|
K but what year was that sprintex JK?
|
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2801851)
I am glad you see you came in and value your input alot. I actually love centrifugal chargers. My first first build was with a roots style and ended up also replacing it with a vortech setup. Since then I have installed 4 other centrifugal blowers and 4 turbos on all my cars. But it was obvious during my swap, of the loss of my low end torque. My Jeep is the only time I have ever considered going back to a roots/twin screw blower.
Centrifugal will always produce more hp/tq due to less parasitic losses, but it is all a matter of where. Install is much easier now with the V3 blowers that dont require an oil tap. Like I said before I strongly belive RIPP would be the best choice for a Jeep maily driven on asphalt at higher RPM. Even in your own dyno, it is clear the Avenger is producing more hp/tq in the low end of the bands. Eventhough you dyno only starts at 3200 rpm, the difference would be even grater around 2000 rpm. Really offroading (unless it is mudding) most people are not going above 4000 rpm. I have never seen a dyno from Sprintex but twin screw blowers are much more efficient than a roots blower and start developing power much earlier on. The divide between a twin screw and centrifugal is even bigger. Also while you are correct a roots style blower has an volumetric efficiency of about 30-40%, you were slightly generous on the vortech blower. Typically a V3 vortech si trim has volumetric efficiency of about 65-72%. A twin screw has always been the most efficent blowers possible with volumetric efficiency of about 70-85%. This has been a long standing debate with the Mustang guys. There is a huge divide between the vortech blowers and wipple (twin screw) blowers. The results there are more clear. As you can see Vortech makes alot more power up top and Wipple dominates down low. Twin Screw http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z.../twinscrew.jpg Vortech http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z...entrifugal.jpg
Originally Posted by JAFHR
(Post 2801950)
Keep your eye that is closed towards Sprintex:clap::rotflmao2::rotflmao2:
Don't waste your time or money, they don't have any for the JK. Go drive a Ripps Charged jeep. Come up to Oregon, I'll let you drive mine.:rock:
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2801984)
I have no idea what that first sentace even means.
But... http://www.kodakgallery.com/imaging-.../jpeg/BG/async |
Originally Posted by B 1000
(Post 2801994)
K but what year was that sprintex JK?
So you know Boostec is the main US distributer of Sprintex. I just got off the phone with him. The Sprintex kit is done and being manufactured. Their first order of 250 kits for the 07-10 JK will be arriving in 45-60 days. The retail price on them is 3995 dollars. They use the Hypertech tuner. They expect the 2011 kit 2-3 months after that. http://www.boostecus.com/ |
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2802021)
2010
So you know Boostec is the main US distributer of Sprintex. I just got off the phone with him. The Sprintex kit is done and being manufactured. Their first order of 250 kits for the 07-10 JK will be arriving in 45-60 days. The retail price on them is 3995 dollars. They use the Hypertech tuner. They expect the 2011 kit 2-3 months after that. http://www.boostecus.com/ |
I know I might be Hijacking this thread but what about turbo's? They use exhaust gas (wasted energy) to propell the turbine. Other than trying to rid of hot exhaust temp gases why arent turbos used more? Just asking thanks.:dontknow2:
|
Just got off the phone with the Sprintex California distributor...... all I can say is WOW.... this supercharger is made just for our jeeps. they spent over $1,000,000 in tooling to make.... they plan on having over 1000 dyno runs before done for multpal configurations. these people are serious. put in my order today... $3400.... lower air induction temps void the need for a intercooler... 1 piece construction.... custome made for the JK....
He is going to do a write and send me the information... I will post what I get for all to see... |
Originally Posted by azrwilkinson
(Post 2802126)
I know I might be Hijacking this thread but what about turbo's? They use exhaust gas (wasted energy) to propell the turbine. Other than trying to rid of hot exhaust temp gases why arent turbos used more? Just asking thanks.:dontknow2:
|
Originally Posted by pauldana
Just got off the phone with the Sprintex California distributor...... all I can say is WOW.... this supercharger is made just for our jeeps. they spent over $1,000,000 in tooling to make.... they plan on having over 1000 dyno runs before done for multpal configurations. these people are serious. put in my order today... $3400.... lower air induction temps void the need for a intercooler... 1 piece construction.... custome made for the JK....
He is going to do a write and send me the information... I will post what I get for all to see... |
Originally Posted by RubiconRod
(Post 2802158)
Since it appears you are in California like I am, you happen to know or ask if it's compliant under CARB E.O. (Executive Order)?
funny you ask.... i did not ask him that question, but if i remember corectly he did come out and say thay are also going to do that, and are currently working on it.... cool again:thumbsup: |
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2801851)
I am glad you see you came in and value your input alot. I actually love centrifugal chargers. My first first build was with a roots style and ended up also replacing it with a vortech setup. Since then I have installed 4 other centrifugal blowers and 4 turbos on all my cars. But it was obvious during my swap, of the loss of my low end torque. My Jeep is the only time I have ever considered going back to a roots/twin screw blower.
Centrifugal will always produce more hp/tq due to less parasitic losses, but it is all a matter of where. Install is much easier now with the V3 blowers that dont require an oil tap. Like I said before I strongly belive RIPP would be the best choice for a Jeep maily driven on asphalt at higher RPM. Even in your own dyno, it is clear the Avenger is producing more hp/tq in the low end of the bands. Eventhough you dyno only starts at 3200 rpm, the difference would be even grater around 2000 rpm. Really offroading (unless it is mudding) most people are not going above 4000 rpm. I have never seen a dyno from Sprintex but twin screw blowers are much more efficient than a roots blower and start developing power much earlier on. The divide between a twin screw and centrifugal is even bigger. Also while you are correct a roots style blower has an volumetric efficiency of about 30-40%, you were slightly generous on the vortech blower. Typically a V3 vortech si trim has volumetric efficiency of about 65-72%. A twin screw has always been the most efficent blowers possible with volumetric efficiency of about 70-85%. This has been a long standing debate with the Mustang guys. There is a huge divide between the vortech blowers and wipple (twin screw) blowers. The results there are more clear. As you can see Vortech makes alot more power up top and Wipple dominates down low. With respect to the DYNO graphs those - are bolt in Colorado and both automatics - as a result you have to start the run at the torque converter lock up point, in this case 3200 rpm - However - in this run you can plainly see we are producing a healthy numbers right off idle and is a safe, proven-package. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrKH2j4yyRs
Originally Posted by pauldana
(Post 2802000)
WOW... the twin screw does do a lot better at both bottom end and mid.... now that is some valubal information....very good writ again.... you seem to know your stuff.... and no advertisment! lol:clap:
Originally Posted by bubba_zenetti
(Post 2802189)
One thing to take into consideration is you are fitting a supercharger to a vehicle with stock compression ratios. Building boost too soon will cause peak cylinder pressure to rise faster at low RPMs which leads to increased heat and combustion problems that will damage the stock cast pistons. Of course you can always throw more fuel at it and pull timing to keep it cool but at that point, what is the point? Its is counter productive to make boost only to have to peel it back because you are going to melt something.
We all want more low end grunt out of it for wheeling but in all honesty, most of these rigs are spending time on the streets. If you want more low end grunt out if it, buy a Rubicrawler or go to a better ratio transfer case and call it a day. The RIPP system goes positive at 2k. You can crawl at 2k with a 4:1 transfer case in 4WLO just fine. I personally would never consider a screw type unit on cast pistons. Making boost too soon is a recipe for meltdown. Also twin-screws heat soak like crazy, especially sitting on a cast manifold - so no matter how much you spend on tooling the compressor will always get hot and you will always need to run more heat-exchanger and a bigger faster water pump = more fail points on the field. Guess time will tell - we look forward to seeing the results - RIPPTECH |
Originally Posted by bubba_zenetti
(Post 2802189)
One thing to take into consideration is you are fitting a supercharger to a vehicle with stock compression ratios. Building boost too soon will cause peak cylinder pressure to rise faster at low RPMs which leads to increased heat and combustion problems that will damage the stock cast pistons. Of course you can always throw more fuel at it and pull timing to keep it cool but at that point, what is the point? Its is counter productive to make boost only to have to peel it back because you are going to melt something.
We all want more low end grunt out of it for wheeling but in all honesty, most of these rigs are spending time on the streets. If you want more low end grunt out if it, buy a Rubicrawler or go to a better ratio transfer case and call it a day. The RIPP system goes positive at 2k. You can crawl at 2k with a 4:1 transfer case in 4WLO just fine. I personally would never consider a screw type unit on cast pistons. Making boost too soon is a recipe for meltdown. As stated in the beginning of this thread I am no fi expert, but I am a somewhat skilled na engine builder.... And you wil have to explaine to me in much better detail why it's bad to build low End tq Your statment makes no since to me.. |
Originally Posted by pauldana
(Post 2802241)
As stated in the beginning of this thread I am no fi expert, but I am a somewhat skilled na engine builder.... And you wil have to explaine to me in much better detail why it's bad to build low
End tq Your statment makes no since to me.. As demonstrated in this end user video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjxcgPpdsyk&feature=related RIPPTECH |
Originally Posted by bubba_zenetti
(Post 2802189)
One thing to take into consideration is you are fitting a supercharger to a vehicle with stock compression ratios. Building boost too soon will cause peak cylinder pressure to rise faster at low RPMs which leads to increased heat and combustion problems that will damage the stock cast pistons. Of course you can always throw more fuel at it and pull timing to keep it cool but at that point, what is the point? Its is counter productive to make boost only to have to peel it back because you are going to melt something.
We all want more low end grunt out of it for wheeling but in all honesty, most of these rigs are spending time on the streets. If you want more low end grunt out if it, buy a Rubicrawler or go to a better ratio transfer case and call it a day. The RIPP system goes positive at 2k. You can crawl at 2k with a 4:1 transfer case in 4WLO just fine. I personally would never consider a screw type unit on cast pistons. Making boost too soon is a recipe for meltdown. I do also agree with you a rubicrawler would be better for crawling, but does nothing at all for you driving around town. Also the RIPP blower would be the best option for high rpm street driving. But the twin screw is the best combination of low end torque and extra power around town. |
Originally Posted by RIPPMODS
(Post 2802268)
Simple - TOO MUCH Pressure early on with a stock cast piston breaks things - pistons tweak and crack ring landings - We've experienced this with other smaller displacement engines using positive displacement blowers... Centrifugals build boost throughout the engines natural volumetric air curve - better displacing the boost and peaking where the engines naturally is volumetrically efficient. The centrifugal simply feels like a larger engine over all from start to finish - getting more powerful throughout the RPM band.
As demonstrated in this end user video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjxcgPpdsyk&feature=related RIPPTECH When was the last time you have ever heard of someone with a positive displacement blower blowing their engine? I can list 12 of my local friends who have blown an engine with a vortech or procharger setup. |
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2802321)
Again this is completely incorrect. Centrifugal blowers torque curves are almost as bad as turbos. Twin screw blowers are by far the safest blowers. They develop less heat than a centrifgual and they have the flattest torque curves. That is also why almost every single stock supercharged car is a positive dispacement. They have always been the most reliable and safest blowers. The Ford GT, every single Mercedes (SLR, E55AMG, S55, CL55, SLK32 and SL55 ), the Corvette ZR1, the Toyota Tundra TRD, the Ford Lighting, the Caddy CTS-V, and the list goes on. I cannot think of any vehicals except for acouple GM vans in the 90s that ever came stock with a vortech blower. I am also pretty sure Vortech has recently started producing twin screw superchargers themselves which outperformed their own centrigual blowers on the new Camaro.
When was the last time you have ever heard of someone with a positive displacement blower blowing their engine? I can list 12 of my local friends who have blown an engine with a vortech or procharger setup.
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2802274)
I am sorry but what you said makes no sense. The safest place to develop boost is in the low RPM range. Positive displacement chargers have always been the safest for stock engines due to low end power devlopment and limited high end power. Almost every car manufactures use positive displacement blowers as factory superchargers. Also twin screw blowers have a much better adiabatic efficiency than centi chargers and lower cylinder temperatures. Even though there is slightly more pressure in the low rpm band, the air temp is also lower. Also centi chargers develop significantly more pressure at the top of the rpm bands, which is always the main cause for engine failure.
I do also agree with you a rubicrawler would be better for crawling, but does nothing at all for you driving around town. Also the RIPP blower would be the best option for high rpm street driving. But the twin screw is the best combination of low end torque and extra power around town. Also to your point about using it off road - Positive displacement powered JK's have confessed its hard to properly rock crawl because the throttle input feels rubber bandy - in other words the blower rushes on and yo lose your "footing". Those who wheel with our kits have often voiced their confidence in our programming and power applications. Noting that its easy to set up and navigate tough obstacle based on our power delivery.. We want to make clear that we are bringing fact not theory to the table - our argument is based on the 3.8l V6 and not "other" engines...Other engines theories do not interest us - nor should they our clients. We consider ourselves at the forefront of the market when it comes to the 3.8. Having been through the entire engine top to bottom and tested for over 80000 miles. What we are saying is, given a choice we would not use a Positive displacement compressor on this engine based on the engines design - We believe comparing apples to apples our kits will deliver more reliable power and more value over all... But again time will tell... RIPPTECH |
I will say that I have Aerospace Engineering and Math BS degrees from Univ of AZ and Molecular Physics masters from Penn. I have also designed an active aero shell and the current intake manifold for the Tim Fireball M600 (worlds fastest mini cooper). Personally I have built several high hp cars. I will concede that you know more about Jeeps than I do, but engines are nothing new to me. I was only discussing my experience and knowledge with both forms of induction.
But you are right, really at this point it is all conjecture by both sides. Really there is no way to know until the Sprintex blower is actually released and people start installing them. I am very interested in how this is going to turn out. I do greatly appreciate your active involvement in the forums. Customer service is just as important to me as product performance. EDIT I would also like to note, I have nothing invested in any kit and am being as unbiased as possible. I do not plan on installing either kit. I have a spare LS7 from my z06 that I blew and plan on rebuilding and transplanting into my Jeep at some point. |
I have the answer to everyone's questions and comments.
Hemi or LS7 |
I'd stay away from RIPP. They seem to have too many problems and bugs with their product..seems like it would be very stressful calling everyday for another program fix.
|
Originally Posted by fourwheelingbigbubba
(Post 2802607)
I'd stay away from RIPP. They seem to have too many problems and bugs with their product..seems like it would be very stressful calling everyday for another program fix.
|
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2802659)
Please, if you are going to post defamatory information, give reasoning or source. Factless hate comments do not help anyone here.
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2802437)
I will say that I have Aerospace Engineering and Math BS degrees from Univ of AZ and Molecular Physics masters from Penn. I have also designed an active aero shell and the current intake manifold for the Tim Fireball M600 (worlds fastest mini cooper). Personally I have built several high hp cars. I will concede that you know more about Jeeps than I do, but engines are nothing new to me. I was only discussing my experience and knowledge with both forms of induction.
But you are right, really at this point it is all conjecture by both sides. Really there is no way to know until the Sprintex blower is actually released and people start installing them. I am very interested in how this is going to turn out. I do greatly appreciate your active involvement in the forums. Customer service is just as important to me as product performance. EDIT I would also like to note, I have nothing invested in any kit and am being as unbiased as possible. I do not plan on installing either kit. I have a spare LS7 from my z06 that I blew and plan on rebuilding and transplanting into my Jeep at some point. We are not being unbiased :) we are being definitive in our position - Partly because we are invested but mostly because - We are invested in what we believe to be the safest most effective route towards our clients goals... after all they are putting their trust in us... and respectfully we do not take that lightly. We appreciate and respect your education and the projects you've worked on. RIPP has spent a long time nursing and in some ways teaching the JK communities about forced induction - we have spent a lot of time ethically distributing product to end users who had a problem and needed a resolve... We have fought through the discussions about positive displacement and practical applications...and swaps. Its way to easy to simply say "everyone knows X is better" than the current solutions - when really we don't know squat... What we do know is RIPP powered JK's have been running around for 5 going-on 6 years and you don't see threads starting with MY engines fried... (thats across 5 forums and all of Facebook). So when a new company comes along and starts saying "we" -are- "better" simply "because" -and- clients are compelled to buy because of price - RIPP will be there adding clarity to the conversation and making sure there is a definitive understanding between kits and what we think defines a proper system. We've spent a lot of time focused only on the compressor and not the kit... You've compared our system to other "kits", devoid of the fact that we're a little more than a kit, we are a Jeep part designed to be used the way Jeepers use their Jeeps and go where Jeepers go... for example we produce our own idlers - which are stainless steel and packed with $60 worth of bearings each (there's two)... and our kit comes with premium parts like NGK spark plugs so end users don't have to source them on their own. Or details like our programming - for example when you go into 4WD low our mapping knows it and corrects the throttle feel so its a better product off-road and makes the driver look like a rock star:cool: Either way we hope to have set an example so clients know enough to make an educated decision - if not we make sure to point it out... On a side note (speaking humbly) we can BS big HP and records also - RIPP campaigned that fastest Honda Product on the East Coast for 2 years in 98-99 and the fastest Acura Integra for 99 pro FWD season -With our (00-06) Mitsubishi program we had the fastest and most powerful 3g/4g Eclipses in the country, with our Hyundai we dominated a Hyundai road race event in Mid-Ohio and exported RIPP kits to Hyundai Korea to be featured on 30 special addition vehicles. We were also recognized by SEMA and Hyundai USA with a top product award in 2005. We've built our share of 1000hp cars as well... but as we're sure you know they break....:D Our Jeeps kits are not to bad either:beer::beer: RIPPTECH |
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2802659)
Please, if you are going to post defamatory information, give reasoning or source. Factless hate comments do not help anyone here.
But to each their own, that's my 2cents. |
Originally Posted by bubba_zenetti
(Post 2803026)
Just because a small handful of people are having issues, it does not mean that all the issues are indeed caused by RIPP in the first place.
Way to go there guy, you see a few threads and like the rest of the interweb, gotta hop on the hate bandwagon. Ill bet you do not even have a supercharger on your rig so you really have no basis on your facts other than what you read on here. 1000 kits and perhaps 10 people having issues is a pretty damn small percentage. Obviously you think there should be 100% success rate with any kit. Well I hate to bust your bubble but that is not going to happen with any kit. Remember that the end user installing the kit may be the reason why the issues exist in the first place or maybe its something no one can control but to go out and post defamatory remarks with no REAL factual basis is plain ignorant. https://www.jk-forum.com/forums/show...ht=ripp+issues There you go guy a whole thread with 22 pages of comments. Looks like you even had some problems..guess you was one of the 10. There's even more threads to go along with that if you would like I could post them too. If it upsets you, I apologize. The OP was wanting to know about SC products, I stated my opinion from what I read. No, I don't have one; and I'm glad of it too. |
I/ve gotta second Bubba Zenetti's post. I did a lot of research before buying the super charger from Ripp. I knew there were a few other companies out there but I chose Ripp. I've also had a few other cars and bikes that had both super charged and or Turbo's.
I am also one of the few that had two major (well major to me) problems with the Ripps Super Charger and it has been described in great extent in other threads. Out of the problems I have had with this SC has been with the defective Map Sensor and it took 3 months of diagnosing a shifting problem that I thought was part of the tune. It turned out to be the tranny itself. My 3rd and 4th gear was not holding a shift and it would surge at the shift. Ripps went out of there way to right several tunes for me and to take a number of data logs until it was diagnosed. I thank them personally and appreciate the time it took. I've got no stake in this other than I own an SC. If I didn't think it was the best out there I wouldn't be running it. For the guys that say don't buy it because this or that, then I say simply, go somewhere else and buy something else. I'd like the see there response later on how it turned out. We all have a choice. We are not stuck to one item or any at all. I chose to go with Ripps and frankly I'm glad. I will be putting one on my new 2012 Rubi when it comes out. Last item, I've had the roots charger on cars (Mustangs included) and a whipple charger on my boat. While I loved the two and it worked incredibly on those applications I feel it isn't a great avenue to take here. I've driven a jeep with the Avenger on it. While I won't say anything against the company, I'll just say that the so called " rubber band" feeling is correct. The power is not linear. It comes in hard and sends you over the top. This is not what you want when you are on a big rock and need to crawl over it. I would say it's better suited for the sand and dunes where you can spin the tires and let her fly. JMHO :rock: |
Originally Posted by bubba_zenetti
(Post 2802189)
One thing to take into consideration is you are fitting a supercharger to a vehicle with stock compression ratios. Building boost too soon will cause peak cylinder pressure to rise faster at low RPMs which leads to increased heat and combustion problems that will damage the stock cast pistons. Of course you can always throw more fuel at it and pull timing to keep it cool but at that point, what is the point? Its is counter productive to make boost only to have to peel it back because you are going to melt something.
We all want more low end grunt out of it for wheeling but in all honesty, most of these rigs are spending time on the streets. If you want more low end grunt out if it, buy a Rubicrawler or go to a better ratio transfer case and call it a day. The RIPP system goes positive at 2k. You can crawl at 2k with a 4:1 transfer case in 4WLO just fine. I personally would never consider a screw type unit on cast pistons. Making boost too soon is a recipe for meltdown. http://www.superchevy.com/technical/...ory/index.html Many people assume that running a supercharger, and hence added intake boost, puts added strain on an engine's parts. This is not necessarily true, because engine damage is almost always caused by rpm. Because a supercharger helps the engine produce more power at lower rpm, supercharged engines will make the same amount of horsepower as their naturally aspirated counterparts at substantially lower engine rpm, where today's street engines are designed to run (around 6,000 rpm). Another concern some people have toward using a supercharger is that they think it will increase the engine's compression to the point that it will cause detonation inside the combustion chamber. Detonation exists when the combustion pressure is raised so high that the inlet charge ignites itself before the spark plug fires. When this happens, combustion takes place while the piston is still traveling up in the cylinder bore, which puts tremendous loads on the piston, rod, and crank. While it is true that a supercharged engine creates boost and increases the engine's compression, most supercharger kits include a boost-timing retard chip that delays the engine's ignition timing under certain conditions to prevent detonation. Read more: http://www.superchevy.com/technical/...#ixzz1k9OMTNZn
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2802274)
I am sorry but what you said makes no sense. The safest place to develop boost is in the low RPM range. Positive displacement chargers have always been the safest for stock engines due to low end power devlopment and limited high end power. Almost every car manufactures use positive displacement blowers as factory superchargers. Also twin screw blowers have a much better adiabatic efficiency than centi chargers and lower cylinder temperatures. Even though there is slightly more pressure in the low rpm band, the air temp is also lower. Also centi chargers develop significantly more pressure at the top of the rpm bands, which is always the main cause for engine failure.
I do also agree with you a rubicrawler would be better for crawling, but does nothing at all for you driving around town. Also the RIPP blower would be the best option for high rpm street driving. But the twin screw is the best combination of low end torque and extra power around town. Your statements seem to be the most accurate and correct with many sources from the internet. let me quote more: THE TWIN-SCREW SUPERCHARGERMr. Alf Lysholm originally invented the twin-screw supercharger in the 1930s. The twin-screw design was developed to fill the tremendous voids that centrifugal and Roots superchargers have. This concept was intended to meet the requirements of a high average efficiency under most varied conditions of pressure and speed, a high maximum efficiency--preferably above 85 percent, with small bulk, low weight, and also suitable for direct drive. This concept lead to the development of the twin-screw supercharger which was compact and light, had a very high efficiency over varied conditions of pressure and speed, and an incredibly high maximum efficiency. This concept became a reality in the late 1930s and early 1940s when the Lysholm twin-screw supercharger was produced. Because of high manufacturing costs at the time, the screw compressor did not find its way to OEM use on automobile engines, but rather on industrial applications for air, refrigeration, and air-conditioning compressors. The twin-screw supercharger is a positive displacement air mover, which means it moves a fixed amount of air per revolution, like the Roots-type blower. Unlike the Roots however, which is only an air delivery system, the twin-screw supercharger is also a compressor. The counter-rotating lobes and chambers of the twin-screw are designed for a screw-like tapering effect running intake air into a smaller space for output, thus compressing it. The rotors have very close tolerances yet never touch. Compressed air is delivered into the compression environment of the intake manifold with very little leakage or energy loss. The twin-screw supercharger creates boost the instant the throttle is touched, and generally reaches full boost by 2,000-2,400 rpm. Full boost is then available all the way to redline. A positive displacement compressor is ideal for street performance. Because of the increased mechanical efficiencies of the superior design, the output air temperatures of the twin-screw positive displacement supercharger are radically improved from the Roots type--often producing an adiabatic efficiency in the 70- to 80-percent range across the whole powerband. Read more: http://www.superchevy.com/technical/...#ixzz1k9P2CTzo http://www.sprintex.com.au/sprintex/...-EFFICIENT.pdf 7th February 2011 ASX ANNOUNCEMENT ATG’S SPRINTEX SUPERCHARGER CONFIRMED AS WORLD’S MOST EFFICIENT SUPERCHARGER SYSTEM Key points Peak isentropic efficiency of 83.89% achieved in latest testing of ATG’s patented Series 5-150 Sprintex® Supercharger Typical automotive superchargers have isentropic efficiency of less than 70% - Isentropic efficiency is a key measurement of supercharger performance and efficiency An efficiency island of more than 80% was also achieved across more than one third of the operating speed range of the S5-150 The high isentropic efficiency of ATG Superchargers allows vehicle manufacturers to build supercharged engines without the need for intercooling This delivers smaller engine packages at a lower cost and results in a significant increase in overall vehicle energy efficiency Automotive Technology Group Limited (ASX: ATJ) (ATG) is pleased to announce that the latest testing program of its patented low emissions, high fuel efficiency Sprintex® Supercharger has confirmed it as the world’s most efficient automotive supercharger system. The Company’s engineering department recently completed a test program on the latest development of the patented Sprintex® Series 5 Supercharger range. The testing has delivered outstanding results. One of the key measurements is isentropic efficiency. The Sprintex® Series 5 Supercharger recorded a peak isentropic efficiency of 83.89%. By comparison, a typical automotive supercharger has isentropic efficiency of less than 70%. Isentropic efficiency is the measure of ‘useful work’ done by a thermodynamic device - in this instance a supercharger. The remaining energy used (non-useful work) is described as entropy and is emitted as heat. A lower isentropic efficiency figure means a larger percentage of energy used to drive the supercharger unit is dispensed as heat. This in turn requires the use of an intercooler to radiate the heat into the atmosphere. The low entropy of the ATG Sprintex® Supercharger range allows vehicle manufacturers to build supercharged engines without the need for intercooling. This delivers smaller engine packages at a lower cost and results in a significant increase in overall vehicle energy efficiency. 1 It also results in the use of smaller engines in family cars and a significant reduction in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. In addition to the outstanding isentropic efficiency result, the test program also delivered an ‘efficiency island’ of above 80% across more than one third of the Sprintex® Series 5 Supercharger’s operating speed range. Also of key importance is that vehicle manufacturers Original Equipment Manufacturers, (OEMs) are active in developing engine downsizing programs, to deliver increased or equivalent performance from smaller, more efficient engines. ATG has been able to achieve these exceptional efficiency benchmarks at very low compressor speeds. The Sprintex® Series 5 Supercharger (S5-150) is particularly suited to engine downsize programs for cars with engines as small as 1.2 litres. The S5-150 can achieve a pressure ratio of 2.2 atmospheres at a supercharger speed of just 3000rpm (equivalent to 1000-1500 engine rpm). This could allow a 1.2-1.5 litre engine to make twice as much power and torque as a normally aspirated engine of the same size. The new Edelbrock E-Force Supercharger Systems seem to be the same type as the Sprintex. There has got to be a GOOD reason almost all the OEM manufactures go with this type of supercharger, as its cost seems to be much higher.... |
Some Good video
http://www.4wdaction.com.au/directory/43092-item <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hxijI_rVyms" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxijI...G90VgbssrAlP6l http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=_Y5y6wQqQyE |
I would also like to add that the Bosch Automotive was hired by Mercedes-Benz to do a study on superchargers for their application. They ultimately selected the Lysom twin screw design. That is the reason that Mercedes has use twin screw superchargers on every single one of their designs (Including the famous $500,000 SLR McLaren).
Also in their extensive study states on page 380 that centrifugal compressors "are not suitable" for vehicle engines. This is qualified on page 424, where it is stated that "a transmission unit must be included to vary the rotational speeds if the pressure is to be maintained at a reasonably constant level over a wide range of flow volumes (i.e., engine speed)." Centrifugal superchargers have proven especially popular with owners of musclecars, whose vehicles typically have healthy low-speed torque but need a boost at high rpm. (obviously NOT the case for the JK) The twin screw Lysom design has been proven to have the flatest torque curve and best throttle response of any supercharger. |
Originally Posted by NH-JK
(Post 2794484)
Ya, most newbs first questions are "What's the coolest,most awesome best 6inch lift they make for Jeep!
.. Just wanted to further quote on this..... the reason I am looking for power adders first like a supercharger is i am well enough adapt to know that with the current power the JK has, larger tires and heavier bumpers and the such this thing will never move... thus the most logical first choice is a supercharger. here are a few pics of 2 other projects my boys and i have going on.... my sons 1972 Jeep CJ5.... was mine when I was 16 his fab work,he made the bumpers, rear quarter panels, currently working on back tire rack and a fiberglass overhead in the interrior.... we built the 360 engine ourselves, 425tq, 415hp.... http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/t...1/IMG_2111.jpg http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/t...1/IMG_2108.jpg http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/t...1/IMG_2107.jpg http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/t...1/IMG_2106.jpg http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/t...1/IMG_2105.jpg my C3 vett 460hp 440tq at the rear wheels.... raced at willow springs raceway also working on a C5 vett, and of corse the new JK http://i593.photobucket.com/albums/t...1/IMG_2109.jpg we do ALL of our own engine building suspension mods and fab work...its our hobby So... not a complete newbie to the seen....just the JK seen.... peace paul :beer: |
Centrifugal superchargers have proven especially popular with owners of musclecars, whose vehicles typically have healthy low-speed torque but need a boost at high rpm. (obviously NOT the case for the JK) -Adam |
Originally Posted by isolated1523
(Post 2805077)
See, for me this is an argument in favor of RIPP. I personally don't feel like I'm lacking much low-speed torque--especially when off road. Where I would like more power is on the road and at faster speeds so I can feel like this thing can get out of its own way. Maybe its just me...
-Adam People need to look at the pros and cons of each system and decide what better suits their needs. |
Originally Posted by bubba_zenetti
(Post 2804941)
You are so not even on the same page as me. Forget it.
That paragraph touches on nothing that I was talking about.
Originally Posted by bubba_zenetti
(Post 2804942)
Cool as long as we are posting whos E penis is bigger:
World record holder as fastest motorcycle sidecar at 223MPH with an N/A 1450cc engine. (No that is not me that is the pilot. You would not get me in that contraption *LOL*) Our old LSR bike. Turbo Hayabusa. 482 RWHP. Standing start mile at Maxton 247MPH And I did not use Google to build them ;) Just a few of the many things I send down the highway on two wheels really fast.
Originally Posted by isolated1523
(Post 2805077)
See, for me this is an argument in favor of RIPP. I personally don't feel like I'm lacking much low-speed torque--especially when off road. Where I would like more power is on the road and at faster speeds so I can feel like this thing can get out of its own way. Maybe its just me...
-Adam i want to put on the gas from a stop sign and actually move faster than a turtle..... Also the sprintex works up to 6+K rpm.....dont need to go much higher than that...
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2805127)
As I have said three times now in this thread. I strongly believe RIPP would be the best option if you do mostly highway driving where you are in the higher RPM band. The Sprintex would be for people looking for low end supplement and better throttle response. It all depends on what each person is looking to achieve. There is no 100% right answer for everyone.
People need to look at the pros and cons of each system and decide what better suits their needs. the more i read and learn about superchargers, i would have to say I think the Sprintex will be better all around.... |
Originally Posted by pauldana
(Post 2805253)
the more i read and learn about superchargers, i would have to say I think the Sprintex will be better all around....
|
Very little of what you said is true. But I know no matter what I say, you will keep on believing, so I wont even waste my time. :doh:
|
Originally Posted by bubba_zenetti
(Post 2806331)
Pauldana,
What you are not tuning in on is the fact that in this particular application, a roots system/twin screw is not going to be at an advantage here. If you go back and read what I said, it has nothing to do with damaging shit from over revving, it has to do with how the cylinders are building pressure from the combustion process. True, positve displacment blowers have an advantage and in theory are more efficent in some ways. True, OEMS will pick things that are more efficent. Fact: DCX never designed this engine for a blower. While other OEMS will pick positive displacement units, their engines are also built around the fact that this blower is going to be attached to it. DCX did put a little bit of some over engineering into the engine of the 07-11 JK but never designed it for forced induction use. It has cast pistons, not good for forced induction but can work for low boost applications. It has a static compression ratio of 9.5:1 which is a bit high for forced induction but will work. Now to better help you understand what would happen if you just slammed the engine into making more power down low, lets say you have one single piston attached to a rod and a crank. At the very bottom of the crank there is a brake applying resistance to the crank so that it takes 300 ftlbs of torque to over come it. Now lets smack it on top with a 10,000 lb hammer. Chances are you are probably going to bend the rod, crack the piston or both. Now if we repeat the same thing with the brake off so things spin a bit more freely and drop 10,000 lbs on top of it. Chances are the piston will just spin around freely. At low RPM, over coming 5000 lbs of Jeep from a stand still with boost being built right off the bat is no different than the analogy I just described. Building boost at low RPM is going to cause cylinder pressure during the combustion process to rise faster than if the motor was already spinning. The sharp rise in combustion pressure at low RPM leads to more heat which in turn will cause pre-ignition/detonation issues. Not exactly the thing you want running cast pistons. Again this can all be combated by throwing more fuel at it (further making it less efficient) pulling out timing or both just to keep things in check but in the end, things just are not going to last long for those poor cast pistons. So where we are with boost down low, dumping more fuel into it to keep things cool, your fuel mileage drops and you may not even create that much more power down low from the added boost since you are now having to run rich to keep things safe. Great stuff for a daily driver. Even though a positive displacement unit will make more low end torque sooner, doing so on the 3.8 DCX power plant is going to lead to pistons with damage if one is not careful. All in all it can be done but how reliable will it be? As a daily driver, you are better off with with tuning that is safer. If you want more low end grunt and feel a positive displacement unit is the answer for you, then by all means do it, just do not count on it being reliable by any means on this engine without moving to forged pistons. Your problems with engine failure in this case will be from damaged pistons not damage from exceeding mean pistons speeds and throwing a rod out the side of the block. 1. OEMs pick blowers that are efficient AND safe. It is a well known fact by everyone (besides you) that positive displacement blowers are the safest form (and usually less powerful) of FI available. 2. Many OEMs do infact sell or sanction aftermaker blowers to be installed on stock NA engines, that still are covered under warranty. All of which are positive displacement blowers. (IE I had the Infiniti dealer install a Stillen screw type blower on my car and was still covered by warranty) Also many Ford dealers install Roush wipple blowers on stock NA mustangs and still retain warranty. Also BMW has installed the Downing/Atlanta blowers (screw type) on many Z3s and still maintains factory warranty. I could go on and on. It does not matter if the car is specifically designed for FI or not, positive displacement blowers are still the safest for a stock engine. 3. 9.5:1 is not high at all for a forced induction applicaiton. Most NA compression ratios are much higher. Example my NA Z06 compression ratio is 11:1 where a supercharged (positive displacement) ZR1 is 9.1:1. 4. Your analogies are ridiculous. The Sprintex blower is a very small .59L blower and would be adding only about 20% additional pressure, not 3000%. Engine pressures can easily be calculated as well. For a 0.5L engine cylinder with compression ratio of 10:1 (makes math easy) at 2000 RPM the pressure ATDC (After Top Dead Center) would be approx 3700 kPa. At 4000 RPM (approx when the RIPP is at 100% boost) the pressure ATDC would be approx 5200 kPa. The max pressure the Sprintex can add is 740 kPA (assuming 100% efficieny and full load). Which would still be producing pressures LESS than a stock engine produces at high RPM. Ripp blower produces signficantly more pressure and higher in the RPM range. (I also didnt take into account the additional heat the centrifigual blower adds) 5. The biggest issue for NA motors with FI is pressure, not heat. Centrifigual blowers have always been the most unreliable because they develop the most engine pressures (by far), that is also the reason they develop the most power. 6. Twin screw blowers have a MUCH better adiabatic efficiency than centrifigual blowers. Meaning they will impart much less head into the engine. All twin screw blowers will have signifiganly lower intake temperatures than a centrifigual blower, especially at high RPMs. Personally going from a screw blower to a vortech blower on one of my cars, I can tell you my intake temps were almost 100 degrees higher. This higher temp by centrifigual blowers is infact one of the main reasons for detonation, that combined with boost creep. 7. Every single car company has proven that positive displacment blowers are with out a doubt the safest operation for engine longetivity. No matter how many crazy analogies you make up, that will not change. |
1 Attachment(s)
We need to distance ourselves from this thread - this whole thing sound like one big sales pitch for a company with no credibility by comparing itself to the what is considered the best.
Our HP and credibility is here and hundreds of others like it- !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOG0_8VtMa4 Potential competitors HP is here! Attachment 268718 SEE :eek2: THE DIFFERENCE? A kit is more than a compressor - its the whole package including the company standing behind it! At this point we don't feel we need to define or defend anything - And please don't misinterpret this as "big-headiness" - When you got something viable we'll talk... RIPPTECH |
any company that is openly active with it's client base, especially in a manner as public as ripp is on these forums, is automatically heads and shoulders above any one else. simply being able to easily and quickly communicate with a manufacturer is huge. If I had a choice between a company who I knew I would be able to go to with questions and get resolution, vs one where I had know idea, I would go with the one who I know I would be able to talk to.
That being said, I don't know if I would supercharge, I might do a hemi and then supercharge it if I ever wanted more power :rock::rock::rock: But ripp makes it hard to not get a kit, being so cheap, so reliable, and so easy to install |
I am not trying to discredit RIPP at all. As I have mentioned I have installed and loved several Vortech/Procharger blowers on previous cars. My only purpose was to provide knowledge and correct false information from bubba_zenetti.
RIPP is completely correct. No matter how good a blower is in theory, it all comes down to the design of the kit as a whole. The best blower in the world wouldn't make a difference if the kit has poor piping design and improper tuning. Really this is all conjecture at this point until some real results are produced. Also customer support is really hard to factor into any dyno charts. Shitty customer service can easily make an amazing kit turn into nothing more than an expensive paper weight. |
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2807144)
I really don't even know where to begin.
1. OEMs pick blowers that are efficient AND safe. It is a well known fact by everyone (besides you) that positive displacement blowers are the safest form (and usually less powerful) of FI available. 2. Many OEMs do infact sell or sanction aftermaker blowers to be installed on stock NA engines, that still are covered under warranty. All of which are positive displacement blowers. (IE I had the Infiniti dealer install a Stillen screw type blower on my car and was still covered by warranty) Also many Ford dealers install Roush wipple blowers on stock NA mustangs and still retain warranty. Also BMW has installed the Downing/Atlanta blowers (screw type) on many Z3s and still maintains factory warranty. I could go on and on. It does not matter if the car is specifically designed for FI or not, positive displacement blowers are still the safest for a stock engine. 3. 9.5:1 is not high at all for a forced induction applicaiton. Most NA compression ratios are much higher. Example my NA Z06 compression ratio is 11:1 where a supercharged (positive displacement) ZR1 is 9.1:1. 4. Your analogies are ridiculous. The Sprintex blower is a very small .59L blower and would be adding only about 20% additional pressure, not 3000%. Engine pressures can easily be calculated as well. For a 0.5L engine cylinder with compression ratio of 10:1 (makes math easy) at 2000 RPM the pressure ATDC (After Top Dead Center) would be approx 3700 kPa. At 4000 RPM (approx when the RIPP is at 100% boost) the pressure ATDC would be approx 5200 kPa. The max pressure the Sprintex can add is 740 kPA (assuming 100% efficieny and full load). Which would still be producing pressures LESS than a stock engine produces at high RPM. Ripp blower produces signficantly more pressure and higher in the RPM range. (I also didnt take into account the additional heat the centrifigual blower adds) 5. The biggest issue for NA motors with FI is pressure, not heat. Centrifigual blowers have always been the most unreliable because they develop the most engine pressures (by far), that is also the reason they develop the most power. 6. Twin screw blowers have a MUCH better adiabatic efficiency than centrifigual blowers. Meaning they will impart much less head into the engine. All twin screw blowers will have signifiganly lower intake temperatures than a centrifigual blower, especially at high RPMs. Personally going from a screw blower to a vortech blower on one of my cars, I can tell you my intake temps were almost 100 degrees higher. This higher temp by centrifigual blowers is infact one of the main reasons for detonation, that combined with boost creep. 7. Every single car company has proven that positive displacment blowers are with out a doubt the safest operation for engine longetivity. No matter how many crazy analogies you make up, that will not change.
Originally Posted by RIPPMODS
(Post 2807197)
1. We need to distance ourselves from this thread - this whole thing sound like one big sales pitch for a company with no credibility by comparing itself to the what is considered the best.
Our HP and credibility is here and hundreds of others like it- !!! A kit is more than a compressor - its the whole package including the company standing behind it! At this point we don't feel we need to define or defend anything - And please don't misinterpret this as "big-headiness" - When you got something viable we'll talk... RIPPTECH I could understand maybe that comment about 505...have you been to the Sprintex web site???? and isnt that comment somewhat derogatory? something you would find issues with if said about you??? just the fact plz.... So, here is my thoughts so far.... you have put together a great kit, you have great customer support..... you believe in your product...you have many happy costumers...... but that being said... you are still much smaller than a company like Sprintex, who does not put together a kit form other manufactures as you do.... they are a multimillion dollar company that actually has put in millions of dollars on design and MANUFACTURING there own product. And it seems DODGE, FORD CHEVY and the rest as mentioned all choose a twin screw.... if a vortech was better, why would they not use them???? this is a huge statement.... As I see it now.... I will be purchasing a Sprintex.... I will do an initial dyno run before mods, then i will do a dyno after the Sprintex, i will make a new thread, and post all the results along with installation. This should put all speculation to rest.
Originally Posted by WhosUrBuddiee
(Post 2807334)
1. I am not trying to discredit RIPP at all. As I have mentioned I have installed and loved several Vortech/Procharger blowers on previous cars. My only purpose was to provide knowledge and correct false information from bubba_zenetti.
2. RIPP is completely correct. No matter how good a blower is in theory, it all comes down to the design of the kit as a whole. The best blower in the world wouldn't make a difference if the kit has poor piping design and improper tuning. Really this is all conjecture at this point until some real results are produced. Also customer support is really hard to factor into any dyno charts. Shitty customer service can easily make an amazing kit turn into nothing more than an expensive paper weight. 2. I agree.... Ever who pointed out the Sprintex...... thx.... |
Originally Posted by pauldana
(Post 2807387)
1. Really? to be honest, 99% of the sales pitch is coming from you...I really do mean no disrespect, but when you come in with how many sold... and "we are so great to deal with".... and all theses redundant videos, in comparison to just wanting the facts as i have started out to find..... and you say Sprintex has no creditability???? really??? because they don't post here???? I could understand maybe that comment about 505...have you been to the Sprintex web site???? and isnt that comment somewhat derogatory? something you would find issues with if said about you??? just the fact plz.... So, here is my thoughts so far.... you have put together a great kit, you have great customer support..... you believe in your product...you have many happy costumers...... but that being said... you are still much smaller than a company like Sprintex, who does not put together a kit form other manufactures as you do.... they are a multimillion dollar company that actually has put in millions of dollars on design and MANUFACTURING there own product. And it seems DODGE, FORD CHEVY and the rest as mentioned all choose a twin screw.... if a vortech was better, why would they not use them???? this is a huge statement.... As I see it now.... I will be purchasing a Sprintex.... I will do an initial dyno run before mods, then i will do a dyno after the Sprintex, i will make a new thread, and post all the results along with installation. This should put all speculation to rest. Ever who pointed out the Sprintex...... thx.... |
^^ Though the product may not be released, you can still compare based on knowledge of the platforms. (Andorid vs iOS)
Actually you brought up a great example. Many times I see new Andoid phones toted as "iPhone Killers" based on superior equipment (4g, dual cores, ips, hdmi, ect). But many times phones even with better subcomponents, failed to deliever as a whole. (ie Droid Razor) It really doesnt matter if you have the better processor if the the phone dies in 3 hours. Though I can say with certanity that a twin screw blower is better than a centrifgual blower for low end torque and engine reliablity, it all comes down to if Sprintex can deliver a well designed kit. |
Originally Posted by sneck
(Post 2807467)
I think this is the example of it sounds like advertising. I mean, on one hand, you have a proven product, on the other hand, you have a few guys argueing for a product that is still not available. I mean, I would compare it to the Iphone. Some folks like to compare current, available phones (for example the droid) to phones that still dont even exist (iphone 5). I mean, apple is a big name, and they put out decent products. but why compare something the exists to something that doesnt?
LOL!!!:clap::thumbsup: I have an I-phone.... and love Apples.... would never have anything else.... (I owned 5 cell stores, Communications companys, for 10 years when cellular first came out) and cant wait to sale my 4 for the new 5!!!! anyway... lol.... When I first started this thread all I new is i wanted FI... which one was totally in the air... in fact, I did not even know who made any... did a little web searching and that is where i found Ripp and 505...... then 2 forum members pointed out Advenger and Sprintex (I have some Advenger pics i will post what they sent me... also a nice setup)...... But one thing the first 3 have in common is they are all parts put together to make work on our jeeps....I was ok with that though... then someone pointed out Sprintex.... A Blower made, engineered, and produced for JUST our 3.8 JK's..... now that is investment... This company is as big as Edelbrock and the like... So... it is my BELIEF that a company this size, with millions invested in this thing, that they will be on top of the whole situation.... If they are, as i think they are, you and I will find out soon.... and if there product sucks or there customer service sucks... I will report this as well..... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:17 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands