General Harley Davidson Chat Forum to discuss general Harley Davidson issues, topics, and experiences.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

When Too Fast Isn't Fast Enough...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
  #21  
Old 09-13-2010, 01:39 PM
Centerline's Avatar
Centerline
Centerline is offline
Road Warrior
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Posts: 1,789
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PFWiz
It looks sharp, but why is there no inter cooler? Compressing the air makes it hot. Hot air is less dense, kinds defeats the purpose of compressing it. (Well partially, at least) Thats why most serious turbos / super chargers have an inter cooler.
It makes me think this wasn't done for power, it was done for looks and bragging rights....
It is a serious supercharger, driven from the crankshaft. It does not use hot exhaust to spin its tubine compressor. While the act of compression does indeed raise temp of the air charge, it raises it NOWHERE near the level of hot exhaust gas driven turbo-superchargers, thus no need for an intercooler.
 
  #22  
Old 09-13-2010, 02:24 PM
sgod1100's Avatar
sgod1100
sgod1100 is offline
Road Captain
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Centerline
It is a serious supercharger, driven from the crankshaft. It does not use hot exhaust to spin its tubine compressor. While the act of compression does indeed raise temp of the air charge, it raises it NOWHERE near the level of hot exhaust gas driven turbo-superchargers, thus no need for an intercooler.

No intercooler?? are you kidding me? Those roots type blowers create ALOT of heat (due to the air pulses colliding with each other, created from the supercharger lobes). Besides, when you compress air it heats up, there's no way around it
 
  #23  
Old 09-13-2010, 03:48 PM
PFWiz's Avatar
PFWiz
PFWiz is offline
Stellar HDF Member

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Northern, Ohio (Yuck!)
Posts: 3,407
Received 384 Likes on 229 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Centerline
It is a serious supercharger, driven from the crankshaft. It does not use hot exhaust to spin its tubine compressor. While the act of compression does indeed raise temp of the air charge, it raises it NOWHERE near the level of hot exhaust gas driven turbo-superchargers, thus no need for an intercooler.
I know the difference between a supercharger and a turbo. It does appear how ever that you do not.
There is not any such thing as a "turbo-supercharger" on a motorcycle. They were how ever used on WW2 fighter planes. (P38s had them)
  1. "At the present time, turbosuperchargers are used in series with geared superchargers, the intercooler and carburetor being located between them. In this way, maximum use can be made of the advantages of each type. " From a GE 1943 docuement.http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm
"It does not use hot exhaust to spin its tubine compressor." It doesn't have a turbine compressor! That would be because this is a Roots style compressor, not a centrifical model. Also it does not use hot exhaust because it is a supercharger not a turbocharger.
At no time was I confused between the 2 of them. Crank driven SCs are neither more nor less serious than belt driven SCs. They are merely different.
I have run out of time to correct all the rest of your mistakes... oh well
 
  #24  
Old 09-13-2010, 11:50 PM
Centerline's Avatar
Centerline
Centerline is offline
Road Warrior
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Posts: 1,789
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PFWiz
I know the difference between a supercharger and a turbo. It does appear how ever that you do not.
There is not any such thing as a "turbo-supercharger" on a motorcycle. They were how ever used on WW2 fighter planes. (P38s had them)
  1. "At the present time, turbosuperchargers are used in series with geared superchargers, the intercooler and carburetor being located between them. In this way, maximum use can be made of the advantages of each type. " From a GE 1943 docuement.http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm
"It does not use hot exhaust to spin its tubine compressor." It doesn't have a turbine compressor! That would be because this is a Roots style compressor, not a centrifical model. Also it does not use hot exhaust because it is a supercharger not a turbocharger.
At no time was I confused between the 2 of them. Crank driven SCs are neither more nor less serious than belt driven SCs. They are merely different.
I have run out of time to correct all the rest of your mistakes... oh well
Got some short fuses here. Like it or not, the Magnacharger or whatever it is apparently has no intercooler. It still offers a quick, compressed charge of air to an engine. Sure it is not as efficient as a turbocharger, and w/o inter or aftercooling delivers some hotter air than ambient, it still will be able to significantly outperform a non aspirated, stock Harley air-cooled bike.
I have some understanding of the induced effect of heating in a gas due to compression, while not a powerplant mechanic or powerplant engineer, I have piloted a Merlin engined (1650-7 12 cylinder ....that's 1,650 cubic inches) P-51 Mustang just shy of 200 hours. It is equipped with a 2 speed (automatic) supercharger w/ intercoolers.


So sorry for all the mistakes....stay on your blood pressure meds and all should go okay while you are correcting.
BTW, there are plenty of non-intercooled forced air induction blowers in the automotive world, and yes, I understand they can't crank up the PSI nearly as much as intercooled units.
 
  #25  
Old 09-14-2010, 07:01 AM
sgod1100's Avatar
sgod1100
sgod1100 is offline
Road Captain
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PFWiz
I know the difference between a supercharger and a turbo. It does appear how ever that you do not.

There is not any such thing as a "turbo-supercharger" on a motorcycle. They were how ever used on WW2 fighter planes. (P38s had them)
  1. "At the present time, turbosuperchargers are used in series with geared superchargers, the intercooler and carburetor being located between them. In this way, maximum use can be made of the advantages of each type. " From a GE 1943 docuement.http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm
"It does not use hot exhaust to spin its tubine compressor." It doesn't have a turbine compressor! That would be because this is a Roots style compressor, not a centrifical model. Also it does not use hot exhaust because it is a supercharger not a turbocharger.
At no time was I confused between the 2 of them. Crank driven SCs are neither more nor less serious than belt driven SCs. They are merely different.
I have run out of time to correct all the rest of your mistakes... oh well
Actually you are incorrect....a turbo is a TYPE of supercharger so technically there is such thing as a "turbo-supercharger"

And Crank driven and belt driven superchargers are the same, in that they are STILL both driven by the crank. It's just how they are connected to the crank is different
 
  #26  
Old 09-14-2010, 08:49 AM
PFWiz's Avatar
PFWiz
PFWiz is offline
Stellar HDF Member

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Northern, Ohio (Yuck!)
Posts: 3,407
Received 384 Likes on 229 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by sgod1100
Actually you are incorrect....a turbo is a TYPE of supercharger so technically there is such thing as a "turbo-supercharger"

And Crank driven and belt driven superchargers are the same, in that they are STILL both driven by the crank. It's just how they are connected to the crank is different
Well of course there is such a thing as Turbo-supercharger. It is described in the line I quoted. A Turbo-supercharger is a multistage forced induction system mostly used on WW2 era warplanes. I never said there was "no such thing", I said they are not used on motorcycles.

And no a Turbo is not a type of supercharger. However both Turbos and SCs are examples of forced induction. Turbos are driven by exhaust gas and SCs are mechanically driven.

You could try googling this stuff before you come out and tell someone they are wrong... I'm just saying...
 
  #27  
Old 09-14-2010, 08:52 AM
schumacher's Avatar
schumacher
schumacher is offline
Club Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Springfield, Ohio
Posts: 30,914
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 12 Posts
Default

He did that to keep up with Victorys
 
  #28  
Old 09-14-2010, 02:04 PM
sgod1100's Avatar
sgod1100
sgod1100 is offline
Road Captain
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PFWiz
Well of course there is such a thing as Turbo-supercharger. It is described in the line I quoted. A Turbo-supercharger is a multistage forced induction system mostly used on WW2 era warplanes. I never said there was "no such thing", I said they are not used on motorcycles.

And no a Turbo is not a type of supercharger. However both Turbos and SCs are examples of forced induction. Turbos are driven by exhaust gas and SCs are mechanically driven.

You could try googling this stuff before you come out and tell someone they are wrong... I'm just saying...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

look at this and then you can go ahead and tell me that you are wrong. A Turbo IS a type of supercharger. By the way, i know the difference between the two
 
  #29  
Old 09-14-2010, 02:08 PM
big_al's Avatar
big_al
big_al is offline
Elite HDF Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 4,523
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

they are more problems than what they are worth I know of at least two people that had superchargers that ended up taking them off.

I agree with the comment that it is more for looks than anything else. A serious built twin cam motor would be way better.
 
  #30  
Old 09-14-2010, 02:14 PM
sgod1100's Avatar
sgod1100
sgod1100 is offline
Road Captain
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 646
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by big_al
they are more problems than what they are worth I know of at least two people that had superchargers that ended up taking them off.

I agree with the comment that it is more for looks than anything else. A serious built twin cam motor would be way better.

Have had mine on for the whole summer with no problems what so ever and more hp than most (not all) built engines. The procharger is much more than just looks...if you want lets line them up!!!
 


Quick Reply: When Too Fast Isn't Fast Enough...



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 PM.