In this series,
I will not repeat the information that is already available on how
superchargers work, but instead focus on their selection, installation,
use and tuning on older engines. Here I will make various observations
and comments on function, and in some cases how to make improvements.
New material will be added regularly, and eventually better organized.
Click below to jump directly to an individual topic.
Supercharging
simply means forcing more air into an engine than is possible by only
atmospheric pressure. Atmospheric pressure, not vacuum, is what fills
an engine with combustible mixture to be burned. This is about 14.7
lbs. per square inch (29.92 inches of mercury) at sea level. When an
intake valve opens on an empty cylinder, atmospheric pressure fills it
- not the engine.
What
can you expect from a supercharger? More power in every RPM range,
power immediately without the need to rev the engine, far more power
than can be produced without some external source (nitrous &c.).
How much power? The limit is generally related to the head gasket seal
and compression ratio, but 1.5 horsepower per cubic inch is easy, 2
horsepower is fairly common, and 3 horsepower is possible. Yes, it can
be done by the traditional methods (carburetion, cam, compression), but
a supercharged engine lasts longer at the same power level, requires
less expensive speed equipment, and is generally easier and less
critical to design and build.
Superchargers
have been successfully used on automobile engines for 100 years, it’s
not a new idea. The type of mechanism used to compress the gas varies
with the design. The complexity of the subject makes it lengthy, so for
ease of reading I will cover the topics in separate pages.
There are not as many superchargers, and
even fewer commercial kits currently available suitable for use on
older engines. The real problem is not the source of the supercharger
itself (called the “head unit”, meaning the supercharger itself with no
drive mechanism, manifold, adaptors or mounts); many used superchargers
are still available and some are still in production. The difficult
engineering task is to select a type, size and model that best serves
your purpose, drive it from the engine, and re-locate (or substitute)
some original components to permit mounting it.
I will not explore the commercially
available kits on the market, as they are not only rather expensive but
would require major modification to both the kit parts and the chassis
to adapt to an older model.
There are several different design
concepts used by superchargers with advantages and disadvantages to
each. There is no “best”.
Power developed by boost is much kinder to
the engine than power developed naturally aspirated (“NA”). Maximum
combustion pressure occurs later in the cycle and continues longer
making a long “push” rather than a quick “bang”. NA motors also require
much higher RPM to make maximum power, which breaks parts faster than
pure power.
Any boost pressure has the effect of
raising the static or nominal compression ratio, and therefore raises
the octane requirement. This places a limit on the combination of
compression ratio and boost versus the octane value of the fuel chosen;
if either boost or compression is raised the fuel’s knock resistance
must be examined and improved as indicated. Engines with low
compression ratio (such as flatheads) and mild boost will still be
within range of pump gasoline, but all must be analyzed on an
individual basis.
The combined effect is difficult to quantify, but is explored in greater detail here: .
How much power? Despite what has been printed on the
subject, the power added by boost is not the mathematical product of
(atmospheric pressure + boost) ÷ atmospheric pressure. E.g., ATM = 14.7
psi, boost = 14.7 psi, therefore power is doubled. This is complete
rubbish, although it appears in much popular “technical” literature. In
all cases, the power increase will be much less due to thermal expansion and pumping loss, and the power increase decays with higher levels of boost (the first few pounds of boost are
the most effective in terms of added horsepower per psi).
The claims of large power increases with mild boost must be considered as to the basis of comparison. The increase in delivery varies as the square root of the change in pressure. Unless there are other changes to the engine, 4 psi of boost pressure is only about 90% efficient in adding volume to the engine; the engine receives about 3.6 psi in terms of density, and in this case adds about 15% to the power, but that’s compared to a very low restriction (large) carburetor system showing perhaps .75 psi (1.5” Hg) vacuum at full throttle. The more restrictive the original normally aspirated carburetor was at full throttle, the greater the increase by comparison: adding 4 psi of boost pressure to a high-restriction (small) carburetor running at 2 psi (4” Hg) vacuum at full throttle will perhaps gives 20% more power. By comparison, the popular prediction is merely the above error repeated in miniature by adding 4 (boost) to 14.7 (for atmospheric pressure), then dividing by 14.7 for 127%: (14.7 + 4) ÷ 14.7 = 1.27.
The popular prediction is that 7 psi of boost pressure adds 48%: (14.7 + 7) ÷ 14.7 = 1.48. Actually, 7 psi is perhaps 80% efficient; the engine receives about 5.6 psi in terms of density. Compared to a large carburetor pulling .75 psi of vacuum at full throttle, it’s worth about 21% more power. Compared to a small carburetor with 2 psi vacuum at full throttle perhaps 26% more power.
For a better but still approximate estimate of boost vs. power, the first few pounds of boost is about 85-95% efficient, which tapers off to 50% by 15 psi. Multiply the boost pressure by the efficiency to get the relative density index. Now estimate the full throttle vacuum of the carbureted system in normally aspirated mode. Find your actual local atmospheric pressure (I use 14.7 psi for convenience - which is only true at sea level). Where
HP+: horsepower increase
ATM: local atmospheric pressure (RAD is preferred, but difficult to calculate)
D: relative density index (boost pressure × efficiency)
V: full throttle vacuum, normally aspirated (typically between .75 psi and 3 psi), then
HP+ = ((ATM + D) ÷ (ATM - V))^.5
For another example, 10 psi of boost (estimated at 65% efficiency) is applied to an engine that pulls 2 psi of vacuum at WOT. With elevation at 1,000 feet, local atmospheric pressure is 14.16 psi. For “D”: 10 psi × .65 = 6.5. For “ATM + D”: 14.16 + 6.5 = 20.66. For “ATM - V”: 14.16 - 2 = 12.16. 20.66 ÷ 12.16 = 1.699. For “HP+”: the square root of 1.699 is 1.303; adding 10 psi in this case adds about 30.3% power.
Why not use a turbocharger?
A turbo is not “free power” from the
exhaust - the exhaust load is higher than NA (normally aspirated) under
all conditions, which means more heat and pumping loss [superchargers
do consume more power, but also have a slight cooling effect under
boost].
Without a bypass system and a small (restrictive) turbine housing there is no boost at low speed.
The installation is much more difficult:
» The entire exhaust system must be gas-tight (exhaust pressure = boost pressure × 2) from the
port down.
» The exhaust system must be re-routed away from the engine, fuel, etc. [the stock exhaust
works fairly well on a supercharged application].
» With few exceptions they need oil pressure and oil return, which means either a separate pump
and sump, or a position higher
than the existing oil tank [most superchargers have an internal
lubrication system, or sealed bearings].
» Sizing of the entire turbo, compressor trim, turbine housing size and A/R ratio are far more critical
than any supercharger. A
mistake (no boost, low boost, overheating, too much boost) cannot be
cured by adjustment but by
replacing expensive parts - perhaps several times [many supercharger
adjustments only require a single pulley or sprocket change].
» underhood temperature is substantially higher (which reduces the life of rubber parts, belts, hoses,
seals, &c.) and in some cases the interior temperature is higher as well.
