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

[2forme]

Originally Posted by gmookher

heat output wise, let this be clear as day:

Roots>TwinScrew>Centrifugal

LOL, I'm sorry but this just looks like an attempt to just "be right" about something after that last post by sw20kosh....

Although I don't agree with him on "only people who go the track will know that a centrifugal is better", but I think I'm just misunderstanding how he typed that.

[gmookher]

Originally Posted by 2forme

LOL, I'm sorry but this just looks like an attempt to just "be right" about something after that last post by sw20kosh....

Although I don't agree with him on "only people who go the track will know that a centrifugal is better", but I think I'm just misunderstanding how he typed that.

Challenge accepted

please see below: what do you make of the 2nd paragraph?

hopefully you see I am not bullshitin anyone here;

heat output wise, let this be clear as day:

Roots>TwinScrew>Centrifugal

[ngabdala]

Zing!

[2forme]

Originally Posted by gmookher

Challenge accepted

please see below: what do you make of the 2nd paragraph?

Oh I didn't say you were wrong. lol

But this isn't a roots... it's a twin screw... so it holds it's own compression ratio according to that document.

[gmookher]

Originally Posted by 2forme

Oh I didn't say you were wrong. lol

But this isn't a roots... it's a twin screw... so it holds it's own compression ratio according to that document.

Still,
Centri wins on the heat output buddy. Its still more efficient than Twin screw, like for like PSI, thermally

Lets look at my other point, about MPG

"the twin screw is compressing air even when it is not sending boost to the engine (i.e. under cruising or deceleration)."

[2forme]

Originally Posted by gmookher

Still,
Centri wins on the heat output buddy. Its still more efficient than Twin screw, like for like PSI

To obtain torque, there must be some sacrifice LOL

[gmookher]

Originally Posted by 2forme

To obtain torque, there must be some sacrifice LOL

Where I come from, we dont make sacrifices for power.


(You gotta do it in the Docs' Back to the Future voice)

From a stop,
Thanks to ECUTEK, and flat foot shifting, and launch control, I simply floor the gas pedal, it holds my revs at a point I set with the cruise control wand, and either 4k,4.5k,5k or 5.5k IIRC and I can dump the clutch, right where all my power begins. Then I shift at factory redline even tho the limits been raised, and catch the next gear somewhere north of 4500.

Whilst in motion I simply shift to where I'm asking my tuner for power-4000 to 6500. Its on demand, no lag and she'll pull up as high as I want. I fail to see the sacrifice-will you remind me where that is again?
I'm tough to argue with on this, look where my car is...sorry if I'm being stubborn, but just wanting to share knowledge I used to determine my direction given the choices at hand.

[sw20kosh]

Originally Posted by 2forme

LOL, I'm sorry but this just looks like an attempt to just "be right" about something after that last post by sw20kosh....

Although I don't agree with him on "only people who go the track will know that a centrifugal is better", but I think I'm just misunderstanding how he typed that.

GM is right about efficiency and heat. Centri wins there. You just have to decide on if you want
A. efficiency and torque increases in the higher rpms
B. lower efficiency and torque earlier

Look at the Exige S (or Celica GTS). That EAton roots pumps out more than 250 degrees F charge into the intercooler/engine at 9 psi.

[gmookher]

Originally Posted by sw20kosh

GM is right about efficiency and heat. Centri wins there. You just have to decide on if you want
A. higher MPG efficiency and torque increases in the higher RPMs=Vortech
B. lower MPG efficiency and torque in lower RPMs=Innovate

Look at the Exige S (or Celica GTS). That EAton roots pumps out more than 250 degrees F charge into the intercooler/engine at 9 psi.

Youre SPOT ON
Thanks alot!

[2forme]

Originally Posted by sw20kosh

GM is right about efficiency and heat. Centri wins there. You just have to decide on if you want
A. efficiency and torque increases in the higher rpms
B. lower efficiency and torque earlier

Look at the Exige S (or Celica GTS). That EAton roots pumps out more than 250 degrees F charge into the intercooler/engine at 9 psi.

Oh I know he was right. I was just offering insight into how it came off. You posted in a well thought out manner... and he just said "Oh well I'm right about THIS!" lol

We're sitting here and discussing efficiency and numbers, but the point of view I'm coming from is how it actually drives. Truth is, the centrifugal kit with it's stage one tune is only considerably more powerful than our current e85 n/a power levels above 5200 RPM (according to the dyno Perrin showed me). I don't know about anyone else, but while I do go above 5200, I would say 80% of my driving is below 5200. To people who share the same driving habits, this would be less satisfying than being able to stomp the pedal at 3500 and have torque available there.

I'm not so much concerned with the heat output since most of these kits are running under 8 psi. We aren't talking super high performance. The heat output of any of these kits in stage one form should be well within reasonable limits, provided they are engineered correctly.

[flatline]

Originally Posted by gmookher

Youre SPOT ON
Thanks alot!

The way you are talking about driving, I'm not sure how much more efficient your system is going to be?

I would say I rarely get my FR-S up above 5k rpm. I drive it 90% of the time like a normal car (since it *is* my daily driver). Screw all this "because racecar" stuff. My car will almost certainly never see the track and it will never lay down a 1/4.

Personally, I'm fine sacrificing power up top for low-end oomph since I never drive at the redline. I'm not interested in launch control or any of that malarkey. I just want the car to feel a little more responsive on the throttle from 1.5-3.5k rpm. Depending on how much of a hit the fuel efficiency takes, I might be OK with it.

That said, I've had my eye on about half a dozen different FI solutions, but I'm withholding judgement and selection until they are more thoroughly implemented, tested, and flogged.

[mines13]

Originally Posted by gmookher

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:

First off, greetings all.

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.

Yes, the non intercooled kit does not require any upgraded fuel system components. The intercooled kit will include upgraded fuel injectors. For those that wish to make their own decisions regarding fuel/tuning they may purchase a tuner kit, which will not include these ancillaries. the bypass valve configuration is identical between the two versions.

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?

Agreed, this surely would come down to the end users personal desires. If you define better as near instant throttle response, near no ramp in boost to peak pressure, more torque per lb of boost, (essentially feeling like a larger displacement NA engine) a twin screw would be superior to a centrifugal. But this may not apply to everybody.

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.

Very true and well said. More on that later...

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.

Under light load conditions this has a pretty negligible effect. The advantages of the power delivery however offset most of this in real world use.

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.

I would argue that the advantages of a twin screw system are most obviously at lower engine speeds. Not having to downshift, cursing in a higher gear, etc. All of this has a pretty dramatic effect on fuel efficiency and drive-ability. The peak RPM advantages of a centrigual make a lot of sense in larger displacement engines where the power tends to fall off up top. Those Paxton Viper kits were pretty mean.

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.

There have been plenty of twin screw OEM supercharger applications. Mercedes Benz (AMG 55 series cars), Ford (Ford GT super car), Mercury Marine, etc. There are also several current gen Roots supercharged engines. Jaguar, Ford, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Holden, Lotus...

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.

I would agree with the power delivery of a twin screw. As for the sound, personal preference prevails. I think most performance oriented drivers will find it quite addicting.

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.

I do not know enough of TRD's internal decision making process to determine what their reasoning is for selecting one design over another. Cost/packaging is always a factor though... If I had to wager a guess.

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.

There are trade offs without question, a roots or screw will make vastly superior low end boost/torque/throttle response vs a centrifugal; but will produce a lower peak number at said peak boost pressure.

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.

Tuning, cam phasing (valve over lap), etc. play a major role in out right emissions. The Innovate Motorsports positive displacement twin screw system will be CARB approved.

[sw20kosh]

Originally Posted by 2forme

Although I don't agree with him on "only people who go the track will know that a centrifugal is better", but I think I'm just misunderstanding how he typed that.

You misunderstand me. I'll clarify.

The main customer who drives the FR-S "R" with a Roots will go "this car must have a v8!!!" wow!!!

That same customer who drives the FR-S "C" with a centrifugal sc will go "what power? this feels stock".

The centri sc would be most notable to people who know:

A. What a centrifugal charger does
B. Where the relevant power band is for track use (ie. above 4000 rpms on this car as you are shifting near redline which drops your rpms to no lower than 4000 for the next gear. No one cares about idle-3,000 rpms one the track.

That being said, this type of power band is not important to 95% of people. Therefore the Roots/twinscrew/smallish turbo is best for them.

[FreshFRS]

Originally Posted by gmookher

Youre SPOT ON
Thanks alot!

i agree the guy is right, but you gotta also consider the TVS series of roots type blowers, much more efficient and properly sized wont give up much, if any, top end power, being nearly as thermally efficient as a centri as well. the old M62 that lotus used is 2 steps behind the current stuff.

also fuel economy between a roots that has a by-pass and a centrifugal should be very comparable. if you are worried, go the the roots and drop your axle ratio to 3.7:1 would be comparable or better than stock. instant boost gives extra torque/power that the centrifugal cant match.


Assuming about 26% drivetrain loss (MT)
i ran a basic (very basic) test having a flow map for the R1050 TVS blower and R1320 just because. and got about 240rwkw, power peaked at 6900rpm (with both) at 10 and 9psi respectively. turbos are doing that at 9-10psi. the R1100 that i've emailed eaton about is even more efficient and would produce about 250rwkw at 7000 (330whp) at 10psi (72% thermal efficiency above 4000rpm) meaning a good A/W intercooler could bring temps the within 15% of ambient (similar to a centri with good air to air)