Variable Electronic Supercharger

Have you tried logging your battery voltage to see how it compares with your boost?

I didn't logged my battery voltage, but I have a battery gauge meter side by side with my boost gauge, I could see the voltage dropped down to about somewhere 13.5 to 13.8V. My voltage is usually about 14.7V with the engine on.

I have actually enabled my logging of the battery voltage last night, will get this data available from here on.

As promised, here's the comparison chart

 

Mass airflow comparison (stock rom, ESC off vs ESC on)

 

[ATTACH]207403[/ATTACH]

 

Dyno comparison (stock rom, ESC off vs ESC on)

 

[ATTACH]207404[/ATTACH]

 

Note that the gain is consistent across the power-band starting from 1100rpm (where the SC starts rotating) until redline. Not the typical improvement in either low, mid or top-end

Below is the correct graph so persons can appreciate what they can see and understand. How comes you din't used it or link to here:- http://xtremeracingtuning.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=575

http://xtremeracingtuning.com/forum/download/file.php?id=1504

Below is the correct graph so persons can appreciate what they can see and understand. How comes you din't used it or link to here:- http://xtremeracingtuning.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=575

 

http://xtremeracingtuning.com/forum/download/file.php?id=1504

Hi Ed,

This is for the old SC, once my tuning is over and weather not too cold anymore, I will recreate the before and after test comparison again.

The sc=off run looks good but just leaning out up top. I haven't replayed the logs for down bottom (my ecuedit is set for romraider logs. I have to create for tactrix.), but when the SC=on, I love it. 3psi by 1800rpm. You much be happy with that torque. I haven't seen the logs above 4000rpm. So I guess based on your statement its NA. Have the vendor create one for cc's over 2000.

With the very small range of max boost from the E-SC,you could drop the timing a little or increase fuel. Since you may not be on high octane fuel, I would increase fuel to 12.22 or lower at those high engine loads the car is seeing so early in the RPM. High engine loads, low engine speeds, reminds me of low speed diesel engine for power plants. I dont think that is good on the bearings with low oil pressure, especially from 1400rpm!

The sc=off run looks good but just leaning out up top. I haven't replayed the logs for down bottom (my ecuedit is set for romraider logs. I have to create for tactrix.), but when the SC=on, I love it. 3psi by 1800rpm. You much be happy with that torque. I haven't seen the logs above 4000rpm. So I guess based on your statement its NA. Have the vendor create one for cc's over 2000.

 

With the very small range of max boost from the E-SC,you could drop the timing a little or increase fuel. Since you may not be on high octane fuel, I would increase fuel to 12.22 or lower at those high engine loads the car is seeing so early in the RPM. High engine loads, low engine speeds, reminds me of low speed diesel engine for power plants. I dont think that is good on the bearings with low oil pressure, especially from 1400rpm!

Hi Ed, thanks for the advice. I'm almost ready to start my test run in a couple of days after some more adjustment. Spring time already starts as the sunset is getting later these days. I'm happy that I could start testing the car again on my way home back from work.

Cleetus McFarland did dyno testing of an electric supercharger on a 5.0 Mustang.

15:00 Baseline pull of the 5.0, holy cow that is weak!

18:24 their predictions for what it does and the actual dyno run with electric supercharger.

Cleetus McFarland did dyno testing of an electric supercharger on a 5.0 Mustang.

 

 

15:00 Baseline pull of the 5.0, holy cow that is weak!

 

18:24 their predictions for what it does and the actual dyno run with electric supercharger.

The 1st dyno, the AFR ratio was lean (in the 13's at WOT) and one of the shop guy commented it was lean, they said the last one they dyno'd made 200. (I assume another mustang 4.6) They didn't show the AFR in subsequent dyno. One should have a good running car before modifying it. A 4.6 was rated 215hp. 168whp is about 195 crank hp with 15% drivetrain less. The car had some mods, so in theory it should made more. Modifying a poorly running engine tells us nothing. (It wouldn't surprise me though if the eBay Chinese eSC didn't have enough air flow for a V8)

If one really wants to determine the effectiveness of a modification. The best way is to tune the car before to get a baseline and then do the modification and tune the car afterwards. Tuning it before and after isolates the modification.

BTW 1996 Mustang is a 4.6 motor not 5.0.

I agree on all that, they did show that the supercharger run was a lot richer, but didn't give exact numbers. Is 10-20hp under the factory spec really that unreasonable for a 23 year old car? In what ways would they set up the test differently? It seemed like a fairly real world scenario for the type of situation where people would be installing them.

On the flip side I feel it was a fairly reasonable analysis of what happens when you install an electric supercharger. You're not compressing air, you're not packing more into the cylinders. I don't see how people expect gains.

I agree on all that, they did show that the supercharger run was a lot richer, but didn't give exact numbers.

 

On the flip side I feel it was a fairly reasonable analysis of what happens when you install an electric supercharger. You're not compressing air, you're not packing more into the cylinders. IMO they are a waste of money.

Yes and no, turning it on when the engine is already revving kind of defeats the purpose of having an electric supercharger, it should turn on before wot. And it should be sized appropriately for the engine.

I kind of feel like the real test of effectiveness would be to plumb the supercharger to supplement airflow into the engine not provide a restriction in the current path of airflow.

I guess that goes back to questioning how they make gains on an engine. Most of the electric superchargers I see are just blowing lots of air and not really compressing it. We all know there is a difference. If people are seeing a gain by blowing lots of air vs compressing it, then essentially they are seeing a gain by alleviating an intake restriction. Without compression of the intake charge, no additional air is getting packed into the cylinders at static atmospheric pressure.

I've seen several posts where people say they get 1psi at certain points of the RPM range. We all know how many HP gains 1psi is from turbo tuning. And in this case, it's maybe in a select range of the RPM. Something doesn't add up.

Most of the electric superchargers I see are just blowing lots of air and not really compressing it. We all know there is a difference. If people are seeing a gain by blowing lots of air vs compressing it, then essentially they are seeing a gain by alleviating an intake restriction. Without compression of the intake charge, no additional air is getting packed into the cylinders at static atmospheric pressure.

 

I've seen several posts where people say they get 1psi at certain points of the RPM range. We all know how many HP gains 1psi is from turbo tuning. And in this case, it's maybe in a select range of the RPM. Something doesn't add up.

A turbo is still 'blowing air', it just moves enough air that it creates back up of air going into the engine which is measured as boost. The electric SC that was done on the FRS/BRZ would peak at 4-5psi and the boost would taper to 1.5psi or so at WOT. The kit also cost $2k plus batteries (and it used 2 batteries to power the SC).

Another way to test the effectiveness of the eSC would have been to measure the intake vacuum/boost of a WOT run. If the eSC was acting as restriction, it would show up as higher vacuum readings. I am very skeptical that kit was going to make any hp on that car anyways.

A turbo is still 'blowing air', it just moves enough air that it creates back up of air going into the engine which is measured as boost. The electric SC that was done on the FRS/BRZ would peak at 4-5psi and the boost would taper to 1.5psi or so at WOT. The kit also cost $2k plus batteries (and it used 2 batteries to power the SC).

 

Another way to test the effectiveness of the eSC would have been to measure the intake vacuum/boost of a WOT run. If the eSC was acting as restriction, it would show up as higher vacuum readings. I am very skeptical that kit was going to make any hp on that car anyways.

The HP and airflow on that Mustang is not much different than a 2.5i. Even though it's a 4.6, it's only making <200hp and the airflow would be a direct correlation.

The method of compression for a turbo isn't moving enough air that it creates a backup. The actual method of compression is specially designed fins that compress the air, very high RPMs and a specially designed compressor housing that aids in taking air from atmospheric pressure and compressing it down. The backup only comes into play when the volume of the turbo outpaces what the engine can consume. Volume and pressure are different, from what I can see the eSCs only produce volume, and even that is questionable.

The method of compression for a turbo isn't moving enough air that it creates a backup. The actual method of compression is specially designed fins that compress the air, very high RPMs and a specially designed compressor housing that aids in taking air from atmospheric pressure and compressing it down. The backup only comes into play when the volume of the turbo outpaces what the engine can consume.

What I wrote is correct.

What I wrote is correct.

No it isn't. Air leaves a turbo compressor housing already compressed, it doesn't get compressed as it backs up in the engine. That's one reason why just blowing lots of air is completely different than compressing the air.

A turbo is still 'blowing air', it just moves enough air that it creates back up of air going into the engine which is measured as boost.

Air leaves a turbo compressor housing already compressed, it doesn't get compressed as it backs up in the engine. That's one reason why just blowing lots of air is completely different than compressing the air.

This is an incorrect statement. When turbo is making boost the intake valve is the restriction, the turbo moves more air than the intake valve can flows and air backs up at the intake valve. The turbo is compressing the entire volume of intake track. The faster the compressor wheel spins and flows air, the more boost the turbo creates in the intake track.

I had a supercharged SBC where the supercharger RPM is fixed (60,000 rpm), it made about 7psi. With a better set of heads, bigger valves and camshaft, the boost would only reach 6psi. The SC still spun at 60,000 RPM at engine 5500rpm, but the intake restriction was reduced and the engine made more HP despite less boost. The Supercharger was still essentially producing the same volume (This is not 100% correct because it is affected by backpressure, but it close enough). There was less restriction and more air moving into the combustion chamber. There was less of back up of air in the intake manifold track.

Don't take this personal. I think many people do not realize this. There is a lot of misinformation on the internet and overly simplified explanations.

No it isn't. Air leaves a turbo compressor housing already compressed, it doesn't get compressed as it backs up in the engine. That's one reason why just blowing lots of air is completely different than compressing the air.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

If this were true, a 3-port EBCS would not work. The way a 3-port EBCS works is that the boost signal from the compressor housing port goes to the EBCS port, which then modulates the signal to the wastegate allowing it to open at the desired level. If it were true that the air is not compressed in the compressor housing, then you would never see compressed air at the wastegate either because the only signal the wastegate is getting is coming directly from the compressor housing line.

Is what Western Turbo says wrong?

https://www.westernturbo.com/blog/how-does-a-turbocharger-work-anyway/

"Compressors are the opposite of turbines. They consist of two sections; the impeller or compressor wheel and the compressor housing. The compressor wheel is connected to the turbine by a forged steel shaft. As the compressor wheel spins, air is drawn in and is compressed as the blades spin at a high velocity. The housing is designed to convert the high velocity, low pressure air stream, into a high pressure low velocity air stream, through a process called diffusion. In order to achieve this boost, the turbocharger uses the exhaust flow from the engine to spin a turbine, which in turn spins an air pump. The turbine in the turbocharger spins at speeds of up to 150,000 rotations per minute (rpm) that is about 30 times faster than most car engines can go."

Cummins seems to say the same thing as well.

https://www.cummins.com/components/turbo-technologies/turbochargers/how-a-turbocharger-works

The compressor also consists of two parts: the compressor wheel (5) and the compressor housing (6). The compressor’s mode of action is opposite that of the turbine. The compressor wheel is attached to the turbine by a forged steel shaft (7), and as the turbine turns the compressor wheel, the high-velocity spinning draws in air and compresses it. The compressor housing then converts the high-velocity, low-pressure air stream into a high-pressure, low-velocity air stream through a process called diffusion. The compressed air (8) is pushed into the engine, allowing the engine to burn more fuel to produce more power.