshootuhh/
www.Fast420A.com

i think a supercharger would be great. i've been reading Forced Induction Tuning: a guide to Supercharging and Turbocharging by A. Graham Bell, and the guy says good things about superchargers. he makes a valid point that supercharges will help provide lower-end grunt, which is better for street driving(personally, my car is ass under like 3800rpms, but i'm also NA and the guy that had the car before me installed the exhaust and it's probably 3" + it has major mileage), and the fact that our engines are small for the weight of our car(even the 2.4 is a bit undersized) so a supercharger would be great. he also said that most usable boost superchargers are "screw" type blowers, made by whipple among others, that create high boost at low rpm and hold that boost all the way up to redline. i dont know if there would be enough space in our engine bay for all of that, we might end up having a few eclipses running around with 4" cowl hoods or huge power hump scoops(power hump is what i call the little bump on our hoods), and the cost of a blower ("screw" type blowers are expensive when compared to "roots" type blowers) but even in that case i'd still be happy with it as long as it makes the power

sucker MC

Roots style superchargers will make lots of low end which is useless on fwd, but not much up top. Centrifugal make lots of top end power but not much down low. A well specced turbo is the happy medium for a small displacement motor.

The only advantage I see to superchargers are less complexity and easier to maintain. I am not a fan at all for small motors. They are not more efficient. They use power to make power. How else did you expect to drive them? Just like your accessories, they are a drag and load on the motor. The more power and more you try to spin them, the more power they take. Turbos are using spent exhaust and make the engine more efficient. Perhaps more heat, but far more efficient in the end. Superchargers are great for making what I consider medium range power (in the 200hp range) if that is all you want.

05 Mazda RX-8
06 Lotus Elise

Take the good with the bad. If you plan (good idea to consider) get rid of PS and A/C, then you are trading creature comforts for power. With that said, you should feel no difference on the motor b/c the drag will be close to the same if you still had PS and A/C with turbo. I would suggest really calling ATI and finding some info and particulars on the blower. I would look into a machine shop that C&C's billet to make mounts and a set of bearing pillar blocks that will be good for spinning the RPM's of the shaft. I woud also get some heat treated chrome moly shaft that WILL NOT FLEX and fit into the bearings on the pillar blocks. Find your ratios for pullies and really spend some time fitting stuff into place and pay attention to details. I'm all for you getting this to work. I remember back in the day when Wyatt was on the board trying to get turbo kits together and a bunch of people doubted it. How many boosted RS's and GS's are there now? Now we are venturing into 2.4 swaps and stroker kits.

Shit is all apart. Typical...

>Roots style superchargers will make lots of low end which is
>useless on fwd, but not much up top. Centrifugal make lots of
>top end power but not much down low. A well specced turbo is
>the happy medium for a small displacement motor.
>
>The only advantage I see to superchargers are less complexity
>and easier to maintain. I am not a fan at all for small
>motors. They are not more efficient. They use power to make
>power. How else did you expect to drive them? Just like your
>accessories, they are a drag and load on the motor. The more
>power and more you try to spin them, the more power they take.
>Turbos are using spent exhaust and make the engine more
>efficient. Perhaps more heat, but far more efficient in the
>end. Superchargers are great for making what I consider medium
>range power (in the 200hp range) if that is all you want.

I'm assuming your speaking of this as it pertains to the 4Cyl crowd, because I know of many a V8 that is in the 1000HP range with a supercharger on it.....

Yes, I am speaking of 4-cylinder small displacement (2.0l and less) engines in particular.

05 Mazda RX-8
06 Lotus Elise

>Roots style superchargers will make lots of low end which is
>useless on fwd

Why do you believe low end is useless for FWD?


>Turbos are using spent exhaust and make the engine more
>efficient. Perhaps more heat, but far more efficient in the
>end.

Yes, turbos are more efficient than superchargers, but both use power to make power. With a Supercharger the energy consumed is fairly obvious, but with a turbo the engine has to work a bit harder to pump the exhaust gas out of the cylinders. But in the end weather supercharger or turbo charged the engine will be more efficient.

-J

>>Roots style superchargers will make lots of low end which
>is
>>useless on fwd
>
>Why do you believe low end is useless for FWD?

Traction. With no traction power is useless. I have seen it time and time again. Ever ridden in a JRSC Integra or something similar? They feel great, when they grab. I have enough trouble with turbo as it is. I have done what I can to build a powerband which I consider to have more usable power. I hold this same judgement when going too large in displacement on a fwd vehicle. It is better to make the power up high and adjust your driving style.

>>Turbos are using spent exhaust and make the engine more
>>efficient. Perhaps more heat, but far more efficient in the
>>end.
>
>Yes, turbos are more efficient than superchargers, but both
>use power to make power. With a Supercharger the energy
>consumed is fairly obvious, but with a turbo the engine has to
>work a bit harder to pump the exhaust gas out of the
>cylinders. But in the end weather supercharger or turbo
>charged the engine will be more efficient.

I am not sure how you believe an engine has to work that much harder with a turbo over a supercharger. You are using spent exhaust gases that have already left the combustion process. Backpressure does exist, but is minimal and in no way harming the engine. Any pressure on the engine will be in the effect of ramming that much air back into the motor which will be the same regardless of supercharging or turbo. Both forms of induction are better than none in terms of efficiency, but the supercharger still adds the extra step of parasitic drag from being driven by the engine.

No matter how I look at it, I prefer a turbo over a supercharger for a fwd 4-cylinder application.

05 Mazda RX-8
06 Lotus Elise

I saw the coolest comparasion between a turbo and a supercharger on a small 4 cyclander car. I was driving and there was 3 cars in front of me, A super charged civic, an 50th aniversey corvette and a turbo eclipse. The Corvette was stock, the eclipse was midly modified, exhaust and intake, and the civic, no one knew it was super charged till after the race. The race started and the corvette and the civic were neck and neck, but the eclipse was about a car lenght behind them both. By I'm guessing 40-50, when the civic hit 3rd, then corvette "woke up" and just pulled about 3 car lenghts ahead of the civic and the turbo eclipse just caught up to the civic and then ran about even from there on.
So for a civic to compete with a corvette to 50 is impressive, and it kinda shows the differce... the super charger gave the speed at the beginning of the race, and the turbo played catchup.
This also showed that the turbo is more efficent b/c its 20-60 was much faster then the civic, but the civics 0-60 was faster then the eclipse. The turbo's top end would most problly destroy the charger, but regaurdless I and the corvette was surprised..

yes yes, the guy with that pic of his supercharger blew up his motor so he sold it...

2003 Acura RSX Type-S
15.042 @ 93.06
Devon
Creator of one of the longest and most controversial posts in 2gnt history...
http://forums.2gnt.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=38&topic_id=112462&mesg_id=112462&page=

there has to be some way to manage that s.c. Procharger makes a kit for the Civic Si and Vortech makes one for the Si and Integra gsr. Its all management. If you slap a huge s.c. on any car that cant hold the boost your screwed. No cheep internals on that motor billet rods good pistons(ceramic coated) are a must. I would have no one but the best build the motor. I do know of some s.c. cars using a b.o.v. so the boost bleeds of. My dad and I have toyed around w/ this idea but felt it was a big pain to even try. I would talk to procharger befor you do anything. They will be the best help on getting it done. Mabey even ask how they keep the boost down on the Si. I hope I've helped the cause

TeamLSR member @ landspeedracing.com

I think it's cool. If you can make it reliable I'm all for unusual trick things that make us go faster. But my bigest question right now is why did the person that owns the supercharged DSM in the first pic spend all that time/money polishing everything...including the exhuast manifold heat sheild...but not the intake manifold haha

getty up

-kent-




'98 Talon...gone, but not forgotten

since noone has ever seen a 420a supercharger ...wouldnt this be feezable ? the " drain of a supercharger " on a 4cyl and the lack of traction of fwd leaves u with a narrow margin of error when launching ... no? either u bog ... horribly or u smoke away your tires ..either way i would say turbo is the way ~!~

oRACLe's 1997 RS




ThE oRACLe says: "I've got some yellow liquid for your popcorn ... and its non-dairy .."

I understand that with a supercharger you have the potential to really fuck your engine up but how is this different than with a turbo. You also have some custom work to do and some time and money to spend but how is this different than a DIY turbo set up.

If you do your homework and set it up right (fuel management etc.) I can't see how this could be so tough. Obviously a person who wasn't very knowledgable would be a fool to attempt something like this but how is that different than anything else.

as far as superchargers vs. turbos...

ride in both, like I did... Turbo H22 and a JRSC H22... both local 5th gen prelude owners. They ran very similar times (low 13's).

I'd rather additional power throughout the entire powerband, as a supercharger can give. There are times, in a turbo, when you're off-boost and wishing you weren't. The JRSC felt like it had a much bigger engine in it, had the raw low-end torque of a V6, and VTEC was improved, but wasn't as pronounced. The turbo, on the other hand, seemed to retain the crappy low-end, but the high end was like VTEC on steroids.

The powerdrain by the supercharger was quickly overcome by boost at 1800 RPM. My butt-dyno definitley couldn't tell there was any type of drain. Turbo lag, though, was apparent.

This was in a Honda, of course, which has little low-end to begin with. Our engines may feel different. From this experience, I think a supercharger would be a great thing to look into, since we could spare 15 ft-lbs or so right off the line... only to add 80+ HP in the high end.

BTW... if you can adjust a NA car to handle a turbo... then you can adjust a NA car to handle a supercharger. Boost is boost.

^ dude, this sc flows a whole hell of a lot more than a Jackson Racing does, I am looking at a 200+ hp gain. And yes, I believe I have decided to put it on the car. I will keep you guys updated.

Lane Adams

1998 GST Spyder
1995 GSX
1995 TSI AWD

Was being conservative with the 80+ Hp estimate


Good luck...

turbos are way more efficient on a 4 cyl imo....

if u supercharge a 420a we ALL gotta see it

~turbo8u~
96 talon esi

I say go for it man! If i had a spare NT clipse/talon laying around, i would def do a SC setup on it. Someone needs to do it, and it would be lots of fun desiging, fabbing, tuning, and running it. Both setups have their drawbacks, but doing something to a car that has not been done before, esp if there were problems, makes it that much more enjoyable. I can tell you that there will be more fabricating to do over a turbo setup, but if that pic is real, then it really doesnt look like too difficult of a job to do. Just because one person didnt make it happen with flying colors, doesnt mean it cant ever work, or work well. Is a SC going to be a better setup over a turbo? I dont think so, overall power wise, but constant boost throughout the power band, will be a bennifit over a turbo setup. My sis's husband has as SC 1.8 VW corrado, and that thing gets up and goes...Something like this is all speculation until you actually do it, and make it work. I'll bet money its not a hard as people may think it is..All it takes is some money, some imagination, and some skills to make it happen..A lot of the fuel system can be copied from the turbo setups, and there is no manifold work, so there is a good start. Toughest part will be fabbing up the SC drive mechinism..Also, if you loose the PS pump, using that to drive the SC, then that frees up power that was used to drive the pump, to drive the SC. I'm sure the SC takes a little bit more power from the engine to drive over the PS pump, but that negates the power loss from driving the SC just a bit...Oh, and one more plus- you can use aftermarket/ custom headers for better exaust flow

13.5 @108 MPH-2.2 60ft(stupid FWD!)
S16G @ 18 PSI/FMIC/Running on MegaSquirt II (Now with sequential
fuel injection)
My webpage: http://eclipsed4evr.home.comcast.net
-1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse RS-T- "Toy"
-1992 Plymouth Laser Turbo AWD(SOLD)
-2000 Honda CR-V(daily)

I'm interested. I was thinking, if you could fabricate a special lightweight overdrive Crank Pulley made from the same aluminum material as the AFX UDP that may be able to drive the SC even more from the looks of the picture on the original post. (Keep the alternator pulley size the same to avoid overcharging/burning it up, but enlarge the portion of the pulley for the powersteering and AC (which would obviously go bye-bye in this setup.) In my mind it looks like this would provide quicker/more boost at all levels.

Just a thought.

My insurance payment is WHAT now?!?

hey its the deez nutz incorporated supercharger haha. dig into some OLD posts and you'll find out why I call it that bwahaha. I heard PSI did that setup and it kept throwing belts or something and then one day it caught on fire or something.

but I myself like turbos more myself. I've only ridden in one supercharged car though, a supercharged solara and it didn't impress me that much.

http://www.hadesomega.info -car specz and movies 95 Eclipse RS | 76' 280Z | 89' MR2 | 99 Neon | 91 Zephyr
Who sez FF can't drift?

dood, that's a bagock enticive supercharger, i patented it... i had that on my car about 3-4 years ago. we were developing it for the 420a eclipse engine but things didnt go well

Well, as of yet I am still gonna try it. That driveshaft is really expensive though so I need to save up. I am gonna do something special to the engine, too

Lane Adams

1998 GST Spyder
1995 GSX
1995 TSI AWD

i cant find any pics to see how a p600b is driven does it need to have a driveshaft?

if not then u could remove a/c run an electric power steering pump...

and then stuff the snail and pulley on the charger(assuminging its setup that way) on to the top of the timing side of the motor with nothing else there it shouldn't be too hard to fit..

dimensions on the unit or pics would help the fact..

witha super charger and not runnign a bov ud want to use a low low compression ratio like 7.1 or 7.5:1

if u were gonna run a bov like some of the vortech unit runs u could probably still stay about 8:1 id definatly run strong rods and coated pistons

Bill
if u have any questions or want some advice on putting this together gimmie a call

You can have it cheap, fast or good. Pick any two.

If you want it cheap and fast, it's not going to be good.
If you want it cheap and good, it's not going to be fast.
If you want it good and fast, it's not going to be cheap.

the p600b is belt driven, and its too big to mount with the rest of the accessories even with the a/c and power steering removed, I'll take some pics to show you what I mean. It also has a bov. Fuck, just wait till tonight and I'll try and get some pics up.

Lane Adams

1998 GST Spyder
1995 GSX
1995 TSI AWD

nevermind

i currently have a 1995 eagle talon esi with a eaton M34 supercharger from a 1993 Pontiac Bonneville SSEI at 7 psi...it feels COMPLETELY different then a turbo application...(try to get full boost at 1200rpm with a turbo)..and it has no problem pulling full boost to redline even with a 18psi pulley installed with water injection...if your interested in supercharging then you should email me

___________________________

I'm whiter and tastier than you.

----------------------------------------

I used to have a 420A...


'92 TSi AWD

11.8 @ 119mph
470awhp 405 ft/lb torque
30psi on E85 w/ Borg Warner S256 Turbo

My DSM Registry: http://www.dsmregistry.com/166

This thing is old. I thought, oh no, another noo00b brought a dead thread back to life. At least ^^^^^ has a nice avatar to look at...

And I do agree. Post pics, or don't waste your/our time.

~Luke
Facebook
1969 Cougar - 11.91 - 380HP
2007 GSXR 750
1999 OZ - SOLD - 15.26 NA - 14.71 on 75 shot

Looks like I'm seeing another fight between supercharging and turboing. Nomatter which, the compressed air is going to be hotter, period. Turbo will be hotter, but supercharger pulls directly off the motor. Supercharger pulls early and turbo pulls late, but hard. And of course you'll see supercharged v8s out there that are 1000hp, to begin with they're making gobs of power. Simply put, turbos are much more efficent for our cars. But supercharging something that doesn't have a kit for, would be a sight for sore eyes. I say do it and do it big. Oh yeah, post pics of course so that we can enjoy the fruits of your labor.

If one more nooooob bumps this thread I'm going to find thier IP address and hunt down thier home, find where they sleep and fucking scream my head off so loud, scare the shit out of them and chop thier head off with my machette.

Wow. what a run-on sentance.

I eat emo kids for breakfast

1995 Eagle Talon (SOLD)
72' SuperBeetle
72' Standard Beetle
56' Deluxe Beetle

seriously though, this is the true definition of a Thread That Will Not Die

1995 Eagle Talon ESi

This thread should be cockblocked and locked.

thanks guys....guys.

Now the BANME!s won't see the last reply.

I eat emo kids for breakfast

1995 Eagle Talon (SOLD)
72' SuperBeetle
72' Standard Beetle
56' Deluxe Beetle

Head to dsm Tuners, N/T Performance section, someone just made a thread about supercharging a 95 N/T.....


And he did it, theres pictures there and information....

I eat emo kids for breakfast

1995 Eagle Talon (SOLD)
72' SuperBeetle
72' Standard Beetle
56' Deluxe Beetle

Bah who needs boost at 1200 rpm when you car allways runs at 3k+rpm (if atx with a 3k stall) ....... or if you install a nitrous anti lag

vote for your choice of body style for Bluie!! http://www.cardomain.com/id/bluemooneclipse

There was a guy trying to sell his 420a about 6 months ago on ebay near me and it was supercharged. I never got around to going out to visit him and take pics but I think he decided to keep it.

I'm not an expert on superchargers and its been a while since I've looked in the engine compartment of a boneville but I seem to remember there superchargers being the type that basically replaces the intake manifold. Which if I'm corect would mean that it could not be bolted on to our cars because it would be designed specifically for the boneville.