New improved 1HZ supercharger kit

[roscoFJ73]

Some of you may remember the sprintex supercharger kit that was on sale a few years back. While the blower itself worked fine ,some owners broke the woodruff key on the crank and others reported slack in the single belt that ran the blower and aircon.
Now its back with an improved kit made by Bullet Performance.

From discussions I had with them they seem to be marketing it more towards those who want low down torque without the rpm,for towing etc
Their site mentions 40% more power.
Note the polished headers
That square hump on the intake is for a soon to be released intercooler.
1HZ Diesel BULLET SPRINTEX Supercharger System.mp4 - YouTube

 

[Dougal]

That noise would drive me insane (too late maybe).
I'm interested to hear the fuel [STRIKE]economy[/STRIKE] consumption and power figures.

 

[roscoFJ73]

Ive heard them up close on 75 series,its much quieter,just a whistle.The sound on the video cam is distorted.
The petrol landcruiser and range rovers seem to be much quieter than the 1HZ,maybe its the under bonnet sound insulation.
The owners I spoke to said fuel consumption was unchanged.

According to their site "power and torque up 40%". 1.4 x 135 HP = 189hp.
Sprintex use to sell a variety of drive pulleys so it could be adjusted to the owners wishes,but they said a 1:3 worked best.

 

[Dougal]

I don't beleive anyone who says a supercharged engines consumption is unchanged. Superchargers take a huge amount of power to run.

 

[roscoFJ73]

I don't beleive anyone who says a supercharged engines consumption is unchanged. Superchargers take a huge amount of power to run.

Nonsense ,they just consume the power at a steady rate. Besides the Sprintex type is more efficient than many others because of the fine tolerances.
Send them an email and ask them

 

[maat]

I have driven a super charged 1HZ and a turbo 1HZ

verdict: sc1hz FTL - 1HZ+t FTW

why bother with a super charger, the turbo has proven itself in reliabilty 10folds and is more economical, if a super charger was the way to go do you really think toyota would have brought out the 12ht, and 1HDT etc?

 

[Dougal]

Nonsense ,they just consume the power at a steady rate. Besides the Sprintex type is more efficient than many others because of the fine tolerances.
Send them an email and ask them

Using 60% compressor efficiency and leaving out all the drive-losses.
At 4000rpm for a supercharger to deliver 15psi boost it would take over 35kw of shaft power to drive the supercharger.

I've crunched the numbers several times now for people who wanted to supercharge diesels. It always comes out as a complete waste of time.

 

[roscoFJ73]

Using 60% compressor efficiency and leaving out all the drive-losses.
At 4000rpm for a supercharger to deliver 15psi boost it would take over 35kw of shaft power to drive the supercharger.

.

Thats dumb Dougal because at 4000 rpm you would be doing 170 kph in a 75 series and as I said before this was aimed at those who want tow.
How do you arrive at 60% compressor efficiency anyway,show us the figures?
In any case a turbo still needs the engine to pump on the exhaust stroke

 

[roscoFJ73]

I have driven a super charged 1HZ and a turbo 1HZ

verdict: sc1hz FTL - 1HZ+t FTW

why bother with a super charger, the turbo has proven itself in reliabilty 10folds and is more economical, if a super charger was the way to go do you really think toyota would have brought out the 12ht, and 1HDT etc?

Maybe its for those who want something different. Lots of people here doing mods because Toyota didnt give them what they want 1st time around.
How would you know the turbo is "10 folds more reliable" ? Where do you get that figure from?
This model Sprintex has a 50000 or 100000klm service interval(I forget which) and requires only a small change of oil AFAIK
I spoke to one owner who had 300000 trouble free klms from his before he sold it.

 

[Dougal]

Thats dumb Dougal because at 4000 rpm you would be doing 170 kph in a 75 series and as I said before this was aimed at those who want tow.
How do you arrive at 60% compressor efficiency anyway,show us the figures?
In any case a turbo still needs the engine to pump on the exhaust stroke

Are you claiming that you've never used 4000rpm except in top gear?

The 60% is generous for a supercharger and fits very well with the sprintex charts here: Sprintex - Superchargers and Supercharger Systems | Superchargers I have shown you the figures, if you have better ones or the correct ones for that compressor then let me know.

At 2000rpm this supercharger is still sucking over 17kw from the crank. All the time.
If you think superchargers are soo awesome, then buy one for your 1HZ and tell us how it goes. 100% of automotive diesel manufacturers chose turbos instead.

 

[roscoFJ73]

Are you claiming that you've never used 4000rpm except in top gear?

The 60% is generous for a supercharger and fits very well with the sprintex charts here: Sprintex - Superchargers and Supercharger Systems | Superchargers I have shown you the figures, if you have better ones or the correct ones for that compressor then let me know.

At 2000rpm this supercharger is still sucking over 17kw from the crank. All the time.
If you think superchargers are soo awesome, then buy one for your 1HZ and tell us how it goes. 100% of automotive diesel manufacturers chose turbos instead.

I rarely exceed 2800 and only at the top before the gear change
The supercharger puts in 3 times as much as it uses
Turbos are a restriction in the exhaust flow and require power to keep it spinning.
I might just buy one at that

 

[Dougal]

I rarely exceed 2800 and only at the top before the gear change
The supercharger puts in 3 times as much as it uses
Turbos are a restriction in the exhaust flow and require power to keep it spinning.
I might just buy one at that

At 2,800rpm your 103kw engine is only putting out 73kw. If you need another 40% power then you can get it by spinning it to 4000rpm.
It's an easier and cheaper option.

Superchargers don't put in power. They consume power and provide air. The power comes from burning fuel. A turbocharger which can provide the same amount of air will run with about equal or better boost/backpressure at max torque and scales itself down to nothing when not needed.

Meaning the tax on the engine (pumping against drive-pressure) at full torque is about 10kw and drops to 0kw when not needed.

Which gives the turbo a net benefit of 7-17kw at 2000rpm if both are providing 15psi boost.
But turbos are more efficient compressors also. Throw in the higher compressor efficiency (75% vs 60%) and a supercharger at 15psi is pushing the same airflow as a turbocharger at 12.5psi.

Turbo at 12.5psi only has pumping losses of 8.8kw.
Our turbo for the same air density now has a net power benefit between 8 and 17kw.
This is at 2000rpm where the engine is only delivering 85kw max (with 15psi boost)
The 8-17kw represents a loss to the supercharger of 10-20% over a turbocharger in power for the same air-flow.

The loss in fuel economy due to the 17kw constant drag is bigger still.

 

[tclark]

At 2,800rpm your 103kw engine is only putting out 73kw. If you need another 40% power then you can get it by spinning it to 4000rpm.
It's an easier and cheaper option.

Last time I checking stomping the gas pedal also increases fuel consumption.

 

[Dougal]

Last time I checking stomping the gas pedal also increases fuel consumption.

I really don't know what to say to that. More power has never been free, you have to burn more fuel to get it. Did anyone ever say otherwise?

Turbocharged power is cheaper to run than supercharged.

 

[tclark]

Turbo probably is cheaper, doesn't mean it's the end all be all--especially just because that's what the oems use(I guess you run everything bone stock???) You keep talking about how stupid a supercharger is because it sucks power(ie fuel), but then you say running at nearly double the rpms to achieve the same power is a better solution. That doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Dougal]

Turbo probably is cheaper, doesn't mean it's the end all be all--especially just because that's what the oems use(I guess you run everything bone stock???) You keep talking about how stupid a supercharger is because it sucks power(ie fuel), but then you say running at nearly double the rpms to achieve the same power is a better solution. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Running bone stock? No, not me. I am big on the benefits of turbocharging though, I have them littering the place from the different setups I've tried. I have my engine running about 80% more torque than stock. Due solely to turbocharging improvements (it was turbocharged stock).

If you want 100kw from a 1HZ, then it'll last longer and probably still use less fuel running it at 4000rpm rather than 2,500rpm with a supercharger attached.
It'll also be a whole lot cheaper. Especially if, like normal people, you only need 100kw a few times in a journey.

If you need more power the whole time, then a turbocharger is going to give you more power for the same engine stress than a supercharger and will also make the engine more efficient. You will use less fuel than supercharged to the same power level or running at higher rpm to deliver the same power.

Roscoe's situation of wanting more power but never using the stock power is a little absurd. If he wanted more torque, that would make sense.

 

[tclark]

Torque is absolutely the reason I'd prefer a supercharger; the low end grunt is what I'd like. If I wanted high hp I'd do a sbc or something like that.

 

[Tapage]

out us the usual concept discussion .. have to say that SC looks beautiful ! what a fine job .. all the intake " piping " .. that won't come free for sure ..

what would be interesting to me it's ditch the CT26 in any given ( and dyno tested ) 1HD-T and swap in the sprintex SC ... then dynoed again ..

 

[roscoFJ73]

Torque is absolutely the reason I'd prefer a supercharger; the low end grunt is what I'd like. If I wanted high hp I'd do a sbc or something like that.

Low end grunt is what you get,no having to wait for the turbo to spool up. Thats was one thing I disliked about the 12HT I had,from a standing start it was just a 2H.

 

[fitzmooney]

Reading this thread reminds me of the old days when we used to supercharge the VW Beetle.
I think it was a Judson, which was a rotary vane unit.
I remember we used to demo them by starting off in top gear.
Now that is low down torque.
Mike