Supercharge me
Discussion
This is more for curiosity's sake at the moment than anything although it is a route I'd like to go down eventually.
What superchargers are out there and which are the ones in use by the guys on here?
Am I right that Harrop is the make of choice at present?
What sort of gains could we see on a 5.7 CV8 and what strengthening mods or otherwise might be needed?
Are there any turbocharged HSV's etc out there?
>> Edited by bignige on Thursday 12th January 16:49
What superchargers are out there and which are the ones in use by the guys on here?
Am I right that Harrop is the make of choice at present?
What sort of gains could we see on a 5.7 CV8 and what strengthening mods or otherwise might be needed?
Are there any turbocharged HSV's etc out there?
>> Edited by bignige on Thursday 12th January 16:49
Most engines I know of are running with stock cast pistons and stock rods which will limit the boost level/rpm's. That said they are going well enough A little boost can go a long way!
For higher boost you would be better with forged pistons and a rebalance, maybe steel rods to.
Boosted.
A little boost can go a long way! For higher boost you would be better with forged pistons and a rebalance, maybe steel rods to.
Boosted.
It's fanatastic, do it. My engine was stock, low boost (ask LSV, I can't remember the exact PSI) putting out approx. 530bhp.
I ran it for 3.5 years & never got bored of the performance, which for everyday/business use was just right.
It was totally user friendly, below 2000rpm it was almost identical to a standard car, then as the revs. increased the performance was stunning, (0-100 in 10.0 Autocar figure). Outdrag a 911 Turbo to 150mph & in a straight line a 360 Ferrari was near enough identical, certainly couldn't overtake!
I had the Vortech S/Charger & re-map using LS1 Edit. Totally reliable & more economical than my approx. 380bhp N/A VT that I had before.
Things have moved on though & the Harrop set up maybe better, certainly should be cheaper.
My tip is to be a bit conservative with the boost/bhp, 530bhp is enough, keep the engine standard no cam change etc. Then like me you should have no engine hassles.
I also had headers/exhaust system, diff. oil cooler & a few other bits.
You'll defo. need big brakes, can't remember if you have them already. A new diff. set up as well might help.
Go for it, honestly my HSV was stunning. Sh*t I really miss it!
I ran it for 3.5 years & never got bored of the performance, which for everyday/business use was just right.
It was totally user friendly, below 2000rpm it was almost identical to a standard car, then as the revs. increased the performance was stunning, (0-100 in 10.0 Autocar figure). Outdrag a 911 Turbo to 150mph & in a straight line a 360 Ferrari was near enough identical, certainly couldn't overtake!
I had the Vortech S/Charger & re-map using LS1 Edit. Totally reliable & more economical than my approx. 380bhp N/A VT that I had before.
Things have moved on though & the Harrop set up maybe better, certainly should be cheaper.
My tip is to be a bit conservative with the boost/bhp, 530bhp is enough, keep the engine standard no cam change etc. Then like me you should have no engine hassles.
I also had headers/exhaust system, diff. oil cooler & a few other bits.
You'll defo. need big brakes, can't remember if you have them already. A new diff. set up as well might help.
Go for it, honestly my HSV was stunning. Sh*t I really miss it!
Thanks Mike, my VT was no.26 in Silver, which I got new in Sep. 2000 from Talacrest.
It's currently for sale on Autotrader for £19,995.
Going to have a break from really fast cars for a while. I had a good run of luck, clean license, no prison sentences & still alive!
BOT, I reccommend everyone to S/C their cars if they can possibly afford to. If not borrow the money:-)
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Thursday 12th January 18:22
It's currently for sale on Autotrader for £19,995.
Going to have a break from really fast cars for a while. I had a good run of luck, clean license, no prison sentences & still alive!
BOT, I reccommend everyone to S/C their cars if they can possibly afford to. If not borrow the money:-)
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Thursday 12th January 18:22
I have considered this route but I have had probably toom any other things done and I am going down teh cam/heads route which shoudl get pretty much too 500BHP goign by Ozzie and Yankie experience.
As I understand it it dpeends what you are after in terms of performance levels and type.
The higher you go in power output teh more extra mods you will need.
Have you got better brakes and/or suspension?
These will be a must on a CV8 which could add another 5K to the bill easy!
I have got the 05 VXR suspension and it is way better than 04/05 CV8 and way cheaper than the full on set up some guys have..but depends on what you want I guess.
Pomona (if he is still around)and Tiler would be good sources of advice as well as the usual tuning brigade along with V8/A57 HSV. These guys all seem to have varying set ups and good long term experience.
As I understand it it dpeends what you are after in terms of performance levels and type.
The higher you go in power output teh more extra mods you will need.
Have you got better brakes and/or suspension?
These will be a must on a CV8 which could add another 5K to the bill easy!
I have got the 05 VXR suspension and it is way better than 04/05 CV8 and way cheaper than the full on set up some guys have..but depends on what you want I guess.
Pomona (if he is still around)and Tiler would be good sources of advice as well as the usual tuning brigade along with V8/A57 HSV. These guys all seem to have varying set ups and good long term experience.
Yeah, I think that Pomona tried at least 2 different types of S/C. So hopefully he'll see this & cooment accordingly.
I know he was after big torque at low rpm. My peak torque was at a high 5100rpm, but the positive side of that was excellent traction & useability, as by the time peak torque hit, you were already moving fast & therefore rarely got any traction issues. Really was very easy to drive as well. You could happily potter along in it, never having to go over 2000rpm if you didn't want to. If you wanted to p*** off supercar owners, then just use more rpm.
As has been mentioned though, AP brakes are a must, but LSV & Wortec etc. now have these for under £2,500 fitted, which is a bargain.
I know he was after big torque at low rpm. My peak torque was at a high 5100rpm, but the positive side of that was excellent traction & useability, as by the time peak torque hit, you were already moving fast & therefore rarely got any traction issues. Really was very easy to drive as well. You could happily potter along in it, never having to go over 2000rpm if you didn't want to. If you wanted to p*** off supercar owners, then just use more rpm.
As has been mentioned though, AP brakes are a must, but LSV & Wortec etc. now have these for under £2,500 fitted, which is a bargain.
[quote]If I was to do it again I would not supercharge it, spend the money on engine internals etc, 500 bhp in that guise would be better than an xtra 50 - 100 brake IMAO[/quote]
Thing is the cost of conversion is so much less now. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of a 500bhp N/A engine was even a liitle more than a 530bhp S/C engine, doubt there is much in it either way if you used good kit.
I also reckon running costs (mpg) & reliability would be worse on a 500bhp N/A engine.
I averaged 25mpg (18mpg around town) I reckon a 500bhp N/A would be very thirsty. I know the argument about 5.7/6.0 V8's & mpg etc. but it helps the wallet. Also meant that the HSV with its easy & cheap maintenance schedule was slightly cheaper to run than our 250bhp Saab!
Personally always found cars with fiercer cams not so pleasant to use for everyday/business driving. This was the reason I didn't but a GTS-R in 2000.
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Thursday 12th January 19:20
Thing is the cost of conversion is so much less now. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of a 500bhp N/A engine was even a liitle more than a 530bhp S/C engine, doubt there is much in it either way if you used good kit.
I also reckon running costs (mpg) & reliability would be worse on a 500bhp N/A engine.
I averaged 25mpg (18mpg around town) I reckon a 500bhp N/A would be very thirsty. I know the argument about 5.7/6.0 V8's & mpg etc. but it helps the wallet. Also meant that the HSV with its easy & cheap maintenance schedule was slightly cheaper to run than our 250bhp Saab!
Personally always found cars with fiercer cams not so pleasant to use for everyday/business driving. This was the reason I didn't but a GTS-R in 2000.
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Thursday 12th January 19:20
I too am going the way of the cam. For a few reasons..
Cost, durability and performance.
Cost, a cam only is less than £300, stock fueling and injectors will handle a "mild" cam in the 21x to 22x range no problem.
You can leave it at this and get around 480BHP, add a set of heads (Patriots start from $1000US to AFR's at $2400US) and you will make over 500 easy. (Flywheel)
Of course you need to allow for the fitting but you will with any solution.
If you want more power than this then yes you probably "need" a supercharger or turbo. However too much more and the stock components will not be as durable, rods, cranks, engine rebuilds etc are not cheap. Plus the cheapest Supercharger is probably a few thousand US for a start, you will also need upgraded fuel system and loads of odds and sods. (Oil cooler etc, etc)
As Stevie says it depends on your goals. I had a 430bhp '93 Camaro previously and wheel spinning in summer driving up a hill at 90mph was more than enough power for me. Plus the car will be my daily driver.
So dont write off a cam only or heads and cam solution for much less cost and with the right cam good all round power (Plus have you heard what a nice cam sounds like!). A look about LS1tech.com will show plenty of guys running near 600FWHP cars with heads and cams. Check out Tony Mamo the head guy at AFR, his corvette runs a mild cam and puts down 480bhp at the rear wheels. An easy 11sec car.
Cost, durability and performance.
Cost, a cam only is less than £300, stock fueling and injectors will handle a "mild" cam in the 21x to 22x range no problem.
You can leave it at this and get around 480BHP, add a set of heads (Patriots start from $1000US to AFR's at $2400US) and you will make over 500 easy. (Flywheel)
Of course you need to allow for the fitting but you will with any solution.
If you want more power than this then yes you probably "need" a supercharger or turbo. However too much more and the stock components will not be as durable, rods, cranks, engine rebuilds etc are not cheap. Plus the cheapest Supercharger is probably a few thousand US for a start, you will also need upgraded fuel system and loads of odds and sods. (Oil cooler etc, etc)
As Stevie says it depends on your goals. I had a 430bhp '93 Camaro previously and wheel spinning in summer driving up a hill at 90mph was more than enough power for me. Plus the car will be my daily driver.
So dont write off a cam only or heads and cam solution for much less cost and with the right cam good all round power (Plus have you heard what a nice cam sounds like!). A look about LS1tech.com will show plenty of guys running near 600FWHP cars with heads and cams. Check out Tony Mamo the head guy at AFR, his corvette runs a mild cam and puts down 480bhp at the rear wheels. An easy 11sec car.
It is true, a good set of heads and cam ( + headers etc ) can release a lot of power, and be relatively hassle free. Demands on the fuel system will be less, and reliability should be excellent. Power delivery should also be good and controllable.
Or indeed a stroker kit, say based on an LS2 motor. Although with additional engine size, will come extra fuel consumption. 7.0 short motors arent very expensive, or a simple 6.2 stroker kit.
Forced induction can score a little over increased capacity, as you can retain decent economy due to smaller engine size, yet produce silly amounts of power.
I can fully understand why Pomona wanted huge torque low down. It makes for relaxed driving, and feels great. But I'd be surprised if you can use anywhere near full throttle in lower gears in most road conditions, and never in the wet.
Same with some turbo conversions. They produce loads of torque. That isnt always easy to put to the ground when you have 500+.. Turbocharged engines do fell great though.
I chose a centrifugal Vortech after a lot of research. I'm more than pleased with that choice. I can smoke the tyres 1st thru 3rd on the road if I want to, but I can also get very good traction too if I want. ( except in the wet )
The power delivery of a CF blower is much more user friendly, and I believe more akin to a large capacity n/a engine.
Obviously it would be nice if you could drive examples of each, to get an impression of different builds, although that isnt usually easy in the UK.
Decide what you want, and there will be many options to satisfy your needs.
Or indeed a stroker kit, say based on an LS2 motor. Although with additional engine size, will come extra fuel consumption. 7.0 short motors arent very expensive, or a simple 6.2 stroker kit.
Forced induction can score a little over increased capacity, as you can retain decent economy due to smaller engine size, yet produce silly amounts of power.
I can fully understand why Pomona wanted huge torque low down. It makes for relaxed driving, and feels great. But I'd be surprised if you can use anywhere near full throttle in lower gears in most road conditions, and never in the wet.
Same with some turbo conversions. They produce loads of torque. That isnt always easy to put to the ground when you have 500+.. Turbocharged engines do fell great though.
I chose a centrifugal Vortech after a lot of research. I'm more than pleased with that choice. I can smoke the tyres 1st thru 3rd on the road if I want to, but I can also get very good traction too if I want. ( except in the wet )
The power delivery of a CF blower is much more user friendly, and I believe more akin to a large capacity n/a engine.
Obviously it would be nice if you could drive examples of each, to get an impression of different builds, although that isnt usually easy in the UK.
Decide what you want, and there will be many options to satisfy your needs.
As the new and very proud owner of pomona's car I feel obliged to respond.. Brian, feel free to join in / correct me.
The car has a 2.3L Whipple twin screw supercharger / chargecooler kit, plus a heck of a lot of other upgrades to allow it to handle the power and torque as reliably as possible. Brian spent 4 years testing and enhancing and trying different things and yes, he likes torque. In fact this car develops about 515lb-ft at 2,500 rpm (max is around 560lb-ft) so you don't exactly need to rev the nuts off it. As a result the rev limits have been lowered a little in order to minimise stress on the engine internals (which have already been significantly strengthened).
Max power is 586bhp and re traction - if it's very dry and a nice bit of road you can pretty much floor it in second gear if you do it smoothly. In the wet I can spin the wheels in 4th and 5th (couldn't test 6th properly) but then again the rears were getting low. Haven't run the new tyres in yet so don't know what effect this will have.
Driving gently, you're not really aware of the supercharger and it has relatively little drag when idling. At full boost the howl from the supercharger is incredible.
The only real issue I have encountered when making progress is the gear change which doesn't lend itself to fast changes. But short of 0-60 / quarter mile timings this isn't too relevant in the real world.
In terms of economy - I get 27mpg on the motorway at cruise, I average about 17mpg with a lot of back roads. Economy around town is nightmarish, mainly because it's drinking fuel at the same rate but not travelling any distance. But this is not a supercharger issue, just a big lump issue.
>> Edited by gregwatson on Thursday 12th January 21:43
The car has a 2.3L Whipple twin screw supercharger / chargecooler kit, plus a heck of a lot of other upgrades to allow it to handle the power and torque as reliably as possible. Brian spent 4 years testing and enhancing and trying different things and yes, he likes torque. In fact this car develops about 515lb-ft at 2,500 rpm (max is around 560lb-ft) so you don't exactly need to rev the nuts off it. As a result the rev limits have been lowered a little in order to minimise stress on the engine internals (which have already been significantly strengthened).
Max power is 586bhp and re traction - if it's very dry and a nice bit of road you can pretty much floor it in second gear if you do it smoothly. In the wet I can spin the wheels in 4th and 5th (couldn't test 6th properly) but then again the rears were getting low. Haven't run the new tyres in yet so don't know what effect this will have.
Driving gently, you're not really aware of the supercharger and it has relatively little drag when idling. At full boost the howl from the supercharger is incredible.
The only real issue I have encountered when making progress is the gear change which doesn't lend itself to fast changes. But short of 0-60 / quarter mile timings this isn't too relevant in the real world.
In terms of economy - I get 27mpg on the motorway at cruise, I average about 17mpg with a lot of back roads. Economy around town is nightmarish, mainly because it's drinking fuel at the same rate but not travelling any distance. But this is not a supercharger issue, just a big lump issue.
>> Edited by gregwatson on Thursday 12th January 21:43
[quote][quote]If I was to do it again I would not supercharge it, spend the money on engine internals etc, 500 bhp in that guise would be better than an xtra 50 - 100 brake IMAO[/quote]
Thing is the cost of conversion is so much less now. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of a 500bhp N/A engine was even a liitle more than a 530bhp S/C engine, doubt there is much in it either way if you used good kit.
I also reckon running costs (mpg) & reliability would be worse on a 500bhp N/A engine.
I averaged 25mpg (18mpg around town) I reckon a 500bhp N/A would be very thirsty. I know the argument about 5.7/6.0 V8's & mpg etc. but it helps the wallet. Also meant that the HSV with its easy & cheap maintenance schedule was slightly cheaper to run than our 250bhp Saab!
Personally always found cars with fiercer cams not so pleasant to use for everyday/business driving. This was the reason I didn't but a GTS-R in 2000.
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Thursday 12th January 19:20[/quote]
Currently running a circa 500bhp N/A LS2 Monaro, tune, exhaust and headers. Very reliable, no opening of the engine, relatively low stress from stock, and......better fuel consumption than i have had from any tuned or std Monaro. I appreciate different from LS1 tuning, but for LS2 owners there are potentially more affordable and reliable options.
Thing is the cost of conversion is so much less now. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of a 500bhp N/A engine was even a liitle more than a 530bhp S/C engine, doubt there is much in it either way if you used good kit.
I also reckon running costs (mpg) & reliability would be worse on a 500bhp N/A engine.
I averaged 25mpg (18mpg around town) I reckon a 500bhp N/A would be very thirsty. I know the argument about 5.7/6.0 V8's & mpg etc. but it helps the wallet. Also meant that the HSV with its easy & cheap maintenance schedule was slightly cheaper to run than our 250bhp Saab!
Personally always found cars with fiercer cams not so pleasant to use for everyday/business driving. This was the reason I didn't but a GTS-R in 2000.
>> Edited by A57 HSV on Thursday 12th January 19:20[/quote]
Currently running a circa 500bhp N/A LS2 Monaro, tune, exhaust and headers. Very reliable, no opening of the engine, relatively low stress from stock, and......better fuel consumption than i have had from any tuned or std Monaro. I appreciate different from LS1 tuning, but for LS2 owners there are potentially more affordable and reliable options.
Im with Caspy on this one.
LS2 basically runs LS6 heads with 11:1 compression and one point in compression is worth fuel economy as well as power. I think a better set of heads on an LS1 will give very close performance to the LS2.
Im pretty sure the LS2 is only 4% larger displacement, 362 vs 346 cubes. So yes some gains from that but even more gains from the heads and larger MAF etc.
I think the LS2 approach with the LS1 is a good reliable bridge to power if you dont want to go crazy.. If you like crazy, then thats a different story.
LS2 basically runs LS6 heads with 11:1 compression and one point in compression is worth fuel economy as well as power. I think a better set of heads on an LS1 will give very close performance to the LS2.
Im pretty sure the LS2 is only 4% larger displacement, 362 vs 346 cubes. So yes some gains from that but even more gains from the heads and larger MAF etc.
I think the LS2 approach with the LS1 is a good reliable bridge to power if you dont want to go crazy.. If you like crazy, then thats a different story.
Gassing Station | HSV & Monaro | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff