Full throttle Electric Supercharger Build Thread

[fenton]

Originally Posted by DC2R

I'm thinking my 300rms /600 peak amplifier should use between 25 and 50 amps depending on conditions. Seems like a lot to run on small battery among with radio and all other equipment, no?

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

Bu-tang runs a pretty decent setup and his has no problems. He has tested multiple times and there is no dimming of the light or anything like that.

[nlowell]

Originally Posted by DC2R

I have read through much of this thread but usually on phone which shows 162 pages. I think the faq idea will go a long way to keep conversation focused. That being said I have a question. It's anyone running this setup with a subwoofer? I'm concerned about the smaller battery not being able to handle non-stock power draws. Thanks

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

I'm running an Alpine PDX-V9 amp that is 600 watts RMS (1,600 watts peak) and have no issues. I'm not pushing the amp to its potential but I have no dimming of any kind.

Correction: Amp is 900 watts RMS (1,600 peak) - I'm only using the 500 watt RMS sub channel right now though.

http://www.alpine-usa.com/product/view/pdx-v9/

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by Sojhinn

Net gain 14 lbs. I can tell you right now none of us on this forum are good enough drivers for 14 lbs to be the difference on handling characteristics of this car.

Speak for yourself. I notice it in every car I've ever swapped a lighter battery into, and that's agm not li-ion.

People spends hundreds if not thousands of dollars loosing weight from a car so better to optimize not adding it back when possible. Plus the car is already 54/46 and most weight drops happen in the rear making the cars around 57/43 or worse. Relocating all the packs among other things will help get to 52/48 or better depending on what else you do. That could be a 5% swing in weight distribution when combined with other mods.

To me this currently is setup as a convenience package for ease of install and getting to market quicker. I don't think it's an ideal solution all things considered.

That said, it's nice this is available and people who need it now and can't feel 14lbs off their car can rejoice. I think it would be nice if a more performance oriented package were developed that respects the cars potential.

[robwbright]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Plus the car is already 54/46.

Isn't the BRZ 53/47?

http://www.subaru.co.za/Vehicle/Overview/BRZ

http://www.autoguide.com/car-compari...-brz-3720.html

[Boxer486]

Can we also get more comments on the linearity of the throttle response during DRS compared to stock when pushing the car? Someone commented they were having issues at the track but they had other problems as well that might be unrelated.

Any issues feathering the throttle in DRS to help rotate and balance the chassis at speed or is it more dead or better compared to stock?

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by robwbright

Isn't the BRZ 53/47?

http://www.subaru.co.za/Vehicle/Overview/BRZ

http://www.autoguide.com/car-compari...-brz-3720.html

There's a hidden asterisks that it's 53/47 when two people sit in the car per Toyota's official press release. All the official corner weights will confirm it's more like 54/46 if you search out the threads. A 5% swing to the front would be too close to FWD territory for me which is why I'm not into excessive plumbing and intercooling for the 86.

[Gary in NJ]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Speak for yourself. I notice it in every car I've ever swapped a lighter battery into, and that's agm not li-ion.

People spends hundreds if not thousands of dollars loosing weight from a car so better to optimize not adding it back when possible. Plus the car is already 54/46 and most weight drops happen in the rear making the cars around 57/43 or worse. Relocating all the packs among other things will help get to 52/48 or better depending on what else you do. That could be a 5% swing in weight distribution when combined with other mods.

To me this currently is setup as a convenience package for ease of install and getting to market quicker. I don't think it's an ideal solution all things considered.

That said, it's nice this is available and people who need it now and can't feel 14lbs off their car can rejoice. I think it would be nice if a more performance oriented package were developed that respects the cars potential.

Agreed on all points. I've spent over a thousand dollars to reduce the weight of rotating and unsprung mass. It's your car, you can install the system in a way that meets your needs. But considering the weight of 1/0 cable (to reduce voltage drop), I think 14 pounds at the firewall is a fair trade.

[Boxer486]

Originally Posted by Gary in NJ

It's your car, you can install the system in a way that meets your needs. But considering the weight of 1/0 cable (to reduce voltage drop), I think 14 pounds at the firewall is a fair trade.

Right, that's what I'm trying to figure out. I want to install it the way I want but I keep getting pushback that the system will go tits up if I do it the way I want.

Better to have cable as ballast than bricks high up on the firewall, plus I want my catch can(s) there.

[WNDSRFR]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Speak for yourself. I notice it in every car I've ever swapped a lighter battery into, and that's agm not li-ion.

People spends hundreds if not thousands of dollars loosing weight from a car so better to optimize not adding it back when possible. Plus the car is already 54/46 and most weight drops happen in the rear making the cars around 57/43 or worse. Relocating all the packs among other things will help get to 52/48 or better depending on what else you do. That could be a 5% swing in weight distribution when combined with other mods.

To me this currently is setup as a convenience package for ease of install and getting to market quicker. I don't think it's an ideal solution all things considered.

That said, it's nice this is available and people who need it now and can't feel 14lbs off their car can rejoice. I think it would be nice if a more performance oriented package were developed that respects the cars potential.

There is no reason why you can't mount the batteries anywhere you want.
I was thinking about the same thing before I received the kit. I could mount the batteries down low where I could find a place and really balance out the car.
But when you receive the kit you'll see the beauty of Rob's design. Everything just goes together and fits perfectly. And the install could not be easier.
If you are serious about a custom mount, I would contact Rob and see if you can buy just the motor/compressor and charger/controller and do your own wiring.


But I wouldn't.

[Gary in NJ]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Better to have cable as ballast than bricks high up on the firewall, plus I want my catch can(s) there.

If you were to draw a waterline from the battery tray towards the rear of the car, you'll see that the base of the tray is almost at the same level as the cargo compartment. Additionally, to reduce the effect of rotational inertia you'd want the mass centralized between the axles. Given your requirements, it's looking like the rear seat area (seat removed) or the passenger foot well meets your needs.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

Speak for yourself. I notice it in every car I've ever swapped a lighter battery into, and that's agm not li-ion.

People spends hundreds if not thousands of dollars loosing weight from a car so better to optimize not adding it back when possible. Plus the car is already 54/46 and most weight drops happen in the rear making the cars around 57/43 or worse. Relocating all the packs among other things will help get to 52/48 or better depending on what else you do. That could be a 5% swing in weight distribution when combined with other mods.

To me this currently is setup as a convenience package for ease of install and getting to market quicker. I don't think it's an ideal solution all things considered.

That said, it's nice this is available and people who need it now and can't feel 14lbs off their car can rejoice. I think it would be nice if a more performance oriented package were developed that respects the cars potential.

Easiest way to drop 14lbs and move weight back to the center of the car is to empty the washer fluid reservoir and eat a lighter breakfast. The reservoir hangs off the front of the car, your lunch off the front of your belt. Cost for both, nothing.

Remember the ESC is already much lighter than any conventional SC, turbo, or NOS setup and adding cost and complexity wasn't in the design goals for this package. You make it sound compromised, but let me tell you, driving with makes an already fun car even more so.

Personally I'd rather see Rob's continued concentration on development of the aux charger, controller cooling, push-to-pass button (SPM), etc. To me, these are the features that will make the Phantom ESC even better suited to "performance" (e.g. track) usage.

[robwbright]

Originally Posted by DAEMANO

Easiest way to drop 14lbs and move weight back to the center of the car is to empty the washer fluid reservoir and eat a lighter breakfast. The reservoir hangs off the front of the car, your lunch off the front of your belt. Cost for both, nothing.

Remember the ESC is already much lighter than any conventional SC, turbo, or NOS setup and adding cost and complexity wasn't in the design goals for this package. You make it sound compromised, but let me tell you, driving with makes an already fun car even more so.

Personally I'd rather see Rob's continued concentration on development of the aux charger, controller cooling, push-to-pass button (SPM), etc. To me, these are the features that will make the Phantom ESC even better suited to "performance" (e.g. track) usage.

This. No objection to anyone else's preferences, but DAEMANO has pretty much stated my preferences.

[bfrank1972]

Originally Posted by Boxer486

There's a hidden asterisks that it's 53/47 when two people sit in the car per Toyota's official press release. All the official corner weights will confirm it's more like 54/46 if you search out the threads. A 5% swing to the front would be too close to FWD territory for me which is why I'm not into excessive plumbing and intercooling for the 86.

I really can't believe we're splitting hairs like this over a system like the Phantom ESC. It's meant to be a street system, not ideal for track - the weight distribution shifts/additional 14 lbs etc. sound to me like insanity associated with track rats. I remember reading somewhere that the 86 was your comfy DD car right? Why worry about 14lbs then if it's not a hardcore track car - do you even take your 86 to the track?

[enwave]

Guys, don't let someone else's opinion de-rail us too hard. I think he has a valid concern -- and if he has that concern the ESC in its retail form is not for him.

Nor is any other forced induction solution, except for maybe the rear mounted turbo that someone has been working on -- though I've heard it is still not quite there yet.

If he finds a magical way to get the same amount of performance while also bringing weight distribution closer to 50:50 that's great -- but I think that's on him for right now. For the vast majority of people adopting a young product and technology, we want to see a few other improvements made before we worry about relocating the weight to the back.

That said, the dual-dump setup requires you to move the starter to the back, which helps with some of what he's saying about weight. It also requires you to wire an external battery shutoff switch in most states and at most tracks.

It's no longer out of the box at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk