Interesting! I bet if you compared actual density, ie, IAT and MAP, the Vortec would be putting more molecules of air into the engine, thus more power. As you mentioned, the intercooler was probably responsible. I don’t think you’ve shown us results like this before. If I were going for boost, I’d still use a turbo… Thanks, Richard, still good stuff even when unexpected results show up!
I'd say the wastegate started bleeding off boost after it hit the 7.5p.s.i, and never quite recovered the boost and impeller speed before rev limiter. Whereas the vortechs(belt driven impeller's) speed doesn't cut/reduce until engine speed does i.e rev limiter. I feel like the test would have been more accurate if you ran the B16 to 8500rpm, which its more than comfortable handling. I appreciate all the content you provide and love all the test you run, so i'm not complaining. Keep up the good work Rich!
A company in the uk has put a centrifugal charger on a classic Mini A series 1300. Gets great power (160hp+) increase and the pros of the install are keeping the CR the same as boost is low at low revs, plus A series gearboxes are weak over 100hp so using revs keeps them in 1 piece. The turbo coming on boost and the roots style blows the boxes on them. But the turbo price is so much better!
Hi Richard, I've been reading about you in your 88 Mustang since the Silver State Classic days in the magazines more than 30 years ago. It's good to see you on here. My guess is that the B16 with the Turbo suffered a bit of power loss due to A/R sizing issue with the Turbo used. It doesn't specify what the A/R was for the Turbo used. I'm guessing it was too small say something less than .45. Also there may have also been a flow restriction in the exhaust that contributed to the roll off beyond 6,500 RPM.
It's common for the n/a to boosted low pressure kits for the centrifugal supercharger to make the highest peak HP like that. Usually the turbo turbine is off peak efficiency and all those initial kits had a log manifold which takes quite a bit of power relative to a header. The test that I wished people performed is the total power output for the next 5 or 10 seconds after going WOT at the bottom 1/3rd of engine speed. Like jumping on it, on the street, without downshifting. The centrifugal seems anemic on paper except the last 1000 RPMs, but it actually gives instant boost - albeit not peak. I have all turbos now, but don't discount the centrifugal supercharger's torque by the power graph, the difference is that it can deliver it instantly when jumping on the throttle and then you sort of just shift at the RPM you want based on the kind of acceleration you are going for. It's great for the last second jumping on it to get into a spot in traffic.
Always like watching your informative videos. I know you’ve compared turbos vs roots vs centrifugal. I think it would be a good comparison to see a Whipple vs D1sc ProCharger... I believe the D1sc tends to make a bit more Torque than other PC units
I compared twin screw (Kenne Bell) to turbo, Vortech and Eaton Roots on a 4.6l 4V Mod motor. The D1SC acts the same as other centrifugal blowers (a I have run them many times)
Great stuff Rich. Back when I was solely a Honda guy I always said centrifugals were the worst of both worlds. But these days on monster V8 motors with high stall converters they actually work pretty well. And of course now I have a centri on my last remaining Honda... One thing I'm surprised by is you didn't move VTEC down on the supercharged engines. We typically would drop it down to between 3k-4k rpm on most VTEC engines depending on the build/cams/etc. Dramatically improved midrange torque, especially on the Roots stuff. Did you guys ever test the Jackson stuff with the aftermarket intercoolers (LHT, etc?). Huge improvement.
For future reference, the B16A is a JDM engine (Japanese domestic market) and was exclusive to Japan and Europe, the only B16s we got in the US are the B16A2 and B16A3, which are out of the del sol (B16 del sol’s are quite rare) and the EM1 Civic Si
B16A was a generic reference rather than a specific reference to an exact designation-Since I wrote three books on Hondas-I'm pretty familiar with the different versions
@Richard Holdener I have to disagree with the assertion everyone makes, that turbos do not incur parasitic loss. During the exhaust stroke in an ICE the exhaust is pushed out by the pistons, and having a turbine in the exhaust plumbing increases the amount of work the engine has to do to push out the exhaust (the source of some of the energy used to compress the air). I propose a simple experiment, Richard. Leave the turbo connected in the exhaust system but replace the plumbing from the outlet of the impeller with a pipe that has a restriction at the output end enough to create the same peak boost as when it's plumbed to the intake. Of course you'll have to replace the TB on the intake manifold to run the engine. Since it would be pretty difficult to match the boost curve of the turbo on the boosted engine (as the resistance would have to vary through the powerband like the engines consumption of intake charge varies with RPM), focus on matching peak boost between the impeller and the obstruction with peak boost in the intake, at the same RPM as the boosted motor acheives peak HP. Dyno the resultant naturally aspirated engine and compare it to the NA engine with a normal non-obstructed exhaust (which you ran as your baseline here). If the turbo is not parasitic, the peak HP will be the same between the two NA runs. I'll bet it's not the same, and there's your parasitic loss.
your test method doesn't work on a turbo-there needs to be the extra airflow to create the extra exhaust flow and back pressure-the losses to drive a turbo are minimal compared to a blower
@@richardholdener1727 Of course it will work. The experiment is to determine if there is parasitic loss, it doesn't matter if the airflow to the engine is being augmented by the boost. It will not represent how much power the turbo saps from the engine when the boost is plumbed into the intake (and the output at the cranks is greater), but it will be representative of how much power it takes to produce lets say 7 PSI of boost using a turbo. There wil be plenty of back pressure in the turbine plumbing when the turbo is producing boost under either scenario.... why else would the impeller be spun fast enough for it to compress air? What are you afraid of, disproving decades of mythology surrounding the power made from nothing that you get from a turbo? The law of conservation of energy says that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Energy changes from one form of energy into another form of energy. If a turbo magically creates the energy to compress the intake charge from nothing, you've proven 100s of years of science wrong and found an unlimited supply of energy that could power the world for nothing without consequence.
Please feel free to disprove the 100s of years of some mythology that you just invented. NO ONE has stated a turbo requires no power to drive. The point is that it takes MUCH less than a supercharger (of any type). We know this from endless direct comparisons between the two on the same motor, same boost, same timing etc...and your test is not a true representation of the drive loss in a turbo-that would need to be done with two connected motors (a la SAE).
Did the turbo have a small A/R? At high rpm that could push the back pressure over the top, killing the savaging. It wasn't really fair to cool the air for the other two and not for the roots blower who could really need the help at the higher presumably inefficient rpms.
You think we could see a test like the amr500 with the 128$ vz21 turbo you could run it on a wastegate outlet and measure the flow the turbo is tiny the inlet is the size of a quarter
What was obvious to me was the cost in power to run the superchargers vs the turbo. At 7 PSI they should all produce the same power but the superchargers cost horsepower being crank driven. Glad to see that the roots costs less than the centrifugal blower and the turbo costs comparatively nothing.
@@richardholdener1727 That seems counterintuitive to me. Roots is direct drive by pully and the centrifugal is, while belt driven, is internally geared to a speed faster than crank speed. That would seem to have more drag. Where is my thinking gone wrong?
The centrifugal is spinning a small lightweight compressor compared to the far larger and heavier rotors of a Roots system. The roots has more mass and inertia so it takes more energy to spin it faster. @@FeralPreacher
I wonder if when driving the vehicle, which felt the fastest? That Jackson Racing immediate torque looks real nice, but no Honda guy I've ever heard drive by uses that RPM
If you want to make torque go with a roots blower if you want higher rpm power the centrifugal blower or turbo is the way to go I think it depends on your application and what each person is wanting... I like the instant torque of a roots blower personally and the sound love the whine but a turbo will make on the big end depending the turbo
You can run into problems making to much torque at low rpm with these engines. They’ve got pretty small bearings since they normally don’t really make power till higher rpm. If chasing bigger power the turbo or centrifugal is the way to go. Hard to get something like a roots to not make low rpm boost and then make a lot of high rpm boost.
@@NBSV1 I know and you can build an engine to handle the torque it just depends on the build my dad's street car is built to handle the torque it has a 3l twin screw Whipple on it it's a tire burner he named it shredder
@@VroomNBoom Even with quality parts you need to be careful about making to much power at low rpm. With the small bearings it's much easier to push through the oil and spin a bearing.
Nah i think thats the perfect sized turbo, in the boost response comparison you see where the turbo hits 7.5psi(right around 12:41) while the jackson was at 6.5psi , I think at that point the wastegate bled some boost off trying to maintain the "set" 7psi and didn't have time to recover before rev limit. You also see the turbo boost spike to 7.5psi again, then dip before rev limit. Superchargers will always have more stable boost than turbo, its just the nature of the beast.
Feels like you are just rehashing videos. I know things take money to do but could you possibly look into different motors? Ecotec for example. You did the vortech 4200 and nothing much came of that
I have a preformer 351 2v intake. is it a bad idea to put this intake on my 1973 351 4v motor or should I buy a proper 4v preformer rpm intake. Thank you very much for your help I truly appreciate and respect your opinion.
It a cleveland motor with a small cam and roller rockers. It has a cast iron intake now and I have a 2v preformer just want to make sure I am not downgrading. Thank you so much Richard you are a awesome and great person.
Hey rich, do you think that it is possible to convert a Coyote into a "Hot V" style motor, with switching around the cams and of course custom manifolds?
