Cosworth Supercharger Owners Thread

[ajc209]

Matt - whats the recommended torque for the bolts that hold the pulley on the nose of the supercharger?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Matt@Cosworth]

12Nm chap

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by Matt@Cosworth

Well I'll still be checking occasionally and will always try to help if I can

to answer the kit weight its 33.5 kg so 74 lb

Always good to hear!
Good thing my Stage 1.3 tune is running great with no issues at all

[Matt@Cosworth]

Originally Posted by ajc209

Matt - whats the recommended torque for the bolts that hold the pulley on the nose of the supercharger?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

going to the small pulley?

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by weederr33

Good thing my Stage 1.3 tune is running great with no issues at all

Did you make any logs? Anything to share?

[ajc209]

Originally Posted by Matt@Cosworth

going to the small pulley?

Well I bought one to make sure I get one.

I'm still on the fence. If it blows a rod it would be highly inconvenient at the moment.

Matt could you perhaps explain in simplle terms how cylinder pressures vs intake runner length vs boost work. Im interested because the harrop runs 0.7bar to make same power as this kit on 0.5 bar. Obvious differences are shorter runners, bigger roots and smaller ic bricks.

Is it as simple as more pressure = more power or is there more to it regarding intake tuning, cams ect

It's would be really good if we knew the mean and standard deviation of rod strength so we could then figure out what the chances are of blowing a rod at 110bar.





Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Matt@Cosworth]

Well something that cropped up during the initial development of our kit was the realisation that the intake runner length we wanted to have from the Tuning simulation calcs, could only just be packaged with the brick size we'd chosen

hence you may notice the manifold is a little 'bow' legged to increasie the runner length

if we'd ignored the runner length like some may have done then the engine pressure wave tune will work against the boost pressure
so you need more boost pressure to overcome the intake pressure pulse

ours does not

plus we had the advantage of cylinder pressure kit and a engine dyno and cylinder lambda measurement so I could adjust the ignition timing and fuelling to get it all spot on for each cylinder throughout the rev range

and yes we looked at using the bigger blower and found its on a bit of a knife edge whether to use the smaller R900 or R1320 as yes the bigger blower makes boost quicker so you can run it slower but it will consume more power to develop this boost

the R900 will make very similar boost pressure but has to spun faster to get there but will also consume less power to do so

plus when we designed the kit the R1320 wasn't available.....

as to rod material strength scatter we used data we already had from OEM's to define a safe limit so there's margin on that and we originally then came back a bit further on that figure to give some more margin which is where the 280bhp figure came from

the smaller pulley uses up the extra margin we specified but we still have the safety margin in the material spec

[ajc209]

Originally Posted by Matt@Cosworth

Well something that cropped up during the initial development of our kit was the realisation that the intake runner length we wanted to have from the Tuning simulation calcs, could only just be packaged with the brick size we'd chosen

hence you may notice the manifold is a little 'bow' legged to increasie the runner length

if we'd ignored the runner length like some may have done then the engine pressure wave tune will work against the boost pressure
so you need more boost pressure to overcome the intake pressure pulse

ours does not

plus we had the advantage of cylinder pressure kit and a engine dyno and cylinder lambda measurement so I could adjust the ignition timing and fuelling to get it all spot on for each cylinder throughout the rev range

and yes we looked at using the bigger blower and found its on a bit of a knife edge whether to use the smaller R900 or R1320 as yes the bigger blower makes boost quicker so you can run it slower but it will consume more power to develop this boost

the R900 will make very similar boost pressure but has to spun faster to get there but will also consume less power to do so

plus when we designed the kit the R1320 wasn't available.....

as to rod material strength scatter we used data we already had from OEM's to define a safe limit so there's margin on that and we originally then came back a bit further on that figure to give some more margin which is where the 280bhp figure came from

the smaller pulley uses up the extra margin we specified but we still have the safety margin in the material spec

Right then pulley goes on tonight or tomorrow!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[sly]

How are the transmissions holding up with this kit?

[Matt@Cosworth]

No issues to my knowledge
some folks have polished the stock clutch using it but that's not the norm

the auto is also OK on this kit

[Rolla]

Originally Posted by Matt@Cosworth

Well something that cropped up during the initial development of our kit was the realisation that the intake runner length we wanted to have from the Tuning simulation calcs, could only just be packaged with the brick size we'd chosen

hence you may notice the manifold is a little 'bow' legged to increasie the runner length

if we'd ignored the runner length like some may have done then the engine pressure wave tune will work against the boost pressure
so you need more boost pressure to overcome the intake pressure pulse

ours does not

plus we had the advantage of cylinder pressure kit and a engine dyno and cylinder lambda measurement so I could adjust the ignition timing and fuelling to get it all spot on for each cylinder throughout the rev range

and yes we looked at using the bigger blower and found its on a bit of a knife edge whether to use the smaller R900 or R1320 as yes the bigger blower makes boost quicker so you can run it slower but it will consume more power to develop this boost

the R900 will make very similar boost pressure but has to spun faster to get there but will also consume less power to do so

plus when we designed the kit the R1320 wasn't available.....

as to rod material strength scatter we used data we already had from OEM's to define a safe limit so there's margin on that and we originally then came back a bit further on that figure to give some more margin which is where the 280bhp figure came from

the smaller pulley uses up the extra margin we specified but we still have the safety margin in the material spec

Love this sort of information!

[botbs]

Matt@Cosworth and All,

Which oil cooler do you recommend and fits for the Cosworth 2.0 kit? I am planning to track down the road and I would like to install everything all at once.

Thanks

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by botbs

Matt@Cosworth and All,

Which oil cooler do you recommend and fits for the Cosworth 2.0 kit? I am planning to track down the road and I would like to install everything all at once.

Thanks

The charge coolers are pretty damn effective. There's a guy here in Austin (and on here) who tracks his car without an oil cooler and hasn't had any issues. I used the OEM forester style on my FRS. The Jackson Racing dual radiator/ oil cooler would be great if you need extra capacity but don't track crazy. If that's the case, any A2O cooler will do.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by botbs

Matt@Cosworth and All,

Which oil cooler do you recommend and fits for the Cosworth 2.0 kit? I am planning to track down the road and I would like to install everything all at once.

Thanks

I have the Perrin Oil Cooler with mine.