X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from dewhirst.ca ([64.26.156.111] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 1002763 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:19:40 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.26.156.111; envelope-from=idewhirst@dewhirst.ca Received: from spatoday.com (www.dewhirst.ca [192.168.1.10]) (authenticated using Trusted-IP) by dewhirst.ca (ISMail v1.8.0) with SMTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:26:21 -0400 Received: from 205.194.127.36 (proxying for unknown) (SquirrelMail authenticated user idewhirst) by www.dewhirst.ca with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:26:21 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Message-ID: <35665.205.194.127.36.1118841981.squirrel@www.dewhirst.ca> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:26:21 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Superchargers - was Failure to compute From: "Ian Dewhirst" To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Reply-To: idewhirst@dewhirst.ca User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Dave Staten wrote: "Obviously nothing is free, but from a net standpoint, the turbo is more energy efficient than is a mechanical drive supercharger." Hi Dave, I was not comparing the two, but since you brought it up... I think that you will find that the Lysholm type supercharger renders the "turbocharger is more efficient" argument obsolete. Typically these compressors have peak adiabatic efficiency at or above centrifugal designs. I am not advocating one type over the other, In my experience the choice has more to do with ease of integration then efficiency. Both work if done properly. We both agree that it takes energy to compress air, it is easy to see that a belt driven supercharger will consume some of the power that is being produced by the eShaft. On the other hand putting a turbine in the exhaust path produces back pressure, back pressure reduces VE. The amount of power you will be able to generate at the flywheel is directly related to VE. VE is, after all, what we are trying to improve with a “super”charger, mechanical or exhaust driven. We are only able to improve VE because we are driving a more efficient air pump (hopefully) then the engine is by itself. This is not always that easy to achieve given the operating range of an automobile engine. To illustrate my point: The TII utilized a 66% increase in manifold pressure to generate a 20% improvement at the eShaft. The REW utilizes a 78% increase in manifold pressure to generate a 64% improvement at the eShaft. The TII is good example of engineering done by the Mazda marketing department, the REW is a good example of the engineering department figuring out how to keep marketing happy and still make some horsepower. Don’t get me started on automotive journalists and the perceived value of making full boost just off idle… Cheers -- Ian