2nd Gen Ram Tech 1994-2001 Rams: This section is for TECHNICAL discussions only, that involve the 1994 through 2001 Rams. For any non-tech discussions, please direct your attention to the "General discussion/NON-tech" sub sections.

Electric Supercharger

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 12:56 PM
  #21  
CPTAFW163's Avatar
CPTAFW163
Champion
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2
From: Ft Campbell, KY/TN
Default

Here is the 199 dollar product:
http://www.google.com/products/catal...ed=0CFAQ8wIwAw
Only for 19 bucks.
 
Reply
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 12:59 PM
  #22  
CPTAFW163's Avatar
CPTAFW163
Champion
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2
From: Ft Campbell, KY/TN
Default

HERE IT IS!! THis is what I was researching: 1850 CFM, but 24 volt.
http://www.amazon.com/Jabsco-36740-0.../dp/B000O8BAE8


Would that work? Probably, but you would need a world class charging system.
 
Reply
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 06:21 PM
  #23  
jmbishop's Avatar
jmbishop
Professional
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
From:
Default

That would not work, CFM means little for this application, it wouldn't build enough pressure.

If a electronic supercharger worked efficiently, it would be done already. Building a real turbo system would be cheap if the right parts could be sourced.

$100 for headers $28 T4 flanges, then you just need to source the turbos, waste gates and plumbing.



http://www.ebay.com/itm/T-304-STAINL...item415d69f7ea
 
Reply
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 06:45 PM
  #24  
peshewa's Avatar
peshewa
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 437
Likes: 1
From: Cedar Rapids Iowa
Default

I have seen all those models installed in cars in my area - the only difference in performance, was the imaginary kind in the car's owners minds. Absolute crap - every 1 of them. A real supercharger or turbo charger actually gets real results, but there is a lot to them. Even some of those advertise as bolt up & rock out applications, but they can ruin stuff. If a car comes with a factory forced induction of any kind, it has to have lower compression to allow the engine not to pop prematurely, but that drastically reduces mileage & also requires running high octane fuel, which also burns off even faster on top of that. Case in point, I bought a brand new Bonneville ssei supercharged in 2001, perfectly tuned & maintained, required 91 octane & never got more than 6 MPG. I was never so happy to get rid of a gas hog in all my life. Also, those "turbo air flow" things you can buy for about $20 that get installed in the air intake to make the air swirl around more on the way in are also garbage. They were proven in many magazines and even my local news station to DECREASE mileage and do nothing for power. Don't believe the hype - no matter what name brand stickers you add to your rear window, it will not help it go faster. Look up threads for increasing air flow, there are many & have tons of useful info.
 
Reply
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 06:51 PM
  #25  
CPTAFW163's Avatar
CPTAFW163
Champion
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2
From: Ft Campbell, KY/TN
Default

1. High octane fuel does not burn faster. The higher octane you go, the slower it burns. Hence why you can safely advance the timing and bump up the compression.
2. Lower compression means you can run LESS octane fuel. High compression, you better run premium or you will run like crap and possibly detonate.
 
Reply
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 07:09 PM
  #26  
Hahns5.2's Avatar
Hahns5.2
Record Breaker
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,181
Likes: 3
From: Battle Ground WA
Default

Originally Posted by jmbishop
That would not work, CFM means little for this application, it wouldn't build enough pressure.

If a electronic supercharger worked efficiently, it would be done already. Building a real turbo system would be cheap if the right parts could be sourced.

$100 for headers $28 T4 flanges, then you just need to source the turbos, waste gates and plumbing.



http://www.ebay.com/itm/T-304-STAINL...item415d69f7ea
Correct, sure it can move a lot of air, but it won't do it under pressure. Electric supercharging is possible, it's just not feasible.

And lol @ turboing for cheap, trust me, it's not.
 
Reply
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 07:20 PM
  #27  
drewactual's Avatar
drewactual
Champion
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 3
From: Cape Carteret NC
Default

from everything I've read, Hans is dead on..

there may come a day when it is practical, but it isn't now.. it goes back to the volume/pressure thing.. electric can give you one or the other, but not both..

I'm still of the opinion that the gains witnessed on a dyno using those leaf blowers, or the like, aren't the effects of boost... they are instead the effects of eliminating resistance of air flow.. Boost crams air in the chamber, as in- under pressure before the pistons start compressing.. eliminating resistance is just that- allowing the engine to ingest the volume of air it wants to ingest instead of what it can ingest..

and, any mass produced vehicle after 95 getting 6mpg's has something seriously wrong with it, or it is hugely displaced or stupidly low geared..
 
Reply
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 07:52 PM
  #28  
kejobe's Avatar
kejobe
Record Breaker
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,241
Likes: 12
From: Ohio
Default

[quote= any mass produced vehicle after 95 getting 6mpg's has something seriously wrong with it, or it is hugely displaced or stupidly low geared..[/quote]

Thats what I had also thought, so must have been whoopin the hell out of it or something...
http://autos.yahoo.com/pontiac/bonne...01/ssei-sedan/

Oh yeah, guy at work has a supercharged buick, 2000ish, and was saying he's getting 25-26mpg highway.
 

Last edited by kejobe; Nov 15, 2011 at 08:14 PM.
Reply
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 11:42 PM
  #29  
jmbishop's Avatar
jmbishop
Professional
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
From:
Default

Originally Posted by kejobe

Oh yeah, guy at work has a supercharged buick, 2000ish, and was saying he's getting 25-26mpg highway.
That's about right, for a 3800sc, If GM was smart they would be building cars with the 3800sc on standard transmissions, if they put it on the 6spd f40 trans I'm sure they would get 30 mpg or close to it out of a 275hp car.
 
Reply
Old Nov 15, 2011 | 11:54 PM
  #30  
jmbishop's Avatar
jmbishop
Professional
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
From:
Default

Originally Posted by Hahns5.2

And lol @ turboing for cheap, trust me, it's not.
That's what people said about building a v8 Fiero, I did it for under 1k and cut less corners than if I had bought a kit. It wasn't a beast of a engine but it was a clean setup and not dog either, a guy in New Mexico paid way to much for the engine/ trans setup when I parted it out to put it in his Lambo replica.

Challenge accepted but I need to find a new engine first, I don't want to take the truck off the road for to long and at 180k I think it would make sense to use a fresher engine even if it does run perfect.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:19 PM.