Electric Supercharger

antodeco

Hi folks,

Anyone use of these or anything similar?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/E-RAM-Electric-Supercharger-Cold-Air-Intake_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ38634QQihZ015QQitemZ250150096549QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

Thanks

bo-bo

they did a test with one of these in a mag about a year or two ago and found it actually decreases the hp output ever so slightly..........they are rubbish basically

Duff

I really wouldnt bother with that mate, as already said, they are cheap eBay crap!

tuxy

If you buy that, I have some magic beans you may also be interested in.

Mailman

FIAT amongst others were doing research on low pressure electric superchargers for small displacement engines. As a technology it should work and might be adopted by manufacturers in the future but at the moment it isn't a working technology so don't waste your money.

Can I interest you in a resistor that adds 20BHP?

antodeco

Mailman wrote:

Can I interest you in a resistor that adds 20BHP?

It was more of a wondering if anyone actually knew someone who bought one or tried one. Its an interesting concept, but as pointed out several other times on different threads, a leaf blower would probably be better! Obviously there HAS to be versions that do actually work!

Matt Simis

antodeco wrote:

It was more of a wondering if anyone actually knew someone who bought one or tried one. Its an interesting concept, but as pointed out several other times on different threads, a leaf blower would probably be better! Obviously there HAS to be versions that do actually work!

I did a fair bit of research into this last year, the only Electric Supercharger that is likely to work is the Thomas Knight version:

http://www.boosthead.com/home.php

It runs from multiple car batteries and basically functions more like Nitrous (flick on for 10sec then off). It recharges between tries. It also is built/looks like a real Supercharger than the ebay junk. Its also much more expensive.

Also have a look at:
http://www.dansdata.com/danletters105.htm
"Volts and amps to horsepower".

It isnt a technology that is difficult to make, its just difficult to package and produce when mechanical superchargers are so easy and effective. Its only of interest to the aftermarket as a cheap way of getting more power without real engine work or mechanical knowhow, its unfortunate the only "working" example is so expensive.

NeilB

The thought of a supercharger that is powered by electricity to me beggars belief.
My understanding of forced induction is as follows. A turbo charger works because the exhaust gasses travel at a greater velocity and flow due to them being the result of an explosion in the engine. This increased flow can be used to spin a compressor vein which in turn will compress the air/fuel mixture goin into the engine. More bang....
Supercharger - a compressor is attached via a pulley from the engine to force the mixture into the engine under pressure. More revs - more bang.

Electric? Does this spin at one speed or is it in some way linked to revs. At the top end - does it produce enough airflow to still work?

Seems very strange to me - I would be interested to see one working...

Cheers
NeilB

Mailman

The engine doesn't care how it get's pressureised air so if an electric motor can deliver the air it is just as good as a turbo or standard supercharger with the benefit of having no parasitic power loss when not in use as there is no belt going to the engine to sap a few bhp of power and no exhaust back pressure.
The problem is that creating pressurised air takes a lot of power so an electric motor(or multiple motors as used in the thomas Knight implementation) will discharge the battery very quickly and current regulation is problematic.

These problems can be got around with the use of a larger battery and moving beyond 12V technology.
But you've still got the weight of the extra battery and the electric motor(s) which have to be lugged around in the car.

The electric supercharger isn't intended to replace turbo diesels where the turbo is running near constantly to give forced inductance.
It is intended to give short bursts of power when you need it, e.g. overtaking.
A 1.2 litre car with an electric supercharger would give 1.6 litre like performance with the fuel bills and emmissions of a 1.2 litre car which is why manufacturers are looking at the technology to meet tightening emmissions regulations but to be honest the turbo and conventional supercharger are both too established for it to make any major impact any time soon. Low pressure turbos with intercoolers are getting cheaper all the time and are very reliable.
Examples are the Volkswagen 1.8T, Merc Compressors and the 1.8Turbo K-series rover engine was another one which showed just how good low pressure turbos\superchargers can be in real world applications. Variable valve timing is taking a back seat to turbo technology because most users don't like how toppy VVT engines are in every day use. VVT will stay for the long term but I don't see manufacturers falling over themselves to make increasingly complex VVT systems because of lack of reliability with added complexity.
Fiat are going further down the Turbo root with the 500 and new Bravo.
The Bravo will have a 1.4 litre 150BHP turbo and the 2 cylinder 900cc engine in the 500 will have a turbo added to bring it over the 100bhp mark.

NeilB

Interesting...
Again - I would like to see one in action. It still seems that the pay off is quite small for the effort.
Carrying huge batteries around to power a shortish burst of compressor - does that over come the disadvatage of the extra weight I wonder?

I did'nt know that Fiat had a 1.4 150 bhp unit on the way - that will be intresting to see as well.

Cheers
NeilB

Mailman

Not worth your while even trying for the 4 or 5bhp that you'd be lucky to get out of it. Turbos run huge psi, electric superchargers don't so 4 or 5bhp is all you can hope for.
If I needed to get a car to go faster I'd go conventional routes like dropping ride height with lowered springs, a better panel filter, thinner oil and reducing the weight of the car through use of lightweight alloy wheels and brake discs and if I could get away with it putting a smaller battery in to make the car less nose heavy.
BHP isn't the only way to get speed.

NeilB

Personally, I have a Saab turbo which is a quickish car, but I have the ecopower version so its only good for around 158 ish bhp in stock trim. I have seen re - maps offered that state a power increase raising my engine output to near on 200 bhp - which I must admit I am tempted by.
A few things concern me however.
1 - These remaps are advertised highlighting the fact that they can be reversed just as easily - for insurance purposes I wonder?
2 - Insurance
3 - Should I just buy a 200 bhp car to start with.....

Cheers
Neil

Gerry

NeilB - I've a saab turbo also, I suspect you've a newer one though
You should declare all mods to your insurance company. Your profile shows that you are in derbyshire, you shouldn't have a problem finding a uk insurance company who won't charge much extra at all for mods. Especially mods on a saab, which is considered to be a fairly sensible car.
The fact that they are reversible is handy if you are selling the car, most of the time you'll get more money by selling what are mostly bolt on modifications separately.

As for the power increases you are talking about, I suspect your car does not have an intercooler. The engine is just as strong as the 200bhp factory car though, it is the same fundamentally. It may not have as big a turbo as the top of the line 220 - 250 hp aero version, but 200hp won't be a problem, once you add an intercooler. If the remaps do not include the fitment of an intercooler, stay away.

NeilB

Gerry - thanks for the info. I have not checked the intercooler situation - I will. As for the mods - I will investigate further.

thanks again

antodeco

I think the jury is still out on the superchargers! It seems very interesting. Do they produce the same sound as a normal supercharger? ie, the "Wipisshhh" sound?!

Just as a matter of interest, how does lowering ride height increase performance?

bushy...

There's one type of supercharger out there has its own oil system so should save a good bit of hassle installing it.

antodeco

bushy... wrote:

There's one type of supercharger out there has its own oil system so should save a good bit of hassle installing it.

Any info/links on it?

bushy...

I'm sure theres a few more making them though

http://www.aaxel.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=K10413-101&Category_Code=main&Store_Code=powerdyne

http://www.powerdyne.com/

Mailman

antodeco wrote:

Just as a matter of interest, how does lowering ride height increase performance?

lower frontal area, less drag.

antodeco

Mailman wrote:

lower frontal area, less drag.

Hmm interesting. My thoughts would have been that less air being able to flow underneath the car meant a greater resistance hitting the front of the car. Also, greater air flow under the car surely would mean the car in theory would be "lifted up" hence simulating a lighter car. I suppose lowered car means left rollback from acceleration, meaning a greater weight balance.

Sorry for that waffle, just putting my thoughts down on "paper"

nastysimon

antodeco wrote:

Hmm interesting. My thoughts would have been that less air being able to flow underneath the car meant a greater resistance hitting the front of the car. Also, greater air flow under the car surely would mean the car in theory would be "lifted up" hence simulating a lighter car. I suppose lowered car means left rollback from acceleration, meaning a greater weight balance.

Sorry for that waffle, just putting my thoughts down on "paper"

Less air under the car means less turbulance there too, which reduces drag. It also means that there is less lift from the turbulance under the car.
There is no real reduction in frontal area as the frontal area does not include the area under the car anyway and the only reduction would be due to the fact that less of the tyres would be exposed.
Finally, a well developed front airdam can increase your frontal area and still reduce drag and lift, but the vast majority of bodykits are not well developed and rarely provide any benefit. The primary reason that manufacturers don't include airdams as standard is that they significantly reduce clearance for any which provide significant improvement.

Mailman

nastysimon wrote:

Less air under the car means less turbulance there too, which reduces drag. It also means that there is less lift from the turbulance under the car.
There is no real reduction in frontal area as the frontal area does not include the area under the car anyway and the only reduction would be due to the fact that less of the tyres would be exposed.
Finally, a well developed front airdam can increase your frontal area and still reduce drag and lift, but the vast majority of bodykits are not well developed and rarely provide any benefit. The primary reason that manufacturers don't include airdams as standard is that they significantly reduce clearance for any which provide significant improvement.

check out autoexpress review of passat bluemotion for the benefits of dropping car to the floor.
Vauxhall and Ford have also released cars in the UK riding lower for the benefit of Sales Reps looking to reduce their tax bills and fuel bills with the side-effect of also having higher top speeds and faster acceleration.