Full throttle Electric Supercharger Build Thread

[Gary in NJ]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

Really? How is ESC boost any different than turbo boost?

It's the part-time nature of the ESC that allows the car to operate as a NA car for the vast majority of the time. For example, if I drive a 70 mile trip @ 70 mph I'm driving for one hour. During that trip I may engage the ESC 6 times, 10 seconds each engagement. That results in 0.016% in boost (1/60th) and 98.3% NA. There is no parasitic loss or partial boost that consume fuel. Turbos do have parasitic loss due to pumping loss (heat and an exhaust system that is less then optimal). SC have significant pumping loss right at the crank.

Fenton is correct, I had my stock ECU tuned shortly after I installed the ESC, so my mileage increases are probably a result of my tune. Since I run 98% of the time NA, the ESC doesn't make a measurable impact on economy on the highway. Around town my last full tank resulted in 28 mpg. That included a lot of engagement of the ESC.

Over the last 35 years I've owned several turbocharged cars. So far I prefer the boost on demand nature of the ESC.

[harkbrz]

Hey Guys,

Any idea on a potential release date? been following this thread on and off for sometime, just curious.

[mid_life_crisis]

Originally Posted by harkbrz

Hey Guys,

Any idea on a potential release date? been following this thread on and off for sometime, just curious.

The problem you have getting a release date is that this is more of a semi-obsessive hobby for the developer than a way to make money.
When he is satisfied that his creation is ready to go, that is, it makes power, is easy to install, is reliable, and won't blow up somebody's pride and joy, he'll make it available to us.

[fenton]

Originally Posted by harkbrz

Hey Guys,

Any idea on a potential release date? been following this thread on and off for sometime, just curious.

Additional information please contact Rob through phantomsuperchargers.com.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by fenton

Your probably right but might be miss understanding him.

His mileage definetly won't be getting better than just NA.

But it is easy to see how his mileage would be better than a full time FI solution as this is only available at wot where a turbo is on all the time assuming a certain throttle input. I know that you don't always go into positive boost with a turbo setup but I think you would probably go into positive boost more often than the ESC.

ESC boost has no parasitic loss and is a good point for creating more usable power with less but not so much for gaining fuel economy in my opinion.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

The ESC does include parasitic loss due to the alternator having to re-charge the batteries. Any and all energy used by the ESC has to be replaced by the engine-driven alternator. The exhaust heat used to spin a turbo would otherwise be wasted to atmosphere so it's not accurate to call it parasitic loss. It's essentially free thermal energy converted into motion.

Originally Posted by Gary in NJ

It's the part-time nature of the ESC that allows the car to operate as a NA car for the vast majority of the time. For example, if I drive a 70 mile trip @ 70 mph I'm driving for one hour. During that trip I may engage the ESC 6 times, 10 seconds each engagement. That results in 0.016% in boost (1/60th) and 98.3% NA. There is no parasitic loss or partial boost that consume fuel. Turbos do have parasitic loss due to pumping loss (heat and an exhaust system that is less then optimal). SC have significant pumping loss right at the crank.

Fenton is correct, I had my stock ECU tuned shortly after I installed the ESC, so my mileage increases are probably a result of my tune. Since I run 98% of the time NA, the ESC doesn't make a measurable impact on economy on the highway. Around town my last full tank resulted in 28 mpg. That included a lot of engagement of the ESC.

Over the last 35 years I've owned several turbocharged cars. So far I prefer the boost on demand nature of the ESC.

Let's not forget that the ESC needs to be running non-stop or else it causes significant intake restriction. I don't believe that DR causes a lot of parasitic loss but in theory any energy used to spin the ESC in DR mode has to be replaced by the engine-driven alternator. In theory, fuel economy should be reduced by some measurable amount, however small.

As for the increased fuel economy that you are seeing post-ESC and post-tune, consider that many changes to the ECU programming also affect it's mpg calculations. When I turbocharged my Scion XB I installed 20% larger fuel injectors. The ECU reported an increase of 5-10 mpg due solely to the larger fuel injectors. I believe that your tune may very well be responsible for an increase in ECU calculated MPG but also believe that it is very unlikely that the tune or ESC has actually increased your mpg.

I've also owned a few turbocharged cars over the past 35 years also and I can't imagine preferring a +30 whp WOT-only ESC shot over a +100 whp always-on turbo setup.

[mid_life_crisis]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

The ESC does include parasitic loss due to the alternator having to re-charge the batteries. Any and all energy used by the ESC has to be replaced by the engine-driven alternator. The exhaust heat used to spin a turbo would otherwise be wasted to atmosphere so it's not accurate to call it parasitic loss. It's essentially free thermal energy converted into motion.

Not so much. A turbo is an obstruction in the exhaust path. A turbo is therefore considered to have parasitic loss. It is pretty minimal in my non-professional opinion, but it is there.

Let's not forget that the ESC needs to be running non-stop or else it causes significant intake restriction. I don't believe that DR causes a lot of parasitic loss but in theory any energy used to spin the ESC in DR mode has to be replaced by the engine-driven alternator. In theory, fuel economy should be reduced by some measurable amount, however small.

Just as with the turbo, parasitic loss is minimal, as major charging only takes place when not under load otherwise and the DR appears to draw so little as to be negligible.

As for the increased fuel economy that you are seeing post-ESC and post-tune, consider that many changes to the ECU programming also affect its mpg calculations. When I turbocharged my Scion XB I installed 20% larger fuel injectors. The ECU reported an increase of 5-10 mpg due solely to the larger fuel injectors. I believe that your tune may very well be responsible for an increase in ECU calculated MPG but also believe that it is very unlikely that the tune or ESC has actually increased your mpg.

Ah, so you think the calculations are off due to changes in the injector cycle. This would depend on how the calculation works, I suppose. Does anyone know how the ECU arrives at its fuel consumption rate?

I've also owned a few turbocharged cars over the past 35 years also and I can't imagine preferring a +30 whp WOT-only ESC shot over a +100 whp always-on turbo setup.

You clearly have not been paying enough attention. I don't think I have seen anyone state categorically that they prefer the power of this ESC to the power of a proper turbo setup. What they greatly prefer is the significant cost savings and being able to easily do the install themselves in their own driveway and still get a decent power bump.

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by Gary in NJ

Over the last 35 years I've owned several turbocharged cars. So far I prefer the boost on demand nature of the ESC.

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

I've also owned a few turbocharged cars over the past 35 years also and I can't imagine preferring a +30 whp WOT-only ESC shot over a +100 whp always-on turbo setup.

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

You clearly have not been paying enough attention. I don't think I have seen anyone state categorically that they prefer the power of this ESC to the power of a proper turbo setup.

Who hasn't been paying attention?

As for parasitic losses among FI applications, I think it's obvious that a turbo is the most efficient followed closely by ESC with engine driven superchargers being the least efficient.

AFAIK the ECU uses fuel trim and miles driven to calculate MPG. My ECU read about 2-3 mpg high when stock and now reads 1-2 mpg low after mods and a tune. I always check my MPG at the pump and compare to the trip computer.

[mid_life_crisis]

Over the last 35 years I've owned several turbocharged cars. So far I prefer the boost on demand nature of the ESC.

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

Who hasn't been paying attention?

That would be why I said "I don't think I have seen". Clearly leaving room for the possibility that I missed one (or two). But that is the exception to the rule, I think.

[Gary in NJ]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

As for the increased fuel economy that you are seeing post-ESC and post-tune, consider that many changes to the ECU programming also affect it's mpg calculations. When I turbocharged my Scion XB I installed 20% larger fuel injectors. The ECU reported an increase of 5-10 mpg due solely to the larger fuel injectors. I believe that your tune may very well be responsible for an increase in ECU calculated MPG but also believe that it is very unlikely that the tune or ESC has actually increased your mpg.

All of the changes in the world wont have any effect on:

[Miles Driven] / [Gallons Consumed] = MPG

At least that's the formula I use with a calculator.

I'm not just old, I'm old school.

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

I've also owned a few turbocharged cars over the past 35 years also and I can't imagine preferring a +30 whp WOT-only ESC shot over a +100 whp always-on turbo setup.

Yeah, I keep repeating this, but I'll say it again. I'm not fighting the horsepower wars. I didn't even bother to dyno my car because I really just don't care who is making 223.4 and who is making 224.2...just doesn't matter to me. I was looking for a great way to fill the torque valley. A 50-60 ft/lb increase right at 4200 rpm means everything to me. I considered everything available and not available (like the Nameless headers), but felt that the ESC was the best option. Turns out, I was right.

[fenton]

The way the ESC makes power really reminds me of my turbo cars in the past. A very modest speed increase during DR engagement (negative boost or just into positive for turbo) and then a large increase in power once full throttle is engaged.



Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

[Bu-Tang]

Originally Posted by Gary in NJ

All of the changes in the world wont have any effect on:

[Miles Driven] / [Gallons Consumed] = MPG

At least that's the formula I use with a calculator.

I'm not just old, I'm old school.



Yeah, I keep repeating this, but I'll say it again. I'm not fighting the horsepower wars. I didn't even bother to dyno my car because I really just don't care who is making 223.4 and who is making 224.2...just doesn't matter to me. I was looking for a great way to fill the torque valley. A 50-60 ft/lb increase right at 4200 rpm means everything to me. I considered everything available and not available (like the Nameless headers), but felt that the ESC was the best option. Turns out, I was right.

Agreed, on a daily basis the power from 3-5k rpm has been most used. That was the selling point when I got mine from Rob was that you really feel like you have much more than a 2.0L 4cyl under the hood.

I got to feel the system in Fenton's car currently, the DR in his setup is really affective, Mine is no where near that engaging but if the final product has DR the way its setup in fenton's im stoked!

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

That would be why I said "I don't think I have seen". Clearly leaving room for the possibility that I missed one (or two). But that is the exception to the rule, I think.

Yes, clearly the language used in your insulting accusation excuses you entirely for not reading the quote to which I was replying.

Originally Posted by Gary in NJ

All of the changes in the world wont have any effect on:

[Miles Driven] / [Gallons Consumed] = MPG

At least that's the formula I use with a calculator.

I'm not just old, I'm old school.

I'm old school too which is why I am very skeptical about things that defy logic. How do you propose that the ESC could possibly increase your mpg? Isn't it more likely that other factors were responsible? Maybe you added air to your tires? Maybe the outside temp became colder? Unless you drove the same route, the same way, in the same weather with all other affecting factors the same, it's impossible to definitively say that your mpg increased as a direct result of installing the ESC and/or a tune.

Yeah, I keep repeating this, but I'll say it again. I'm not fighting the horsepower wars. I didn't even bother to dyno my car because I really just don't care who is making 223.4 and who is making 224.2...just doesn't matter to me. I was looking for a great way to fill the torque valley. A 50-60 ft/lb increase right at 4200 rpm means everything to me. I considered everything available and not available (like the Nameless headers), but felt that the ESC was the best option. Turns out, I was right.

HP wars? So comparing the 200 whp ESC to a 300 whp turbo setup is the same as comparing 223.4 to 224.2? LOL! The only reason I even posted in this thread again was because I saw people again trying to compare this little +30 whp ESC to +100 whp turbo setups and making other ridiculous snake oil claims like increased MPG. It's still a possibility that I might even buy one of these someday but I intend to remain rational about it even then. It produces less hp and tq than all of it's competition and the only advantage it has over any other FI option is it's low cost and ease of installation.

[fenton]

Originally Posted by Fast_Freddy

It's still a possibility that I might even buy one of these someday but I intend to remain rational about it even then. It produces less hp and tq than all of it's competition and the only advantage it has over any other FI option is it's low cost and ease of installation.

This is all alot of people are looking for.... i know i certainly was Thank you for posting your opinions on the kit.

As it stands the kit I had before(TQ250) with 93 octane made +60hp(80tq) at 3500-4500rpm and about 40-45hp at 6750.

The TQ300 kit that i have now is making about the same 60+hp down low but should now be in the 50-60 between 5500 and 7500 rpm.

I believe Rob is working on getting dyno time setup for the TQ300 system to tune and baseline next week


As for the "less hp and torque than all other competition"..... The fact that we are even close is AMAZING. This thing is cheap and install is a breeze. At redline, yes, most turbo and sc kits beat the ESC but damn we are kicking ass at the 1800rpm - 5000rpm range which is very impressive for such a minimal investment.

No its not for everyone but whats happening here for BRZ and FRS owners is very exciting

[Fast_Freddy]

Originally Posted by fenton

This is all alot of people are looking for.... i know i certainly was Thank you for posting your opinions on the kit.

As it stands the kit I had before(TQ250) with 93 octane made +60hp(80tq) at 3500-4500rpm and about 40-45hp at 6750.

The TQ300 kit that i have now is making about the same 60+hp down low but should now be in the 50-60 between 5500 and 7500 rpm.

I believe Rob is working on getting dyno time setup for the TQ300 system to tune and baseline next week

As for the "less hp and torque than all other competition"..... The fact that we are even close is AMAZING. This thing is cheap and install is a breeze. At redline, yes, most turbo and sc kits beat the ESC but damn we are kicking ass at the 1800rpm - 5000rpm range which is very impressive for such a minimal investment.

No its not for everyone but whats happening here for BRZ and FRS owners is very exciting

So I guess Pug has the TQ150 kit since he only gained about 30hp/30lbs on average?

Speaking of average ESC gains, I do wish that you would quote peak or average hp/tq gains instead of always quoting the maximum gain ever seen. While you may have made +60 hp and +80 lbs at 4290rpm on one dyno run, your average and peak hp/tq gains are far less and more representative of what most people refer to when comparing dyno results. Not to split hairs but at 3750 rpm you gained +50 lbs tq, not 80 lbs as you claim.

As for this ESC being close to other FI options, I certainly didn't say that. I said it costs less and is easier to install.

When you say that this ESC is "kicking ass between 1800-5000rpm, what exactly did you mean? It sounded like you meant kicking other FI options asses but that would be a huge falsehood. Did you instead mean vs N/A? I would agree that this ESC makes enormous tq gains in that rpm range compared to N/A builds.