Edelbrock E-Force Supercharger

[RehabJeff86]

Originally Posted by stockysnail

So basically swap engines (no replacement for displacement) or run e85 if I want more power is the basic moral of the story.

Bingo!!! Fully enlightened!!

[stockysnail]

Just read the Cosworth is the TVS 900 and the Edlebrock is the TVS 1320, making the 1320 just a little bit better/bigger.

[350matt]

Originally Posted by stockysnail

Just read the Cosworth is the TVS 900 and the Edlebrock is the TVS 1320, making the 1320 just a little bit better/bigger.

all the TVS units have the smae pressure ratio so the bigger units make the same boost as the smaller units it just menas they reach this boost limit earlier in the rev range
and if you've got stock rods you can't use this boost anyway for fear of bending them..... so the throttle isn't fully opened to keep the boost at safe level

Still I too would like to see some back to back comparisons between all these new kits

[FreshFRS]

Originally Posted by 350matt

all the TVS units have the smae pressure ratio so the bigger units make the same boost as the smaller units it just menas they reach this boost limit earlier in the rev range
and if you've got stock rods you can't use this boost anyway for fear of bending them..... so the throttle isn't fully opened to keep the boost at safe level

Still I too would like to see some back to back comparisons between all these new kits

they have the same pressure ratios and theoretically can make the same boost, saying that however, the bigger blower doesn't need as much boost pressure to make the same power due to it pushing a much larger volume of air per revolution. but the smaller units are more responsive and will generate better power torque under 2.5k rpms, the bigger blower doesn't get into its efficiency range until a little further in the rpm range. i think its been documented here on the site that the 1320 loses torque to the 900 but only in the very low rpm ranges. if I'm not mistaken the 1320 is a little more thermally efficient 73% vs 70%. but i haven't seen any tables for the TVS900 recently. so i could be wrong.
http://www.eatoncorp.com.au/Oceania/...ing/PCT_378413

The TVs 900 could feasibly be maxed out on the stock block, the TVS1320 or Sprintex 335 Definitely need a built motor or possibly just e85.

[ajc209]

From what I have heard the tvs900 is capable of >350hp which would surly bend and/or blow a rod out the side of the block on stock internals.

[sw20kosh]

Originally Posted by ajc209

From what I have heard the tvs900 is capable of >350hp which would surly bend and/or blow a rod out the side of the block on stock internals.

Rods start failing at 450-500 whp..

[ajc209]

Originally Posted by sw20kosh

Rods start failing at 450-500 whp..

Perhaps for Dyno Queens that is true.

The lead engineer at Cosworth said they did alot of engine testing (including a full strip down of the engine) and were able determine with high accuracy that the rods will not be reliable with much more than 250WHP (with a roots blower), hence the stage 2 power. They would have fitted a smaller pulley if they could have got away with it! After all power sells....

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by ajc209

Perhaps for Dyno Queens that is true.

The lead engineer at Cosworth said they did alot of engine testing (including a full strip down of the engine) and were able determine with high accuracy that the rods will not be reliable with much more than 250WHP (with a roots blower), hence the stage 2 power. They would have fitted a smaller pulley if they could have got away with it! After all power sells....

Torque bends rods, not horsepower. You keep mentioning that "Cosworth said this" and "Cosworth said that", but never actually cite your sources. Statements such as the bold above, tell me you either hear what you want, or make things up that are completely asinine.

If that were the case, ptuning wouldn't use a GT30, and Edelbrock wouldnt use a TVS 1320.

[ajc209]

I had a tour of the Cosworth headquarters and spoke with lead lead engineer, Matt when the SC was in development.

http://www.gt86ownersclub.co.uk/foru...333.html#94644

I even saw an FA20 on the engine dyno cell. It was fun.

[sato]

Originally Posted by ajc209

I had a tour of the Cosworth headquarters and spoke with lead lead engineer, Matt when the SC was in development.

http://www.gt86ownersclub.co.uk/foru...333.html#94644

I even saw an FA20 on the engine dyno cell. It was fun.

Access denied

Sent from my A1P using Tapatalk

[Kodename47]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

If that were the case, ptuning wouldn't use a GT30, and Edelbrock wouldnt use a TVS 1320.

I doubt either of those have done the analysis that Cosworth have done. BTW, I was also there on the same tour for the FA20 package launch and spent time talking to Matt, he even came out for a passenger in my car.

[350matt]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Torque bends rods, not horsepower. You keep mentioning that "Cosworth said this" and "Cosworth said that", but never actually cite your sources. Statements such as the bold above, tell me you either hear what you want, or make things up that are completely asinine.

If that were the case, ptuning wouldn't use a GT30, and Edelbrock wouldnt use a TVS 1320.

it all depends on your definition of 'reliable'
after all most of use would be pretty pleased to get 20K + miles on a boosted setup and would then say that my boosted engine is reliable

but how was this milage achieved?

for 90% of owners the duty cycle is low as the car is a DD and used for tootling to the shops and sitting in traffic and only occasionally will all that 250, 300 350 RWHP be let rip .......


when Cosworth says its not reliable past 250RWHP then I thin kthey mean its not OEM levels of reliable ie 150K miles, doing 150hour full load tests on the dyno etc etc

lets be honest
we don't know how reliable these setups are going to be

and as an aside if you've got 350Rwhp you probably spend less time at full throttle than a 250HP setup as you're traction limited anyway......

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by 350matt

it all depends on your definition of 'reliable'
after all most of use would be pretty pleased to get 20K + miles on a boosted setup and would then say that my boosted engine is reliable

but how was this milage achieved?

for 90% of owners the duty cycle is low as the car is a DD and used for tootling to the shops and sitting in traffic and only occasionally will all that 250, 300 350 RWHP be let rip .......


when Cosworth says its not reliable past 250RWHP then I thin kthey mean its not OEM levels of reliable ie 150K miles, doing 150hour full load tests on the dyno etc etc

lets be honest
we don't know how reliable these setups are going to be

and as an aside if you've got 350Rwhp you probably spend less time at full throttle than a 250HP setup as you're traction limited anyway......

Per my datalog from this weekend, I was in a 350whp BRZ, and was WOT for 78% of my lapping time, and I was lifting for a lot of sections due to a fueling issue that could not be addressed at the track.

I would think that means I'm not too traction limited, and I was driving on 200 TW street tires.

As for torque bending rods, either you're over the failure point, or under the failure point. It doesn't "bend over time". Your rings will wear, your bearings will wear, but your rods do not "bend" from extended use.

[sw20kosh]

Originally Posted by ajc209

Perhaps for Dyno Queens that is true.

The lead engineer at Cosworth said they did alot of engine testing (including a full strip down of the engine) and were able determine with high accuracy that the rods will not be reliable with much more than 250WHP (with a roots blower), hence the stage 2 power. They would have fitted a smaller pulley if they could have got away with it! After all power sells....

My friends track hard at 330+ whp nonstop in 86cup. I was 330 whp for roughly 15 track days before I took the kit off. No failure or signs of failure for any of us.

Id say cosworth is wrong in their assessment.