Supercharged 2H

Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
326
Location
Northcliffe, Western Australia
Calm down this thread isn't as exiting as you were hoping. :p

Some time ago I dropped into a wrecker and was quite surprised when I opened the bonnet of an unassuming beige HJ60 and found a freaking supercharger strapped to the side of the 2H.



I asked the wrecker what the story was and he said an old bloke had it, he had the motor rebuilt and supercharged to tow his caravan. It blew a headgasket so he moved on and parked the 60 up. He didn't know who supercharged it or what supercharger it was.

Interestingly, it runs the throttle body on the inlet side of the supercharger. I wonder if operating the supercharger in vacuum would lessen the drive power needed at part throttle? Like when you block the end of a vacuum cleaner and it speeds up because there is no air to pump/less load.



Today I picked up an old 4WDing magazine (1990) and was surprised to see this Sprintex supercharger advertisement.



And also this article. The supercharger is certainly a Sprintex.



(before the argument starts) Personally, I'm not that interested in supercharging a diesel due to obvious power losses and less efficient compressors. I just think people might find this interesting and worth documenting.

Does anyone know anything about Sprintex superchargers on the 2H? Did they ever offer a kit? They had a kit for 1HZs but I can't find anything on a 2H setup.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
326
Location
Northcliffe, Western Australia
I'd say buy that engine and put it in a museum. I'm no fan of supercharges but that is pretty cool none the less!
On my wage I won't be funding any museums but I do agree. It's a shame it ended up at a wreckers! It's hard to believe no one else nabbed it for parts (also has 2" lift, auxiliary fuel tank, stratos seats, front bar, 15x8s ect).

Old mate with the triple turbo 2h would love that supercharger
I wouldn't mind the supercharger compounded with a turbo! Obviously not best engineering practice, but it'd be quite fun to drive/build in a toy.

Anyone else think it's amusing they went to all the expense of rebuilding the motor and supercharging it but didn't add extractors? :)
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
4,166
Location
Sydney, Australia
I wouldn't mind the supercharger compounded with a turbo! Obviously not best engineering practice, but it'd be quite fun to drive/build in a toy.
I scored a decent sized supercharger for next to nothing, and for a long time contemplated compounding it with a turbo on my 1hd-t. the more I read, the less I liked the idea. plus packaging it in the engine bay would have been a major PITA
 

gerg

 
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
3,377
Location
Centre of the universe
I guess yeah although an old Garrett t3 60 trim was widely available in the early 80s and has proven to work well on 2hs. Hind sight I suppose.
 

Tapage

Club 4X4 Panamá
SILVER Star
 
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Messages
23,519
Location
Panamá
I think it's amusing just putting all that effort into a supercharger. Think of what that thing cost new.
moving the entire throttle body to the intake of the SC .. fun right there to start with ..
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
326
Location
Northcliffe, Western Australia
I think it's amusing just putting all that effort into a supercharger. Think of what that thing cost new.
The same magazine lists a new HDJ80 at $77'634, I dare say it cost a fair bit less than that!

I scored a decent sized supercharger for next to nothing, and for a long time contemplated compounding it with a turbo on my 1hd-t. the more I read, the less I liked the idea. plus packaging it in the engine bay would have been a major PITA
That is an advantage to the sprintex, it's tremendously compact.
 

roscoFJ73

 
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
17,157
Location
Perth Western Australia
I had a tour of the Sprintex factory a few years back, its only a few klms from where I live. The unique thing about their rotors was that they had no seals and instead relied upon very high tolerances between the rotors , this meant they had much longer lives than the old The rotors were also teflon coated. Roots type blowers that needed to be stripped down to replace seals. They modified a lot of landcruisers used as drilling rigs.
But their biggest customers were Range Rover V8 owners.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
4,166
Location
Sydney, Australia
That is an advantage to the sprintex, it's tremendously compact
Compact because they were made to be universally retrofitted to anything with an engine.

Compact also equals lack of displacement.
Good to get you off idle, but i reckon it would have been asthmatic on anything over 3.0l once revs got up a little bit
 

roscoFJ73

 
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
17,157
Location
Perth Western Australia
Good to get you off idle, but i reckon it would have been asthmatic on anything over 3.0l once revs got up a little bit
You can adjust them by changing the drive gears. You dont realy need to give an old leaf sprung 4wd more top end speed. They were considered good into mid range rpm Great for towing. Sprintex told me they have low EGTs because the exhaust doesnt have a turbine restricting it.
 

Dougal

 
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
5,361
Location
Kiwiland
Compact because they were made to be universally retrofitted to anything with an engine.

Compact also equals lack of displacement.
Good to get you off idle, but i reckon it would have been asthmatic on anything over 3.0l once revs got up a little bit
The displacement is geared to the crank. So you determine how much boost you want based off the ratio of air to be forced in vs your displacement.
But off idle they have some internal leakage so won't be that inspiring.
 
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
326
Location
Northcliffe, Western Australia
I can only imagine the thirst! Probably 30+ litres/100km. The best I've ever got from my non supercharged rover 3.9 v8 (after an ECU tune) was 15 litres/100km.
I don't think people that could afford to supercharge a new Range Rover were very concerned about fuel economy!

Out of interest I also have an article for the test drive of a sprintex supercharged 1989 3.5 rangie. The installation looks exceptionally neat. They say it runs 6-7psi, does 0-100 in 10.5 seconds and they claim fuel economy is largely unchanged (colour me skeptical). The kit cost $7500 installed in 1990. Fueling is by 2 extra injectors controlled by an independent computer. The 4CU is quite straight forward to manipulate for this sort of thing so I'm surprised they went this way but I guess not many people in Australia had messed with it in that era.

Interestingly FTD Australia (sprintex) cover the remainder of the manufacturers warranty seeing as that is now voided.
 
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
4,166
Location
Sydney, Australia
Sure, but there's limitations as with anything.
Too small a blower can be an impediment to airflow.
Every blower is designed with a maximum CFM range, go past that and they are just a drag.

Gearing to the crank has compromises too.
A blower has efficiency limits (apart from the stinking efficiency generally) just like a turbo
Gear too high or too low and you comprise at one end of the other.
Would you be happy with a turbo that ran out of puff in the mid range, but got you off the mark better than standard.

Personally, the joy of a good turbo is crisp response at any RPM
 
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
368
It’s an interesting theory but the biggest disadvantage would be the fuel economy. I have a Eaton roots based supercharger on a V8 and at “normal” driving conditions it in bypass mode and apparently only adds .3hp of drag. When you put your foot down and create boost it takes a lot more power/fuel to drive but is actually remarkably good.

The issue with a diesel is it’s always sucking maximum air so not sure how you could plumb it to not be creating boost at all times. The power/resonpse down low would be insane (better than any turbo) but I could imagine fuel usage being significantly impacted.
 
Top Bottom