• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

564 whp supercharged

Mark911

Mark911

Experienced Member
Joined
13 September 2001
Messages
325
Location
Lake Mathews (Corona), Ca
After 6 years I finally got my car running again. This time the results were 564whp on 91 pump gas using an Eaton TVS 1900 supercharger with intercooling as measured on a dynapack dyno. There's probably another 30-40 hiding behind a slipping S/C belt and undersized (stock DC sport) headers. If I'm still motivated, I might fab a set of custom headers and try for 600hp, but as far as I know 564 could possibly be the highest recorded number for a 3L engine using a positive displacement S/Cer running pump.
 

Attachments

  • MarkNSXRPwrJul15.jpg
    MarkNSXRPwrJul15.jpg
    69 KB · Views: 740
  • IMG_0828[1].jpg
    IMG_0828[1].jpg
    82.5 KB · Views: 802
Last edited:
That's really impresive.

I'm planning on replacing the 2.1 SOS S/C Kenne Bell with a TVS2300 in the future - but the guys at CT Engineering are so hard to get a hold of to move forward with a kit that will make it work. Can you do that?

Thanks for being the first TVS on a NSX.

I have these headers with the widest collectors (2.5") that I've found for the NSX: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Billy-Boat-...32?fits=Model:NSX&hash=item1e92b3055c&vxp=mtr
 
Last edited:
Those are great numbers Mark and hope to see you and the NSX at a meet soon.
 
BATMANs said:
That's really impresive.

I'm planning on replacing the 2.1 SOS S/C Kenne Bell with a TVS2300 in the future - but the guys at CT Engineering are so hard to get a hold of to move forward with a kit that will make it work. Can you do that?

Yes, but not until after SEMA, kinda busy. Personally, I think the 2300cc TVS is too large for the NSX so I went with the 1900. There are only two generic versions available, Harrop and Magnuson. Mines made by Harrop. You can probably use one from a Corvette or GT40, but every one has a different interface so that's the challenge when trying to adapt to the CT manifold. You'll need to do some research.

Bottom end is built for 1000hp with custom dry sump.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

NSX! said:
Any videos?!
Click to expand...

Yes, will post when I get a change.

- - - Updated - - -

LMR said:
Those are great numbers Mark and hope to see you and the NSX at a meet soon.
Click to expand...

Yes, when things cool down a bit. I'm having too much fun with the new car, however.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mark911 said:
BATMANs said:
That's really impresive.

Yes, but not until after SEMA, kinda busy. Personally, I think the 2300cc TVS is too large for the NSX so I went with the 1900. There are only two generic versions available, Harrop and Magnuson. Mines made by Harrop. You can probably use one from a Corvette or GT40, but every one has a different interface so that's the challenge when trying to adapt to the CT manifold. You'll need to do some research.

Bottom end is built for 1000hp with custom dry sump.
.
Click to expand...

Which vette came with the 1900? I thought the ZR-1 came with a 2300.

CTS-v and the ZL-1 came with the 1900 last I checked.

When I talked to Shad and a few others about the ideal blower size for the NSX once the engine is built, the general consensus was a 2.3 Kenne Bell. Someone else had a 2.8~ KB on his yellow NSX that I saw in the shop. So my thoughts was that a 2300 was a suitable upgrade for me.

What boost did you run?
Click to expand...
 
Nice, bet you are barely turning the blower, maybe 18000rpm?
 
BATMANs said:
Mark911 said:
Which vette came with the 1900? I thought the ZR-1 came with a 2300.

CTS-v and the ZL-1 came with the 1900 last I checked.

When I talked to Shad and a few others about the ideal blower size for the NSX once the engine is built, the general consensus was a 2.3 Kenne Bell. Someone else had a 2.8~ KB on his yellow NSX that I saw in the shop. So my thoughts was that a 2300 was a suitable upgrade for me.

What boost did you run?
Click to expand...

Correct, if you're set on a 2300 look at the Vette, etc. I take issue with installing a blower that's almost as big as the engine (2300/2800cc vs 3000cc), that's crazy IMO. However, bigger is better, right? I prefer proper engineering and design. The 1900 has no problem providing 17psi at 2 to 1. BTW, I've yet to see a dyno chart on any CT based car with a 2300/2800cc unit showing over 500whp. It's not the head unit but the design of the system. CT made huge performance compromises in order to place the S/Cer where it is in order to maximize "bolt on" appeal and make it smog legal, which it achieved. So the question is, what are your expectations regarding the upgrade mentioned?
Click to expand...
 
Awesome Mark!

I hate to ask, but is your twin turbo system still in the works?

Is the new car you referred to the 458 in your picture? If so, congratulations!

Dave
 
Mac Attack said:
Awesome Mark!

I hate to ask, but is your twin turbo system still in the works?

Is the new car you referred to the 458 in your picture? If so, congratulations!

Dave
Click to expand...

The twin turbo is still in CAD at the moment. When we get a customer wanting that system I'll build it. If I didn't feel there was 600whp potential in my current blower system I'd probably do it on my car. And yes, that's the new car, thanks.
 
Mark911 said:
BATMANs said:
Correct, if you're set on a 2300 look at the Vette, etc. I take issue with installing a blower that's almost as big as the engine (2300/2800cc vs 3000cc), that's crazy IMO. However, bigger is better, right? I prefer proper engineering and design. The 1900 has no problem providing 17psi at 2 to 1. BTW, I've yet to see a dyno chart on any CT based car with a 2300/2800cc unit showing over 500whp. It's not the head unit but the design of the system. CT made huge performance compromises in order to place the S/Cer where it is in order to maximize "bolt on" appeal and make it smog legal, which it achieved. So the question is, what are your expectations regarding the upgrade mentioned?
Click to expand...

When I spoke to a few guys the big reasoning for the 2300 was based on reducing the heat.
Click to expand...
 
^ Plus 1. It looks like a floating throttle body connected to nowhere on the upper left side. Can we see more detailed pics?
 
Jinks said:
^ Plus 1. It looks like a floating throttle body connected to nowhere on the upper left side. Can we see more detailed pics?
Click to expand...

Actually, I have two throttle bodies, one before the blower and one before the intake manifold (more or less the stock position). They are coordinated by the cable you're seeing and work one-to-one. When incorporating a large intercooler and associated plumbing the volume between the blower and the intake valves become quite large resulting in poor drivability. The system described eliminates all these issues and actually "preloads" the system with boost so that throttle response is even better than a typical positive displacement supercharger. I'll need to take some pics tomorrow at the shop.

- - - Updated - - -

BATMANs said:
Mark911 said:
When I spoke to a few guys the big reasoning for the 2300 was based on reducing the heat.
Click to expand...


After studying the temperature vs rpm charts provided by Eaton (adjusted for the different sizes) I could see no advantage to either. However, I'd take issue with the published data.

Both use the same diameter rotors, however, the 2300 is longer which results in more CC per rev. One of the key engineering elements of a SCer is leakage between the rotor edge and housing. This leakage, call carryback, reduces both thermal and mechanical efficiency. By virtue of its longer rotors, the 2300 by definition has more "area" to allow leakage.

In addition, the slower you spin it the more time there is for leakage to occur. Again, given the same flow the 2300 should theoretically leak more because its spinning slower.

There's also a critical relationship between rotor speed and the "ground effect" turbulence created between rotor and housing. This turbulence helps "seal" the two and reduces leakage. Based on my CFD simulations, spinning a 1900 faster than the 2300 also helps in this respect.

I can't find a "drive hp" map for the 2300 (I did find one for the 1900), but in general HP required is related to flow and pressure requirements and to a lesser extent, friction. Here again, given the same boost the 2300 has more rotor surface area to which the boost pressure acts against (try's to spin it backwards) which increases the HP required.

These are just some of my reasons for selecting the 1900 over the 2300 for my performance goals. If I wanted to make 650plus, I'd have chosen the 2300 as the 1900 simply can't flow that much.
Click to expand...
 
To be honest I didn't expect that the 1900 would have given you that much power over my kenne Bell 2.1.

At 13psi I'm making 450rwhp~ on 91 octane - no injection (since the idea was to make a NSX with more power but something that I can just drive and put gas in ).

My CR has been lowered to 9.2:1
 
Mark911 said:
Actually, I have two throttle bodies, one before the blower and one before the intake manifold (more or less the stock position). They are coordinated by the cable you're seeing and work one-to-one. When incorporating a large intercooler and associated plumbing the volume between the blower and the intake valves become quite large resulting in poor drivability. The system described eliminates all these issues and actually "preloads" the system with boost so that throttle response is even better than a typical positive displacement supercharger. I'll need to take some pics tomorrow at the shop.

- - - Updated - - -
Click to expand...

Do you have stock cams with the Comptech adjustable gears?

Did you consider using a water/methanol injection system instead of the intercooler and the dual TB's?

One other thing I've always been curious about with the Roots style blowers is injecting just a small bit of water into the lobes to help them seal a bit better against the casing at low-mid RPMs for slightly more boost.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Mac Attack said:
Do you have stock cams with the Comptech adjustable gears?

Did you consider using a water/methanol injection system instead of the intercooler and the dual TB's?

One other thing I've always been curious about with the Roots style blowers is injecting just a small bit of water into the lobes to help them seal a bit better against the casing at low-mid RPMs for slightly more boost.

Dave
Click to expand...

I running adjustable cam pulleys but with stock timing. DAL Motorsports suggested advancing both Int and Exh (more overlap) but that's for another day.

I'm running 50/50 with a 300cc injector before the intake manifold just to be safe on 91. You can read tons of opinions on pre vs post blower injection on the Miata forums. Those guys are crazier than me! My only concern would be thermal shock on my rotor coatings as I suspect most of the meth will flash on contact with the rotors. I've got the bungs welded pre and post blower but again I'll need more dyno time to test them.
 
The Miata folks typically don't have as much to loose either! $2k engine vs $25k engine is a huge difference for me. I should be playing with Miata's instead....

What CFD program do you have?

I've been out of the CFD world for 15 years now (used to be part of a team programming our own RANS solver at a defense company), but you would need a moving mesh to do this.

The only simulations I've seen for roots type blowers was significant injection where it was actually two phase flow. That can't be practical unless you have an unlimited budget for frequent blower replacements, but there has to be a balance where the flashing fraction is enough to change the mixture density and seal the rotor/casing areas. I'm not sure if I would use a methanol mixture either for the coatings... de-ionized water only pre-blower. Hmmm.
 
Mac Attack said:
...two phase flow. That can't be practical unless you have an unlimited budget for frequent blower replacements
Click to expand...
Why is that? I'd like to better understand your concern with the two-phase flow. It seems hard to guarantee that the liquid phase is in the right spot although inertial effects may lead to exactly that. So is the concern more from local thermal stress or from something else?
 
jwmelvin said:
Why is that? I'd like to better understand your concern with the two-phase flow. It seems hard to guarantee that the liquid phase is in the right spot although inertial effects may lead to exactly that. So is the concern more from local thermal stress or from something else?
Click to expand...

Yes, the inertial effects would help seal in the primary leakage area, but it appears to me that bulk heat transfer would occur more through the lobes as opposed to the housing. With the tight tolerances and thermal expansion accounted for during the design, this may actually cause more of a gap between the now-cooler lobes and larger-thermal mass housing. It could actually result in more leakage unless you dump a significant amount of water in the inlet. At some point you are adding a lot more load on the bearings and lobes themselves than what they were designed for.
 
With the inertial effects pushing the liquid phase away from the rotors, it seems that the cooling would also be the same. I'm sure there is an axial bias too, with more cooling at the entry end of the rotors. That radial bias would result in reduced gap at the interface from differential expansion.

As for load on the bearings (or rotors), I have no feeling for how it would be affected or whether that effect would make a significant difference to the design envelope.

I do know that on the dyno, my SC seemed to make significantly more boost once we started spraying (very close to the blower intake). I have not gone back to test with/without spray. I could do that on the street but I prefer to do so when ambient temps are cool so that the spray is not as important to engine safety.
 

Similar threads

F
NSX Harrop HTV 1900 custom supercharger kit 564 WHP
Replies
13
Views
4K
FSFNSX
F
Mark911
New Procharger, old idea with a twist
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
Mark911
Mark911
Mark911
prototype Eaton M90S based S/C system
2 3
Replies
53
Views
7K
Mark911
Mark911
Back
Top