Innovate Motorsports Twin Screw Supercharger Kit for FR-S/BRZ

[flatline]

$4695 is their "Stage 2" price?

[JoeBoxer]

Originally Posted by flatline

$4695 is their "Stage 2" price?

Intercooled and fuel system upgrades included i'm pretty sure. A relative bargain if so.

[empower-auto]

Originally Posted by 2forme

They are two entirely different kits. One makes max boost and holds it through the rev range....one makes max boost at 7400RPM....

Do you know any 86's running on e85 in your area? You could get an idea of how the Vortech will feel up to 5200 RPM. The torque output is really close prior to that.

Go on

[gmookher]

Originally Posted by 2forme

They are two entirely different kits. One makes max boost and holds it through the rev range....one makes max boost at 7400RPM....

.

Ok, I'll bite:

there is a little more to it, when you compare other salient features, with out turning this into a roots vs centri debate thread:

1-fuel injection needs to properly fuel either solutions differ, the two present different requirements at both stg1 and especially stg 2 implementations as far as fuel demands, blow off and surge management and subsequent limits build specs and costs that you might set for each. Stage2 at one solution is not equal to stage2 at another, it should be noted.

2-the way each systems reacts to throttle modulation,differs greatly between both systems, one is not better than the other, but each has a different 'character; if you will. I kno why I chose what i did and you should know why youre choosing what you want too. what will you drive like in snow? rain? when sideways?

3-the weight of each system and location of that weight differs, tho not that significant to most buyers, it does impact things like upgradeability significantly.

4-there is a noteworthy difference in both when you look adiabatic efficiency, output charge temps, loaded boost latency, and parasitic drag when comparing centrifugal solution from Vortech vs this twin screw setup from innovate on a smaller motor like ours, especially as the given application's scaling increases.

5-Twin screws are typically used in low RPM applications because they give the full charge right off the line. Centrifugal Blowers will produce more top end power and tend to be very easy if not better on fuel consumption during normal driving conditions.

6-There are a few major issues why OEM installs are shying away from Roots type blowers. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a twin-screw unit used in an OEM application, it is not even considered as one of the competitive designs when you look at the oem marketplace for sports and super cars, money no object.

8-twin screws are all real loud and typically trade off lower end for top end to some extent, many who have them share that they don't make good top end power as stated.But as far as getting that pinned to your seat feeling at lower rpms, its prolly the way to go. if you wan that power at redline, it may not be.

9- Factually speaking:The centrifugal unit is also an OEM unit just like the Eatons were for TRD back in the day. Toyota (TRD) have kicked Eaton to the sideline in 2004 favor of Vortech as their supplier for other systems/current applications. This is not solely cost driven. This means these centri's will be EPA approved. Vortech have cast TRDs name onto their units and designed kits for them in the past. This is public knowledge on the interweb, since 2005 btw.

10-Centrifugal units can run 20 psi with approx 20hp draw. Eaton units become very inefficient when attempting over 10psi and draw upwards of over 40hp at that point on a like for like application.This info is direct from their respective manufacturers.

while it is low on my list lastly...
11-roots units, cause higher emissions than centrifugal units, because of load being more constant on them given their design.

[2forme]

Gem, I wasn't trying to get into the entire debate between the two SC technologies. I was trying to apply the current (or near current) options this gentleman is concerned with. He's looking for 250whp which would fit perfectly in the efficiency range of either kit.

The difference here is, how the air is delivered. A twin screw has torque everywhere because of it's ability to deliver positive pressure down low instead of at the end of the rev range... dare I say similar to a turbo's torque delivery. (Please read the bolded word before the flame war haha).

I've seen the dynos for the Vortech unit, and overlayed it's torque curve with my own torque curve on e85/I/E.



My point to EMPower, was that if he had access to an 86 with an e85 tune, then he could essentially get an idea of how the Vortech unit would "feel" below 5200 RPM. Although 178ft lbs isn't that much of a difference from 160, but it would surely pull a bit better after 5200. If EMPower is looking for a bit more daily driven torque (read: 2500-5000), then a twin screw would probably suit him just fine.

[empower-auto]

Originally Posted by 2forme

Gem, I wasn't trying to get into the entire debate between the two SC technologies. I was trying to apply the current (or near current) options this gentleman is concerned with. He's looking for 250whp which would fit perfectly in the efficiency range of either kit.

The difference here is, how the air is delivered. A twin screw has torque everywhere because of it's ability to deliver positive pressure down low instead of at the end of the rev range... dare I say similar to a turbo's torque delivery. (Please read the bolded word before the flame war haha).

I've seen the dynos for the Vortech unit, and overlayed it's torque curve with my own torque curve on e85/I/E.



My point to EMPower, was that if he had access to an 86 with an e85 tune, then he could essentially get an idea of how the Vortech unit would "feel" below 5200 RPM. Although 178ft lbs isn't that much of a difference from 160, but it would surely pull a bit better after 5200. If EMPower is looking for a bit more daily driven torque (read: 2500-5000), then a twin screw would probably suit him just fine.

I desire to break the tires early and often .. however the idea that the Vortech may preserve some of my fuel economy is very good.

[JoeBoxer]

I have e85 and if the vortech didn't feel any different until 5200 rpm I wouldn't exactly be thrilled about it.

[gmookher]

Originally Posted by JoeBoxer

I have e85 and if the vortech didn't feel any different until 5200 rpm I wouldn't exactly be thrilled about it.

Not sure how you guys have a Vortech dyno chart and TQ curve you 'trust'

however, no based on the above chart, its not looking right to me, but what do I know..

My cars on their dyno at the moment and even I cant have at the numbers, yet.

Tubes have been revised, pulleys are in the air, I'd bite my lip if I opened my mouth further about the chart posted above's accuracy.

[JoeBoxer]

Oh I don't trust those numbers yet anyways we haven't seen final releases from Perrin and I don't make decisions until everything is finalized.

[2forme]

Originally Posted by gmookher

Not sure how you guys have a Vortech dyno chart and TQ curve you 'trust'

however, no based on the above chart, its not looking right to me, but what do I know..

My cars on their dyno at the moment and even I cant have at the numbers, yet.

Tubes have been revised, pulleys are in the air, I'd bite my lip if I opened my mouth further about the chart posted above's accuracy.

Easy, Perrin... Unless YOU don't trust Perrin

I was told that the dyno shown to me were reflective of final numbers. Which is why I held off on doing that comparison until post tuning numbers were available.

[gmookher]

Like I said, I want to see finals from them, I know part changes have happened, and while I am not expecting higher final numbers, I think the curve can get better, humps can move, and dont see the shape on the SC plot where I expect it to be and am suspect of the chart above's accuracy. Not saying youre not close, but you could be off too. I suggest on holding off from comparos till we have more data.

No doubt to break tires early and fast this would be what I wanted. No lag. Nice street option, but changes the car alot. HP and TQ come on early, somewhat nitrouslike IMHO.Sounds fun!
I sorta see the SC as being between the Twin and the Turbo. It moves everything north in amplitude with slight parabola towards the end. Stock HP and TQ moves up mostly. Organic feeling.
The turbo will give me mid range and some low and some top, but there is lag, however small or large, its THERE, each time the revs drop. It is a FUN feeling, that full on power when it does hit, it hits.
SC will be prompt, subtle at first down low, and when I am nailing her like she likes me to pound her, I spend my time up north of 5000, usually right up to low 7000's. Not sure the peak being in the 3000's attracts me much unless i'm trying to pass someone for a parking spot at the mall. It really does depend what youre after. As I drive a long ways to phoenix, I like the low RPM efficiency ALOT given what gas costs per gallon. I'm not an auto driver. I Downshift to pass, rev right, and wham, power outta nowehere appears lag free on demand, linear*. Cant wait to get my car back!


* Your car's drivability fantasy and pursuit of fulfillment may vary.

[2forme]

Originally Posted by gmookher

Like I said, I want to see finals from them, I know part changes have happened, and while I am not expecting higher final numbers, I think the curve can get better, humps can move, and dont see the shape on the SC plot where I expect it to be and am suspect of the chart above's accuracy. Not saying youre not close, but you could be off too. I suggest on holding off from comparos till we have more data.

I was told by Jeff that the final tuning was for low end smoothness.

Like I said, this is a rough estimate, but I am basing it off of confirmation that the dyno that was PMed to me was reflective of their final numbers. The only difference was a smoother low end.

I could send you a screen shot of the PM

[sw20kosh]

3-the weight of each system and location of that weight differs, tho not that significant to most buyers, it does impact things like upgradeability significantly.

-There is plenty of room under the hood even with this SC installed (confirmed by Bullet and early-on pictures of it installed).

6-There are a few major issues why OEM installs are shying away from Roots type blowers. To the best of my knowledge there has never been a twin-screw unit used in an OEM application, it is not even considered as one of the competitive designs when you look at the oem marketplace for sports and super cars, money no object.

-These are the 3 main types of FI
1. Turbo
2. Eaton Roots (PD)
3. Twin Screw (PD)
4. Centrifugal SC

-#1 and #2 are used extensively in OEM vehicles. #2 is seen in Trucks, performance versions of the Camaros, Mustangs, Corvettes, the Ford GT, Mercedes AMG versions, some super cars, celica GTS, lotus elise/exige S etc and the list goes on

-#3 (although similar to an Eaton Roots) and #4 are not seen on OEM vehicles.

-Centrifugals are not seen on OEM cars because of a few things. One is a high amount of wear at the bearings/blades. They are also loud (youtube it). Another is that if you are going to use crankshaft power to spin a supercharger, might as well get boost (thus torque) in the low/mid rpm range rather than just in the high rpm range. It is about who the customer base is and what they want. 95% of OEM customers want to feel the sudden rush of a PD supercharger or a small turbo. Thus Eaton Roots (more efficient than a Twin Screw) is used.

For example, if toyota had a 200 hp scion FR-S and then released a more expensive and powerfully tuned Scion FR-S (FR-S type R), if this FR-SR had a centri sc, a lot of test drivers would say "what the hell? where is the extra power? they lied to me". Those of us who are more performance oriented and actually take cars to the track and understand what a full rev range is and where the power bands should be will notice the bump in power. This would be 5% of Toyota's customer base if that.

-Personally, I will have to wait and see the torque curve of this Twin screw before I make a decision, but I am leaning more towards a centrifugal myself. If this was an Eaton Roots TVS....then I would lean more towards that. Alas, it isn't.

9- Factually speaking:The centrifugal unit is also an OEM unit just like the Eatons were for TRD back in the day. Toyota (TRD) have kicked Eaton to the sideline in 2004 favor of Vortech as their supplier for other systems/current applications. This is not solely cost driven. This means these centri's will be EPA approved. Vortech have cast TRDs name onto their units and designed kits for them in the past. This is public knowledge on the interweb, since 2005 btw.

-This is wrong. TRD made one centrifugal supercharger kit and that was for the TC. They discontinued it as it was a complete failure of a kit. You can look it up. Here is an article that compares the SC vs. turbo vs. stock.
http://www.turbomagazine.com/feature...o/viewall.html

-Here is a quote for those who don't feel like reading the whole article:

"While I am a huge TRD fan, I gotta say in this instance the supercharger kit is not the way to go if you want the biggest jump in power. The advantage of going the TRD route is that it is 50-state legal, warranty-compliant, and dealer installed. The downside is that it is a heck of a lot of money to spend for a forced-induction kit that feels almost stock afterward."

Not mentioned in the article is that they were extremeley unreliable (sc known for failing). Believe me, I had a TC and was considering this route. See this link:
http://www.tcsuperchargers.com/

-They would have used an Eaton Roots sc but they had limitations with the engine bay. Straight from TRD's site:

"TRD uses a Vortec centrifugal supercharger for the Scion tC. It was selected for two reasons: Restricted under-hood space and a difficult intake manifold location (it’s on the rear of the engine, close to the firewall). That made using an Eaton Roots-type supercharger impractical. The other consideration was the power band of the stock engine – by using a Vortec supercharger, TRD was able to develop a compact assembly that is easy to install and delivers a power increase that compliments the base engine’s existing torque curve."

-They have not switched to Vortech.

[gmookher]

I dont know the details of the TC thing, but wouldnt surprise me if they were at it again on another platform...

heat output wise, let this be clear as day:

Roots>TwinScrew>Centrifugal

I havent checked but I think the same applies for losses, tho it may be the roots costs less to run and its
loss wise:

Twinscrew>Roots>Centrifugal Puts out the least heat and has the least loss.

I think in terms of MPG, but please correct me here, not 100% on the last two on the next one

Centrifugal Has the best MPG of the three>Twinscrew>Roots