rotrex supercharger

[eTiMaGo]

Originally Posted by Vanderkitten

I am not sure why the mini cooper S has a supercharger...

The new model Cooper S is now turbocharged

[sdmf]

well this looks like a job for nst if they decide to make s/c pulleys, that would toatally be sweet. i would be willing to sacrifice some mpg for some pulling power. im not looking to be fast and the furious yaris, just peppy power to get that umph factor, if the xa and xb can have a s/c dont you think we deserve one also

[sdmf]

Originally Posted by cdydjded

I had a Rotrex prototype kit made up late last year. The unit fits & its not a complicated kit. One problem, the Rotrex uses a 6 groove pully & our cars use a 3 groove pulley. The belt would not stay in place with a 3 groove pulley. Pullies could me fabricated for the crank, alternator & idler but the A/C compressor pulley would be a problem.

so how did you bypass this problem? or you just took the rotrex out?

[Yaris Revenge]

A friend of mine at work had an old MR2 with a factory supercharger. He said it had an electronically activated "clutch" that allowed the supercharger to freewheel until the pedal was depressed to a certain trigger point. That was on a late 80's/early 90's model... shouldn't all superchargers behave this way by now? If they did, there wouldn't be any real "drag" on the engine during normal operation.

~YR

[Papamoon]

Originally Posted by Vanderkitten

Your supercharger will rob more MPG from your motor than a turbo, and there is no way around it. It adds mechanical drag to you motor whether you're on the boost or not. You lose some rev-speed as well (my non-mechanical term for how fast your motor revs).

A turbo really kills your low end due to all the back pressure of forcing all your exaust through a hole the size of a half dollar.

[Turbo&Auto]

I read in the first few posts that the Rotrex S/C is more efficient then a turbo. That can NEVER be true. It takes power to run it, hence its already less efficient.

For piping, but a universal piping kit on Ebay and piece it together. You can bring the pipes to a local weld shop to have them all welded together if you cant do that part. Its VERY easy to do piping, I've done quite a few cars myself with turbo's or custom CAI's.

[Turbo&Auto]

Originally Posted by Papamoon

A turbo really kills your low end due to all the back pressure of forcing all your exaust through a hole the size of a half dollar.

This is total BS. With a properly sized turbo you can have s/c like response with....are you ready....top end performance too



This is my Accord with the old turbo setup. Its a DSM manifold with a Big 16G turbo. Full boost well before 3K. The car shredded tires coming out of turns no matter the gear. EASILY walk Mustangs!

[Turbo&Auto]

No FI guru's on here to debate huh????

[Carvin'07]

Originally Posted by Turbo&Auto

This is total BS. With a properly sized turbo you can have s/c like response with....are you ready....top end performance too

This is my Accord with the old turbo setup. Its a DSM manifold with a Big 16G turbo. Full boost well before 3K. The car shredded tires coming out of turns no matter the gear. EASILY walk Mustangs!

What size of block are you talking about? There is no way a 1.5L 1NZFE will make that much low end power and top end as well. We just cannot flow that much air...our F-series head is also a big limitation.

On a side note, with a Big16G you should have been able to make much more power. I had a DSM for 3 years and some of my buddies with the B16g were making close to 300 FWHP (disconnected centre diff) on an otherwise stock 2.0L engine. Looks like you had some airflow restrictions.

Carvin'

[largeorangefont]

Originally Posted by Turbo&Auto

No FI guru's on here to debate huh????

I wouldnt call that big top end power, but from a driveability standpoint, that setup looks to be very good from the dyno chart. On the street that is what you want anyway.

How much boost were you running? It looks like you had a big 16G with a really small hotside.

[largeorangefont]

Originally Posted by Carvin'07

What size of block are you talking about? There is no way a 1.5L 1NZFE will make that much low end power and top end as well. We just cannot flow that much air...our F-series head is also a big limitation.

On a side note, with a Big16G you should have been able to make much more power. I had a DSM for 3 years and some of my buddies with the B16g were making close to 300 FWHP (disconnected centre diff) on an otherwise stock 2.0L engine. Looks like you had some airflow restrictions.

Carvin'

Agreed. We aren't going to see much over 200 lb/ft of torque (if it even gets there) with this motor in a stock configuration. The good news is that you can run a small turbo that will spool well and it wont fall off on the top end like the chart above.

[Carvin'07]

Originally Posted by largeorangefont

Agreed. We aren't going to see much over 200 lb/ft of torque (if it even gets there) with this motor in a stock configuration. The good news is that you can run a small turbo that will spool well and it wont fall off on the top end like the chart above.

Hear hear! I think you might get to 200ft-lbs, but you wouldn't stay there for too long.

A small conventional bearing turbo (e.g. T-25) or medium sized ball-bearing (GT-25R!! well maybe a bit big) would probably be best for this engine. Quick spool is what we need really.

[Jujufruit]

Does anyone know why Toyota is so adamant about using the F series engines? I mean, there are so many limitations about the F series heads from a NA standpoint (unless you got lotsa $$$) that it seems to put Toyota in the lowest level as far as engine performance goes.

I've always found that torque is the main enemy of a FF if it springs to early, being able to have a broader powerband with a high HP low torque motor seems to perform the best overall. Guess I just don't understand why Toyota doesn't want performance motors when the 4a-g motor was so popular, and even that wasn't the most Uber, but it did have amazing qualities.

I guess I really like the Vitz, but I'm really dissapointed with the motor so far, seems like the Fit has much more potential, especially from a NA standpoint.

[largeorangefont]

It is built as an economy car. Toyota does not care about power.

[Jujufruit]

I'm asking about all of their engines. Apparently, even the car that Toyota has marketed as a M3 fighter, still uses a F series engine. If they ever came out with a new Supra, they'd probably still use a F series engine. Toyota seems to be the new Oldsmobile, they had their hey day, but now all they've got is economy. If they came out with a sport Yaris, it'd probably just have a lip kit and fog lights. I just don't understand why they are so obsessed with F series motors. Isn't there supposed to be a trickle down effect with their racing in F1? I'm just not understanding why there has to be no real "performance" engines in the Toyota lineup. With the Celica GT-s gone, what real performer is there engine wise? F series motors are not my cup of tea I guess. I love their cars (family has always been since the 70's) and I've driven my share of their performance cars over the years, but I am just very dissappointed with their performance division, and with the "F" type Lexi coming out to compete with BMW and Benz, what are they going to do for the Toyota name brand? I like Lexus and all, but I still don't hold that appreciation for "Lexus". That means luxury to me, but I would rather have the circle with a T in it instead of an L.

[Carvin'07]

Hey jujufruit,

It is all strictly economics. Toyota is number 1 for a reason: they sell cars literally by the boatloads because people love them.

Car enthusiasts are a very small portion of their intended demographic. Sure, if they produced more G-series motors that would be great (!!!), however their cost/unit produced would increase because the total amount sold would decrease. Let's face it, Jane and John with their 2 kids do not want a 1.6L high revving, low torque motor that they have to shift 4 times to get to 65km/h. They want an 2.0L econo-slushbox that will get them to the Loblaws and do it quietly (i.e. below 2000 rpm with a torque-focused powerband) and without causing the neighbours to raise their eyebrows.

Yep Supra TTs and are great, but how many did Toyota sell??? Probably a whole heck of a lot less than they did Corolla sedans with the 4AFE.

Just my 2 cents for what they are worth!
Carvin'

[uncleyaris]

I agree Carvin.

[largeorangefont]

Originally Posted by Carvin'07

Yep Supra TTs and are great, but how many did Toyota sell??? Probably a whole heck of a lot less than they did Corolla sedans with the 4AFE.


Carvin'

I read somewhere that there were less than 8000 Supras produced for America from 93-97. Not sure if that is 100% accurate though, but seems resonable.