Full throttle Electric Supercharger Build Thread

[fenton]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

Fenton, I do wish you would stop exaggerating the whp/wtq gains achieved by the Phantom ESC. Where you claim 50-85% I see ~50% and where you claim 25-35% I see ~20%. I'm going by all of the dyno results that you've posted and I just can't find any that support your claims.

It's not like this is snake oil but by selling it like snake oil you introduce doubt. Well, IMO anyway.


Thanks in advance.

Sorry for generalizing and giving a range. Depending on the dyno you look at (tuned or untuned) the results very.

On the latest run we hit 190tq at 4250rpm compare that to my stock run on the same dyno dynamics and its 105 tq at 4250rpm. I think when you do the Math on that you will find that it is indeed 80 percent(with TQ300 system). This is why i gave a range... TQ250 system is usually around 50 percent gain in torque from 4500 rpm and below.

Talking about hp, my highest run on the tq300(fully stock) was 207hp(@6750), my highest run STOCK on the same dyno was 165 at 7100.....at 6750 it was only 159hp.....thus a 30% increase.....and again why i claimed a large range. I guess i could have said between 2000 RPM and 7500RPM you will experience a 20% to 50% increase in tq and power worst case.... but what fun is that. My numbers are put up for everyone to see, i havent held anything back.... thanks for keeping me honest

This isnt an exact science.... every car is different.... my car seems to do very well for stock but losses top end to some of the guys with full exhaust.

[Robftss]

Originally Posted by Boosted69

Ok. That's what I figured.
I had spoken to Thomas Knight the other day ( the guy that has successfully made a electric roots blower ) and he was telling me that he uses a larger compressor wheel modified for the housing so he can spin it at what the motor is capable so it may be 4x as large as what would normally be used but spinning 4x as slow as a typical turbo to get the pressure needed ( something like that. not actual true specs). I think having the electric drive with no lag issues and coming on so early in the rpm band throws away traditional needs to be conservative on wheels sizes. I wonder if a different wheel can be used in this system to get the extra air needed if so desired.
I also don't really know what I'm talking about, just really reading to learn and throwing ideas out there.

Well... you have been misinformed.

Don't take it from me, look at any compressor map of a large wheel (ex.T76). The surge line occurs @ higher flow rates, making it a very poor choice for low and mid engine rpm's for a ~200 HP engine.

There are other ESC being developed with real engineering. Choice promotes excellence.

[Boosted69]

Originally Posted by Robftss

Well... you have been misinformed.

Don't take it from me, look at any compressor map of a large wheel (ex.T76). The surge line occurs @ higher flow rates, making it a very poor choice for low and mid engine rpm's for a ~200 HP engine.

There are other ESC being developed with real engineering. Choice promotes excellence.

As I said I am just trying to learn. I think this is a great product. I understand traditional compressor maps well enough to ensure proper application but I would't consider myself a master by any means. what I was getting was that because ESC is instant but may not have the RPM's he stated it could use a larger wheel because it gets spinning so sudden but may help it not run out of breath near redline lets say. I know you have tested many different configurations to get where you are with this today. That is what I got from this conversation I had. Definitely was not talking it as factual. He hasn't done them in a long time.

I will continue to read more and keep my keyboard to myself LOL.

[Sellout]

Originally Posted by Robftss

Well... you have been misinformed.

Don't take it from me, look at any compressor map of a large wheel (ex.T76). The surge line occurs @ higher flow rates, making it a very poor choice for low and mid engine rpm's for a ~200 HP engine.

There are other ESC being developed with real engineering. Choice promotes excellence.

He mentioned modifying a wheel for the compressor housing in use. As soon as you start modifying a wheel you change the compressor map. Or if you take a certain wheel and use it in a different housing, you've changed the compressor map.

Those maps pertain to one wheel in one housing.

[Robftss]

Originally Posted by Sellout

He mentioned modifying a wheel for the compressor housing in use. As soon as you start modifying a wheel you change the compressor map. Or if you take a certain wheel and use it in a different housing, you've changed the compressor map.

Those maps pertain to one wheel in one housing.

Hmmm... Machining the exducer and inducer from a large compressor wheel to fit into a much smaller housing ? Not sure the point of doing that. Sounds like 'e-ram' talk.

[Pug]

I went into "dealer mode" tonight before a service appointment in the morning, and I timed myself doing it. It took 14 minutes for me to swap the supercharger with the Perrin inlet tube, disconnect the controller's cable harness, and disconnect and stash the display for my advanced monitor.

Half of that time was me wrestling with my nemesis: the crankcase breather hose.

[Sojhinn]

Originally Posted by Pug

I went into "dealer mode" tonight before a service appointment in the morning, and I timed myself doing it. It took 14 minutes for me to swap the supercharger with the Perrin inlet tube, disconnect the controller's cable harness, and disconnect and stash the display for my advanced monitor.

Half of that time was me wrestling with my nemesis: the crankcase breather hose.

I know what you mean. He and I have battled many times. In fact he beat me once and my knuckles still scream from the heavens about the blood shed on the air conditioner battlefield.

[Thatruth2001]

You guys are funny I just thru a CEL involving the ingnition coil P0351. Took the car in as-is. The code is becoming common with premature failures invoving cylinder 1's ingnition coil. Also did you guys flash the ecu and refuse the recent update?

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by Pug

I went into "dealer mode" tonight before a service appointment in the morning, and I timed myself doing it. It took 14 minutes for me to swap the supercharger with the Perrin inlet tube, disconnect the controller's cable harness, and disconnect and stash the display for my advanced monitor.

Half of that time was me wrestling with my nemesis: the crankcase breather hose.

Fenton did that in 2 minutes flat, no exaggeration! J/K

Originally Posted by Gary in NJ

I choose one chart, it was the graph showing 205.7 HP that is listed on the first page of the thread. There may be better or worse graphs...but I chose this one.

I charted the results below. Note, I chose 500 rpm increments, and there are better results between those intervals. But Fenton's claims are supported. For example the chart below shows a ESC torque at 4000 and 4500 at 182, but between those points the graph shows peek ESC torque of 184 while OEM torque at 4250 is 110...a 74 ft-lb increase or 67%. On this graph the gain is 50% to 69% in the torque dip and 24% at redline. Fenton's claim in the post above is "50 to 85 percent torque gain in the dip leveling to 25-35 percent gain at redline". The chart below supports a claim in this range. I'm sure there is a chart showing a 85% gain in the torque dip...but at this point it's on you to show me where I'm wrong.

My point, Fenton is being upfront with his data and his claims


...........OEM HP...OEM TQ...ESC HP...ESC TQ...d HP...d TQ...% HP...% TQ
3000.......75.........131........100........175... ......25.....44......33%.....34%
3500.......80.........117........117........175... ......37.....58......46%.....50%
4000.......82.........108........137........182... ......55.....74......67%.....69%
4500.......95.........120........157........182... ......62.....62......65%.....52%
5000......125........133........175........182.... .....50......49......40%....37%
5500......135........126........185........175.... .....50......49......37%.....39%
6000......145........126........180........168.... .....35......42......24%.....33%
6500......160........126........202........165.... .....42......39......26%.....31%
7000......168........125........205........155.... .....37......30......22%.....24%

Hey Gary,


If you wanted to defend Fenton's claims, you could not have picked a better dyno sheet! The one you chose shows the largest hp/tq gains over stock. Even then it still doesn't actually support his claims and I thank you for taking the time to post this best case data.

Still, what I see when looking at all of the Phantom ESC dyno results posted to date are TQ gains of 30-70% in the dip and 15-25% near redline on the Dyno Dynamics sheets and TQ gains of 25-50% in the dip and 15-25% near redline on the Dynojet sheets. Maybe it's my OCD showing itself but I just can't concede that 25-70% can be called 50-85% nor is 15-25% close enough to say 25-35%.

I don't believe the exaggeration was intentional nor do I wish to split hairs over a few percentage points but the figures quoted were just to far off for me to ignore.


.

Originally Posted by fenton

Sorry for generalizing and giving a range. Depending on the dyno you look at (tuned or untuned) the results very.

On the latest run we hit 190tq at 4250rpm compare that to my stock run on the same dyno dynamics and its 105 tq at 4250rpm. I think when you do the Math on that you will find that it is indeed 80 percent(with TQ300 system). This is why i gave a range... TQ250 system is usually around 50 percent gain in torque from 4500 rpm and below.

Talking about hp, my highest run on the tq300(fully stock) was 207hp(@6750), my highest run STOCK on the same dyno was 165 at 7100.....at 6750 it was only 159hp.....thus a 30% increase.....and again why i claimed a large range. I guess i could have said between 2000 RPM and 7500RPM you will experience a 20% to 50% increase in tq and power worst case.... but what fun is that. My numbers are put up for everyone to see, i havent held anything back.... thanks for keeping me honest

This isnt an exact science.... every car is different.... my car seems to do very well for stock but losses top end to some of the guys with full exhaust.

Sorry to bust your balls over a few percentage points but when stating a range of TQ gained within the TQ dip rpm range you can't accurately say that 25-70% is 50-85%. You seem to be quoting maximum peak TQ gains as they vary from different ESC's and dyno results including unseen new prototype results compared to an old baseline with 5 ft lbs subtracted and 5% gain added. This is getting far too muddled for me. Please carry on.


I have only one more question for you, if you'll indulge me. Why is the 175 ft lbs ESC called the TQ250 and the 190ft lb model called the TQ300? What, if any, is the numerical significance in those model names?






.

[fenton]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

Maybe it's my OCD showing itself but....

Probaby

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

Sorry to bust your balls over a few percentage points but when stating a range of TQ gained within the TQ dip rpm range you can't accurately say that 25-70% is 50-85%. You seem to be quoting maximum peak TQ gains as they vary from different ESC's and dyno results including unseen new prototype results compared to an old baseline with 5 ft lbs subtracted and 5% gain added. This is getting far too muddled for me. Please carry on.


I have only one more question for you, if you'll indulge me. Why is the 175 ft lbs ESC called the TQ250 and the 190ft lb model called the TQ300? What, if any, is the numerical significance in those model names?

Of course i was quoting absolute peak max tq gain(even if it was for only 200 rpm).... i wasnt trying to imply that the entire TQ dip was 85 percent gain, im sorry if you missunderstood me on this.

The baseline is the base line, every single time i went on the dyno dynamics the HP was within 1hp, even the day we tested the tq300, i just dont have the baseline overlayed on the max torque run, sorry.

To my knowledge, the model numbers do not stand for Torque. Instead they refer to the maximum engine HP the particular ESC can FLOW.

So the TQ250 can flow enough air to not be a restriction on a 250 Crank hp engine..... This is derived from the CFM at redline.

Now the TQ300 is still in the experimental phase and we are making ground on getting closer to that, what we are finding is that the TQ300 really needs supporting mods to help it get to that goal.... There are some interesting things on the horizon that should help this system.

This isnt to say that as soon as you slap a esc on you are making 250 engine hp, or 300 engine hp for the tq300, it just means that the ESC can flow enough air for that to happen....alot still comes down to tune and gas and "x" and "y"...If the cams fall flat on their face after 6500 obviously it makes it very hard to reach that with minimal boost.

Honestly if you look at it we are getting very close to that, stock crank hp 200hp...equals maybe 170whp(15% DT loss)

Add ESC, 250 engine HP flow.... 212whp at 15% DT loss..... you can see that our engine needs extra help even though the esc is flowing "x" CFM.

Hope that helps to clear things up.

[Robftss]

Originally Posted by Boosted69

Ok. That's what I figured.
I had spoken to Thomas Knight the other day ( the guy that has successfully made a electric roots blower ) and he was telling me that he uses a larger compressor wheel modified for the housing so he can spin it at what the motor is capable so it may be 4x as large as what would normally be used but spinning 4x as slow as a typical turbo to get the pressure needed ( something like that. not actual true specs). I think having the electric drive with no lag issues and coming on so early in the rpm band throws away traditional needs to be conservative on wheels sizes. I wonder if a different wheel can be used in this system to get the extra air needed if so desired.
I also don't really know what I'm talking about, just really reading to learn and throwing ideas out there.

Mr. Knight has emailed me...I have invited him to this thread.

He has concerns of patent infringements, but I have assured him the Phantom design is purely prior art engineered. There is a patent for an electric motor driven centrifugal supercharger...but it was publish in 1958, yes, it has been that long! Also, electrically driven PD blowers have been used in factories since forever.

He has build 30kW units, a number that I have no interest in, but would love to see integrated into the FA20.

On the development side:
@Bu-Tang has been confirming the PSH-12180NBFR (21Ahr) starter battery and new battery cover/clamp conversion bits. (website has pics 'install download'). The last couple of nights we registered no temp on the Farenheit scale, sluggish, but she started up!

R&D continues.....

Rob.

[fenton]

Originally Posted by Thatruth2001

You guys are funny I just thru a CEL involving the ingnition coil P0351. Took the car in as-is. The code is becoming common with premature failures invoving cylinder 1's ingnition coil. Also did you guys flash the ecu and refuse the recent update?

Im in Canada and they havent offered me any updates yet.

Did they S#it a brick when you rolled in with this Alien technology?

[neutron256]

Originally Posted by Robftss

Mr. Knight has emailed me...I have invited him to this thread.

He has concerns of patent infringements, but I have assured him the Phantom design is purely prior art engineered. There is a patent for an electric motor driven centrifugal supercharger...but it was publish in 1958, yes, it has been that long! Also, electrically driven PD blowers have been used in factories since forever.

He has build 30kW units, a number that I have no interest in, but would love to see integrated into the FA20.

On the development side:
@Bu-Tang has been confirming the PSH-12180NBFR (21Ahr) starter battery and new battery cover/clamp conversion bits. (website has pics 'install download'). The last couple of nights we registered no temp on the Farenheit scale, sluggish, but she started up!

R&D continues.....

Rob.

I agree, I think your at minimal risk of a patent violation.

There are tons of electric supercharger/turbo patents out there, but most specify some form of more complex drive or control system. For instance Mr. Knight's patent is for his three motor system. Others are incredibly vague to he point where they are probably unenforceable.

The patent system is sadly very broken, and enforcement often comes down to whomever has the deepest pockets.

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by fenton

Probaby



Of course i was quoting absolute peak max tq gain(even if it was for only 200 rpm).... i wasnt trying to imply that the entire TQ dip was 85 percent gain, im sorry if you missunderstood me on this.




The baseline is the base line, every single time i went on the dyno dynamics the HP was within 1hp, even the day we tested the tq300, i just dont have the baseline overlayed on the max torque run, sorry.

To my knowledge, the model numbers do not stand for Torque. Instead they refer to the maximum engine HP the particular ESC can FLOW.

So the TQ250 can flow enough air to not be a restriction on a 250 Crank hp engine..... This is derived from the CFM at redline.

Now the TQ300 is still in the experimental phase and we are making ground on getting closer to that, what we are finding is that the TQ300 really needs supporting mods to help it get to that goal.... There are some interesting things on the horizon that should help this system.

This isnt to say that as soon as you slap a esc on you are making 250 engine hp, or 300 engine hp for the tq300, it just means that the ESC can flow enough air for that to happen....alot still comes down to tune and gas and "x" and "y"...If the cams fall flat on their face after 6500 obviously it makes it very hard to reach that with minimal boost.

Honestly if you look at it we are getting very close to that, stock crank hp 200hp...equals maybe 170whp(15% DT loss)

Add ESC, 250 engine HP flow.... 212whp at 15% DT loss..... you can see that our engine needs extra help even though the esc is flowing "x" CFM.

Hope that helps to clear things up.

No misunderstanding at all, certainly not what you just implied. I'll keep checking in to see if a Phantom ESC ever achieves an 85% peak TQ gain or BHP to match it's "TQ" numerical rating. I'd say things are pretty clear to me now.