MadTimo
I look foward to the illustrations as i would LOVE to be able to figure out why. I remember when i was an apprentice mechanic in the 60's, i worked with quite a number of tradesmen who had many years of "hands on experience" & i quickly learned one very important thing.
They all knew how to do the job, but when i saw a damaged part, & asked them, "why is it so", the vast majority of them didn't have a clue.
Why did this part, or that component fail? How can we ensure that it does'nt happen again? What is the theory behind the operation of this system? SHADUP kid, & just do as you are told.

Hands on experience is a great thing, but without the knowledge that should accompany it, one is really working in the dark if one is into automotive development, or just a fitter if simply replacing broken parts.
Never stop asking,... Why is it so?

As i wrote, i look foward to seeing your drawings.
Chris
P.S. This looks like being post No. 100 on this subject. Woohoo!

Not often you get to see over 100 posts on a topic.

Quote:

Not unless its people arguing about something....well done everyone

WELL DONE!!!
Over 100 posts and still going, keep it up!
Is this the biggest post or is ther bigger posts than this?

What do u guys think is better, 10 posts or 100 posts? Im trying to wiegh them up...HEHEHEHE. Keep it going like th rotary 1200 debate!

Quote: Post from page 3, second to last by 89mm.

Mercedes invented the supercharger in 1922. And i know, from my own stubbornness, that if i invented something, spent millions(?) developing it i would prolly be using it today as well. Regardless of whether or not it is better or worse. I believe they must feel it is a better system, and that they are very traditional and be less likely to adopt different stratergies since the supercharger was such an advancement and a big part of their motoring heritage.
Anyone else have any thoughts?

merc doesnt think that suprchargrs r that effecint anyway, as all their supercharged systems r disconnected in idle, highway and city driving, a clutch within supercharger connects as soon as accelerator is depressed. and dont forget their top range cars SLR aside r all turbocharged.

I'm inclined to think that supercharging was well known long before 1922. Now i gotta go & find some reference to back up my suspicions.
Damn you lot, all this work just because i can't remember the details. I must have oldtimers disease.

A clutched supercharger is not a new idea either. Eldred Norman was offering Wade vane type supercharger kits for Holden red motors by 1966. The deluxe version came with a manualy controlled clutch.

Just tootle around your 179 EH Holden in suction mode untill one of those pesky little Cooper S Mini's came along, just press the button, & blow him away. All too easy.
Easy on the juice that way too. It was also good for passing on hills.
Chris
P.S.
I hear that there is /was a Toyota model with a clutched, positive displacement blower, that has been made in recent times. Can anybody add to that?

Has everyone gone to sleep.

I'm sitting back waiting for someone to present the following train of thought about backpressure preventing full evacuation of the exhaust gas from the cylinder of a turbo engine. It goes like this.

If the backpressure hinders the full evacuation of the cylinder, why not leave the exhaust valve open a little longer & let the incoming charge blow the last of it out.

Since the incoming charge is at a positive pressure, surely it will fill the combustion chamber , then the cylinder at a rate faster than the decending piston can increase the cylinder's volume to accomodate it. This pressure can then be used to blow the last little bit of gas from the cylinder.
This then surely negates the alleged dissadvantage of the back pressure from the turbo.

OK thinking people, whats right & whats wrong with this proposal?
Chris

i cant say that this will b any good for reducing backpressure or not, but this intake and exhaust valve timing r optimised in all OEM turbo engines, main reason for this is to keep engine temp within control as intake charge cool the cylinder and exhaust valve, is also good for power increase in turbocharged engine, otherwise this is a norm in NA engine and can backfire in turbocharged engine if camshaft is for high performance spec of any NA engine, this is also the reason that any other cam profile custom made for NA engine is not recommended for turbocharged engines.

Turbo setups don't require a wastegate. Most/all early OEM setups did not use a wastegate. They just sized the turbo small enough so it wouldn't overboost at engine speeds below redline of the engine.

The twin-screw supercharger is in the new Ford GT (of which three driving examples exist). This car will go retail as a 2005 model. This is the famous Whipple blower, now sold as a Kenne-Bell product. It uses a meshing-screw design instead of a twisted-rotor design as does the Roots blower, and supposedly is significantly more efficient.

By the way, Roots blowers were invented in the 1800s to pump air into mine shafts. Later they were adapted to charge engine inlets.