Twin Screw or Centrifugal Supercharger - Page 2 - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 Mustang GT



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 05-28-2014, 06:59 PM   #36
Registered Member
Regular
 
AJcruz1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: OKC
Region: Oklahoma
Posts: 503
So which would be best for road course work?
AJcruz1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-28-2014, 07:19 PM   #37
Registered Member
Regular
 
ArtU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: NW Ohio
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJcruz1 View Post
So which would be best for road course work?
Depends, whats your power band going to be at that you drive at pulling out of the hairpin curves? Likely a turbo works now better on open track road course (BMW twin turbos anyone?) than the super chargers of the late 60s, early 70s.

For me a non race open road I am going again with low end torque of a twin screw but that is only a personal opinion...

Art
ArtU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 07:23 PM   #38
Registered User
Newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Region: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1
There is a difference between twin screw blowers and TVS blowers. A TVS is not a twin screw. It is a newer version of the eaton roots blower. The old eaton had twin rotors with three lobes and 60 degrees of twist. The TVS had twin rotors with four lobes, twisted 160 degrees. A twin screw is similar, but has male and female lobes. The whipple is a twin screw.

The Roush / VMP kit is the way to go. It looks like it came with the car after installation. Most parts are actually ford parts, other than the head unit. There is a misconception that it is much more expensive than a vortech. I paid 5300 for my phase 1 complete kit. You just need to look around. I got a VMP tune for 400.
Thegame is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-28-2014, 07:37 PM   #39
Registered Member
Regular
 
HPFury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Austin
Region: Texas
Posts: 448
+1 on whipple twin screw lol
HPFury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2014, 08:40 PM   #40
Registered Member
Regular
 
ArtU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: NW Ohio
Region: Ohio
Posts: 1,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thegame View Post
There is a difference between twin screw blowers and TVS blowers. A TVS is not a twin screw. It is a newer version of the eaton roots blower. The old eaton had twin rotors with three lobes and 60 degrees of twist. The TVS had twin rotors with four lobes, twisted 160 degrees. A twin screw is similar, but has male and female lobes. The whipple is a twin screw.

The Roush / VMP kit is the way to go. It looks like it came with the car after installation. Most parts are actually ford parts, other than the head unit. There is a misconception that it is much more expensive than a vortech. I paid 5300 for my phase 1 complete kit. You just need to look around. I got a VMP tune for 400.
Yes I understand that first post; but I have been given information right here by subject matter experts (on both sides arguing) that even TVS is a version of a twin screw, but it is NOT a ROOTS, yet others say it is a Roots

So for me, generically a Twin Screw is an intake manifold mounted V8 blower that uses a pulley of the engine drive to turn rotors in a box ! (since I cant call it a ROOTS like we did in the 70s)

Eaton, Whipple, Kennie, etc.. set me right best Subject matter experts on these issues!

Quote:
The Roush / VMP kit is the way to go. It looks like it came with the car after installation. Most parts are actually ford parts, other than the head unit
yes I can agree with that, along with the FRPP kit that cost much more but might be used to get more Ford Dealer installs for issues of working with your Ford dealer.
ArtU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 03:41 AM   #41
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Winter Haven
Region: Florida
Posts: 407
Why is it that every car company uses tvs? Must be more user friendly and dependable.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
chefron50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 10:42 AM   #42
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by chefron50 View Post
Why is it that every car company uses tvs? Must be more user friendly and dependable.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Mustang Evolution mobile app

The question always arises: why do the auto manufacturers (OEs) nearly always choose a roots type supercharger? The one word answer is price. Sure, there may be other influences such as the supplier’s requirement for tier-one status, or the extreme marketing efforts that no centrifugal manufacturer can match, due to economies of scale. But cheap pricing to the OEM’s is compelling enough to make up for all the deficiencies associated with the roots type supercharger. Please note that the roots type can be called a supercharger, but not a compressor, because it is not; it’s an air mover.
gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 10:45 AM   #43
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJcruz1 View Post
So which would be best for road course work?
A centri not only are they MUCH lighter but they also make power right
up to red line. Less weight = more performance.
gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 10:47 AM   #44
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
Adding a roots type supercharger to an engine that has tuned runners, or variable runner, intake system will usually require the removal of the tuned system and the loss in those free benefits. A centrifugal does not require this removal and all the engineered-in tuning can still be appreciated.

The rotating mass of a typical roots type supercharger for a V8 is large, with very high inertia compared to most centrifugal compressors. The power it takes to accelerate that inertia, to speed it up or slow it down can be huge and this is independent of actually doing any useful work.

So, with a roots type supercharger you get:
A noisy, heavy, high inertia, poorly placed, air-moving device that makes too much boost when you can’t use it and not enough when you can, that is as good a heater as it is a supercharger, that shows even lower performance after a full warm up. And when the profilers flash that big horsepower number on You tube, you can bet on two things, it was a first “pull” with a cooled engine and they won’t show a second “pull” because it will be much lower, and a third pull, even more so.

Centrifugal compressors are in a different league. They can easily make more pressure and flow than a roots type and are much more efficient, especially at higher pressure ratios.
gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 10:56 AM   #45
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,604
Or just get a turbo and get the best of both worlds with no parasitic loss.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 10:57 AM   #46
Registered Member
Regular
 
DeJoe8's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Waterbury
Region: Connecticut
Posts: 148
Yeah I've heard turbos are the most efficient, but you're also talking a lot more money.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Mustang Evolution mobile app
DeJoe8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 11:02 AM   #47
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,604
Not really. The On3 stuff is a good budget setup as far as the tubing. Upgrading the turbos and WG/BOV still is going to be in the same price range as a Supercharger or less even. Or just look into Hellion if you want the best. When you are looking at a similar supercharger system vs a turbo make sure to factor in how much an intercooler/aftercooled setup would cost since the turbo setups will always be intercooled.

Way more efficient, power comes on faster than a centri and does not fall off like a PD. Also no belt slippage or parasitic loss. People do act like there is some sort of voodoo magic involved in a turbo system but there isn't. Its just better in every regard.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 09:20 PM   #48
Registered Member
Regular
 
gladiatoro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kelowna BC
Region: Canada
Posts: 771
Well there is Turbo lag.... better nowadays but still there.
Each method of forced induction has its pros and cons. While a supercharger provides immediate boost, fuel economy does suffer compared with a turbocharger that is inactive at low revs (turbo lag) or at idle.

Compared with turbochargers, superchargers are easier to install and (generally) do not require an intercooler. This is because supercharges do not heat the compressed air as much as a turbo.

Try putting a 1" exhaust on a car and see how much power is stolen. The exhaust backpressure caused by a turbo is what powers it. If you compare a supercharger against a turbocharger, both without intercoolers, both feeding the same boost, you'll see the same power output. This is because the power stolen to turn the turbocharger is just as much is as stolen by the supercharger, but comes from the exhaust backpressure rather than the drive pulley. It's the most common misconception about superchargers.

Turbochargers can sometimes provide too much boost, which damages an engine. A waste gates removes excess boost which protects an engine.
gladiatoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2014, 10:04 PM   #49
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,604
Stock motor automatic Coyotes with the On3 twin turbo kit, offroad pipe, axle back and tune are going 10s on the stock converters and a little suspension work. There is no debate or argument for the Coyote in this regard. No turbo lag to speak of with these and the M6 trans and A6 users are reporting 0. The On3 shop car is running 9.7s right now at around 10psi although he did throw a forged motor in there. With stock heads and cams...

Apparently, the On3 stuff now is actually pretty damn good even the turbos and the BOV/WGs. Chad, the owner, has really been trying to put together a kit that needs nothing but a bolt on/tune/go. The twins used in the Coyote kits are re-branded Magnum turbos. I know for sure the On3 Coyote testbed was doing nearly 600whp through an auto at 6 psi and that's been confirmed. Also the On3 kit is $3800 lol.

I really REALLY hope I made E6 this year, I find out in 3 weeks. If I did I will be totally out of the debt hole in 1.5-2 years and then I think I am going to have to treat myself to an 2011 or 2012 A6 Coyote and then waste that year's tax returns on a power adder and suspension.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2014, 12:11 PM   #50
Registered Member
Regular
 
1 Alibi 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hackettstown
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 718
Have been getting good service out of my 2.9, makes pretty good hp.
.

.
Thought the 14 deserved nothing less..............& maybe a little more.
.
__________________

" Chance favors the prepared mind "
.
* SOLD * 2011 776rwhp.......documented " 1 of 2 "
2014 - detuned to 780rwhp
2017 F150 Lariat Scab, 5.0
1 Alibi 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2014, 02:50 PM   #51
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Winter Haven
Region: Florida
Posts: 407
Simply pulley change on a tvs will give you more usable boost.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Mustang Evolution mobile app
chefron50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2014, 08:48 AM   #52
Registered User
Newbie
 
AKRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Kalamazoo
Region: Michigan
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
VMP is using the new TVS 1900/2300 blowers which are a new design and light years superior to the Roush/Eaton stuff. If you don't know about the TVS blowers look them up.
I have done some research. TVS is a traidmark for eaton corperation. So if it says TVS it's design is patented by Eaton. Roush is also TVS. I agree that VMP improvered the inlet elbow for the inlet of the TVS, has made modification so the snout can accept smaller pulleys and has developed a new boost a pump. However, they are a copy of the same technology as Roush. Light years superior is a bold statement since it is not even VMPs technology other than the modifications previously mentioned.

I agree that the VMP might give you a little more HP but the longevity of the roush system has been better statistically proven over time.

With that in mind I am in no way saying VMP is not a good choice for a supercharger. They have taken a lot of time to dial in the needed air flow, proper size injectors, and tuning that will give you optimal results. I just don't think bashing Roush over the difference in performance is right.

Back to the original topic. I believe that a twin screw TVS supercharger will out last and out perform a centrifugal supercharger with less wear on the supercharger components and less wear on the motor. There are some advantages of the centrifugal supercharger such as cost and since it takes longer to build the boost it is a little easier on the drive train. Most twin screw superchargers don't build boost until you kick it down so when driving normal there is no extra wear on the bottom end. My car drives normal, getting better gas mileage than stock even averaging in the when I drive it hard. Keep in mind I drive normal 80% of the time.

Either way if you install and tune correctly, both centrifugal or twin screw it is a blast to drive. So either way you can't go wrong.
__________________
2012 Mustang GT:
Grabber Blue, Black stripes, Glass Top, Chrome AMR Wheels, MT82 Transmission, Roush Stage 3 Supercharger, JDM Tune, 3.73 gears, 42 lb Injectors, Hurst shifter and Bassani Exhaust.
AKRA is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 2011-2014 Mustang GT

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Twin screw supercharger pro charger or single/twin turbo? bryn 2005-2010 Mustang GT 2 11-19-2016 11:11 AM
Twin screw v.s. Twin Turbo?? Mad_blackmusty 1996-2004 Mustang GT 11 11-19-2016 09:29 AM
Twin screw or centri? Need help deciding Edd204 2005-2010 Mustang GT 17 04-25-2013 03:41 PM
Everyday Driver: Turbo or Centrifugal Supercharger? helloWorld 2011-2014 Mustang GT 86 02-08-2013 09:33 AM
What would i need to do to my 5.0 302 engine so i can use a centrifugal supercharger? Haav 1979-1995 Mustang GT 3 06-28-2012 12:00 AM

» Like Us On Facebook



01:56 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.