So I was looking at this twin charged kit for the LSJ:
http://www.zzperformance.com/cobalt_ion/products1.php?id=871&catid=143
Forgive me if I missed the answer to this already, but from looking around I haven't seen anyone mention whether or not this could be done on the ecotec Cav's. I'm guessing there would be some customization required, but not sure how much or how feasible it would be. As for the tuning aspect of it, I used HP Tuners to tune my setup for the M62
Tuning for the M62 so I would just continue from that for the twin charged setup.
Also, even if it is possible, what are the thoughts on how good this setup is from ZZPerformance? It seemed like they had some good stuff on the site, but just looking for other opinions. Thanks in advance
its been done to a cav already, might have to search a little for the threads.
12.33 @ 111.67 mph [Oct 2009]
Dyno'd on 08/02/09 - Mustang Dyno:
327.6 WHP 333.6 WTQ [10.1 AFR]
Ok, I'll keep looking. Or are you talking about the guy that did it with the 2.4? That was a pretty cool setup too.
it would be nice. our tuning is diff than the lsj's. run into the problem w/ their intake unless you move the coolant reservoir. no evilmonkitar isn't referring to the 2.4 guy. it was an eco. can't recall his name either.
my carDomain updated 8/10/09 Forged and Supercharged
sorry to go a lil OT but lmao...
zzp wrote:
11. What' other things are recommended for best results?
Race gas for extended high boost runs
Dual pass intercooling
Dyno tuning
3" exhaust
Drivetrain upgrades
Drag radials or slicks for track use
A clean pair of underwear in the glove box (just in case)
I must confess... I feel like a monster!
Some will swear buy twincharging, others will flame it, but i'd rather pick one form of boost(not both). One to keep in mind is making sure the S/C isnt hindering airflow at WOT.
Tinkles
2003 Cavalier 1SV
Bagged and Blown
There's also the price issue. You'e basically buying 2 kits to get gain that a turbo could get on its own. Turbo build= about $2k-3k. S/C kit = $2500 (newish). You can easily make a hella sweet turbo setup for less than that.
I wish I had 2 cavys; one for turbo, and one for super.
"You can only feed them semen for so long before their legs fall off."
i like how they spells cobalt, coBOLT on the street video name lol
Yeah, I've been worried about the s/c hindering flow at upper rpm's as well. But I was reading on that site, and maybe i misinterpreted it, but in the Q/A section it says something like that it bypasses the s/c after a certain point. Actually, I'll just copy and paste the part I was talking about..
6. Doesn't the blower rob HP?
Yes, but only when the bypass valve is closed and the blower is doing work. Once the turbo spools and the blower bypass valve opens, it uses very little power to turn. This chart shows the small amount of HP used when the blower is not generating boost. http://www.magnusonproducts.com/images/mp62g2.jpg
This small amount of power is easily gained back by the increased efficiency from the larger turbo and twin intercooling.
So that being said, would that help solve the problem, or at least mainly? Or am I taking that out of context?
How r u going to open the bypass valve? The Lsj has a boost solnoid to open the bypass. We don't. We leave the botom bypass valve nipple open to vta, so we have no way to open the bypass once it's closed. Zzp did tesijg on it open vs closed. Diffrence was about 50whp I think. And th blower will never be a restricion to the engine unless the enine can pull in more air Han the blower can pump out. But it will restrict ur turbo a bit in the high end. But u can still make lagless power out of it. I'm actually theorizing a way of doing it using a boost controller on the bottom nipple of the sc bypass. But it's sorta complicated. But in theory will work and th bypass would open when ur turbo hits a certain psi...
i think the idea is sound. you just need to get a big enough blower on there *caugh... harrop* to get it to work the best.
since you now have power down low due to the blower, you can do up a massive turbo and not care about spooling time. thus making the whole s/c blocking theory pretty much worthless because it would be so large and produce so much boost that it wouldn't matter.
it is just another way to skin a cat. get to 500whp doing twin charging using a big blower and a big turbo or use a medium sized turbo and be done with it.
I must confess... I feel like a monster!
There are so many things that are just factually wrong about ZZP and their claims. First off parasitic loss from the supercharger has absolutely nothing to do with a bypass valve being open closed, or even attached. It occurs from the crank pulley having to spin the supercharger. At 7000rpm with any decently sized pulley that blower is taking almost 70hp to run.
The only reason ZZP has gottten any power out of these kits is because they use race gas and then tune for race gas and put out a high HP number and try to pass it off as a real world result. 9 out of 10 people do not run C16, they run 93 octane and if you compare this setup on 93 octane to a proper GT35 setup the GT35 will win every single time. Theres been 70 page threads on cobaltss.net pointing out the numerous engineering and science flaws with this setup to which ZZP has never provided an intelligent or factually sound response.
Also having the weight of both the supercharger and a turbo setup on at the same time completely negates any low end power it might produce over a standard turbo setup.
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
Rodimus Prime wrote:Also having the weight of both the supercharger and a turbo setup on at the same time completely negates any low end power it might produce over a standard turbo setup.
Excellent note.......
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
so 25lbs negates like 100hp in the low end?
how exactly?
I must confess... I feel like a monster!
I would say a supercharger is closer to 40lbs and it wouldn't give you near 100hp on the low end.(I'm talking about at the low end like 1k-2.5k rpm range where the turbo will likely be spooling which is what I think he is saying,)
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
IMO people who are interested in the 1k-2.5k range should stick with the supercharger or a tiny turbo (aka saab). Agreed that this is more of a show novelty than a competitive edge in power adding.
As mentioned the cost would be prohibitive on our cars compared to a comprable turbo build. the ss/sc already has the sc lol, we don't.
You want instant torque - get the GMPP sc kit. You want that with a turbo - piece together a saab kit. You want peak power - go gt30/35.
You want all the above - go LSx
I would say go for the twin charged kit
I miss the twin charge set up so much that I wish they had a roots supercharger for the new Lancer GTS with the 4B11 engine so that I could buy it to put on my Evo X. I can not tell you how much low end power you have with this kind of set up. It makes a dinky little 4cyl. engine feel more like a big displacement V6 or smaller V8... As an example with my twin charged sunfire, I had no problem keeping up to a C5 Z06 with intake, full exhaust and a tune on the 1/4mile... thats with street tires and I was trapping around 118-120mph with only 305whp/315lbs.tq on a mustang dyno, but I was hitting something like 300lbs.tq @ 2,800RPM.. trust me, if you go twin charged you wont regret it
The First Twin Charged jbody
blue car (R.I.P) - 240whp @7psi..
silver car - 305whp 315lbs.tq @15psi (91 Octane) or 420whp & 425lbs.TQ @20psi (94 octane+Alcohol Injection)
All dynos run on a Mustang dyno
Josh F wrote: I would say go for the twin charged kit
I miss the twin charge set up so much that I wish they had a roots supercharger for the new Lancer GTS with the 4B11 engine so that I could buy it to put on my Evo X. I can not tell you how much low end power you have with this kind of set up. It makes a dinky little 4cyl. engine feel more like a big displacement V6 or smaller V8... As an example with my twin charged sunfire, I had no problem keeping up to a C5 Z06 with intake, full exhaust and a tune on the 1/4mile... thats with street tires and I was trapping around 118-120mph with only 305whp/315lbs.tq on a mustang dyno, but I was hitting something like 300lbs.tq @ 2,800RPM.. trust me, if you go twin charged you wont regret it
Well, I believe the only time the low end matters is in 1st gear from a stop. Even then in a stock J with either a LD9 or Eco you already have traction issues so you dont need more power there. From there you can just use your gears to stay in the power band. Low end torque need not apply. I commonly find people use their gears rather than dogging the piss out of their motors. It's much more effective and you can save yourself the increased IAT's and weight of the supercharger. To each his own, but the twin charge setup is a waste of time if you know when to shift.
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
If you have good low end, you typically have more "useable" power... I assume your the kind of guy who loves to have a car that needs to be just screaming to make any kind of power.
Lets see which is going to be faster
LS7 Z06 - making 420whp (505 crank which is stock) A LOT!! more usable power and will run 10.9 on factory street tires...
LD9 - making 420whp
I would LOVE to see a stock interior (aka no stripping it down to nothing) J-body run a 10.9 on street tires with the power
Trust me you will learn a powerfull bottom end = more useable power
and before you call the B.S on a bone stock Z06 running 10s here you go.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/10-second-stock-c6-corvette-z06-on-run-flats/
The First Twin Charged jbody
blue car (R.I.P) - 240whp @7psi..
silver car - 305whp 315lbs.tq @15psi (91 Octane) or 420whp & 425lbs.TQ @20psi (94 octane+Alcohol Injection)
All dynos run on a Mustang dyno
An LD9 doesn't need to scream to make the power you are talking about, turbo or twin setup.
Just cause you have two power adders doesn't mean you will magically add anymore oxygen in the cylinders as you would with a turbo. It's a simple function of AFR vs. intake air temp and pressure. Another power adder will do nothing but increase air temp which decreases your efficiency. PSI for PSI a single power adder will have just as much power as a twin setup. Yes, the curve's will be different, that's it. With the proper cams, the turbo system can have similar results as a twin within your gearing. But definitely not the bottom end power, but again, if your power curve matches your gearing...wtf do you care about bottom end ie: 1000-3000rpm range except for 1st gear....which we can't even use much power in anyway?
With the right turbo setup, you can have a good nice 'usable power' as you say. If your turbo setup falls out of this power band on gear changes sure, you have problems that maybe a twin charger 'might' solve. However, there will always be a limit to the amount of air a charger can push, so by the time your talking a M90 or higher SC setup it will always be cheaper to properly do a turbo setup with a good power band for your gearing.
There are plenty of arguments for a twin setup but it all comes down to fixing a simple problem with an expensive band aid and not doing it right the first time. However if your goal is a very expensive 300-400hp sure a twin charged system will gladly drain your pocket book.
I'm the guy who shoots for power that matches my gearing, end of story, I don't need any band-aids to do it either. I couldn't give two $hits about 1st gear below 3000rpm's...after that it's on..and that's where I want it to be.
You talk about RWD V8's like somehow they compare to FWD I4's??? Please tell me how you can get forward weight transfer and incredibly wide street tires on a FWD car? Once you tell me that then I can see some tiny validity in your comparison. But for the life of me I still don't understand how 1k-3k power matters when our shift points are 6k to 3.5k on a shift? When you are racing your not seeing the 'low end' that you say it helps with. I see no point in it.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edited Monday, November 16, 2009 4:56 PM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Forgive me if I have the physics wrong on this, but here's one scenario I've tossed around in my head that I think I've seen talked about before..
The supercharger works by displacing non-pressurized air into an area which becomes pressurized due to the large amount of air being pushed through. If you had a twin charged setup, wouldn't the supercharger now be displacing pressurized air (and so more air) into an area with already pressurized air, adding to the overall post-s/c pressure? The only problem I can see with this is if that effect then caused the pressure between the s/c and turbo to drop so less feeding air into the s/c. Then again, it might free up some back-pressure on the turbo, increasing its efficiency.
Sorry if that's way off, just a thought to throw out there. Thought Josh F might have some facts to support or disprove it from his setup.
John02 wrote:Forgive me if I have the physics wrong on this, but here's one scenario I've tossed around in my head that I think I've seen talked about before..
The supercharger works by displacing non-pressurized air into an area which becomes pressurized due to the large amount of air being pushed through. If you had a twin charged setup, wouldn't the supercharger now be displacing pressurized air (and so more air) into an area with already pressurized air, adding to the overall post-s/c pressure? The only problem I can see with this is if that effect then caused the pressure between the s/c and turbo to drop so less feeding air into the s/c. Then again, it might free up some back-pressure on the turbo, increasing its efficiency.
Sorry if that's way off, just a thought to throw out there. Thought Josh F might have some facts to support or disprove it from his setup.
Yes With a supercharger you are allowing the turbo to spool up A LOT! Faster then it normally would because you are now not only pulling air threw the turbo on the compressor side which is normally just relying on the exhaust side to spin the compressor side but you are also pushing more air threw the turbine side all of which result in an insanely fast spool up. Because of this you have to go to a larger turbo but you will have 0 and I mean 0! Turbo lag and gobs and gobs of power at any RPM. Also for intake temps, I was running the stock 2.8” S/C’er pulley and my tuner said my intake temps were not that much more than a turbo only set up on a Jbody and it was not an issue when he was tuning.
And for my example of useable power and the Z06 example… I DID in fact keep up to a C5 Z06 on a 1/4mile race… so that proves right there it makes more usable power and makes up for it only being a 2.4L 4cyl engine when up against big V8’s
The First Twin Charged jbody
blue car (R.I.P) - 240whp @7psi..
silver car - 305whp 315lbs.tq @15psi (91 Octane) or 420whp & 425lbs.TQ @20psi (94 octane+Alcohol Injection)
All dynos run on a Mustang dyno
If heat was as big of an issue as people make it out to be on a twincharge set up... how did I make 305whp on a mustang dyno, not a high reading dyno jet and only needed 15psi on 91 octane gas with 8.5:1 compression not even 9:1 (which i wish i did go with) ... show me some proof of a turbo only set up making more on 91 gas, 15psi and 8.5:1 comp. ratio
The First Twin Charged jbody
blue car (R.I.P) - 240whp @7psi..
silver car - 305whp 315lbs.tq @15psi (91 Octane) or 420whp & 425lbs.TQ @20psi (94 octane+Alcohol Injection)
All dynos run on a Mustang dyno
