What kind of power increase would you see from a setup like this?
New Sprintex supercharger for diesels
- Thread starter roscoFJ73
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
Maybe more horsies, and torque, than that according to their brochure. Here is the link again:
http://sprintex.com.au/files/landcruiser_brochure1.pdf
http://sprintex.com.au/files/landcruiser_brochure1.pdf
- Thread starter
- #24
Man its got a lot of "bling" too
The alternator and aircon stay in their original position.
The kit you get is for the engine you have.This is a 1HZ
Normally the blower runs at 3 times the engine rpm but Sprintex have other pulleys that can over/under drive them.
Ive spoken to owners who got 200000klms out of them with no maintenance
The alternator and aircon stay in their original position.
The kit you get is for the engine you have.This is a 1HZ
Normally the blower runs at 3 times the engine rpm but Sprintex have other pulleys that can over/under drive them.
Ive spoken to owners who got 200000klms out of them with no maintenance
- Thread starter
- #25
Yes to all of them except mileage. I know they turn the fuel up a little.I doubt it affects the economy by more than 5% either way.
If the blower belt breaks or some other failure occurs in the blower it can be driven as normal.
The rotors dont actually touch.Older types had seals and suffered from wear.
The teflon coated rotors are high precision and stay less than a 1mm apart.
The bearings are also long lasting to maintain the clearance on the rotors
Looking at that belt makes me think you would not want to get too much crap up in that area like water and mud. Also the sprintex being a positive displacement supercharger would blow pretty hot air as against a centrifical supercharger. Have they overcome the continual belt adjusting problems related to positive displacement superchargers? cheers
- Thread starter
- #27
I dont think belt slip would matter except you would lose some pressure,its not timed like a fuel injection pump.
Oil would probably be the worst thing to get on the belt.
It obviously has tensioners built into it. I not sure of the belt life span but the blower has an oil change at 50000klm.
It does make some heat but as the rotors dont actually touch and the blower is separated from the engine I dont think its a problem.
It is too hot to touch after a good workout but you dont have to keep it running like some turbos
but .. just wondering if is necesary the rotors touch to make the boost . ?
What about in terms of overall performance? Is a supercharger better? What if you had a dual setup, with a supercharger with a turbo feeding the supercharger? Would that be unrealistic?
- Thread starter
- #30
Its been done but it all gets bigger than Ben Hur.
You cant say one which one gives more power over the other, a bit like asking how long is a piece of string
It gets to a point where if you want that much power,ditch the diesel and start looking at fuel injected sbc.
- Thread starter
- #31
The clearances are very fine. At operating speed it can still make enough pressure.
Ive heard it takes 3 days to machine the rotors out of a single lump of alloy
The clearances are very fine. At operating speed it can still make enough pressure.
Ive heard it takes 3 days to machine the rotors out of a single lump of alloy
3 days !!!! now I figure what a expensive it can be .. !
Its been done but it all gets bigger than Ben Hur.
You cant say one which one gives more power over the other, a bit like asking how long is a piece of string
It gets to a point where if you want that much power,ditch the diesel and start looking at fuel injected sbc.
True, but at the same time you can tune up a 6BT to get 500 lb/ft more than stock pretty easily. I'm not saying that the performance gains are going to be the same on a 2H, but the potential for more power is still there.
Essentially what you're telling me is that it's not the amount of power in terms of difference between superchargers and turbos, but what type of power? If so, that makes sense.
Now riddle me this, why do all diesel manufacturers supply their engines stock with turbos as opposed to superchargers?
turbo es more cheap . ?
- Thread starter
- #35
Yes and no.Its more about cost and reliabiltiy.Its sometimes easier to increase the cubes of an engine than put superchargers at one end and turbos at the other.
The prime reason behind a diesel is longevity with reliabilty with low operating costs.
If you turn them into high performance engines you lose all that and you might as well start with a gasser because its easier and cheaper to achieve the performance figures.
As I said earlier on superchargers were common in the old days but were high maintenance.(Bentley blitzed the Lemans 3 x in the 1920s with their supercharged 6 cyl gassers and figher aircraft with superchargers ruled the skies in ww2)
Turbos became cheaper and took over and a turbo I suppose is less complex,no belts and only one moving part.
But for many years cubic capacity ruled until fuel got dearer and manufacturers began to look for ways to wring more potential from engines
Some engineers predict all cars will be supercharged in the future as its the last avenue to exploit performance on internal combustion engines
They will likely be last phase of the internal combustion engine,small 1 litre or less petrol or diesel engine with oversize blowers that can accelerate full size vehicles as quick as it take current engines 2 or 3 times their cc