I've been reading up on the GTP forums a lot lately... (because I'm swapping in a L67 motor... so I better get up to speed, eh?)
http://www.clubgp.com/newforum/tm.asp?m=3351472&p=5&tmode=1&smode=1
Contrary to popular belief... the "teflon coating" on the M90 supercharger rotors isn't teflon at all.. it's apparently epoxy paint.
I wonder if the same is true for the M45 on the 2.4L supercharger... and the M62 on the Ecotec supercharger...?
Teflon is expensive. If it ain't on the most expensive supercharged car they made, it ain't on the cheaper ones.
I used to race cars, now I race myself.
5K PB: 24:50
10K PB: 54:26
Team Vision Racing (aka hypsy) wrote:Teflon is expensive. If it ain't on the most expensive supercharged car they made, it ain't on the cheaper ones.
An M90 is not the most expensive sc made. I think the guy that recently did the port and polish on bobby's sc would know for sure. I suggest you ask him.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
I guess I have to clarify because someone didn't read....
The Grand Prix GTP WAS the most expensive car GM ever supercharged from the factory. If they wouldn't even Teflon coat those rotors then the other kits weren't Teflon coated either.
I used to race cars, now I race myself.
5K PB: 24:50
10K PB: 54:26
Exactly... so, the GM S/C kits rotors aren't teflon coated... period.
But... they are epoxy painted... which still strips off with harsh cleaners apparently... one guy used GM Top End cleaner and apparently it made a mess of his rotors. I imagine the same would happen with Seafoam.....
I figure the epoxy paint is probably just fine with nitrous... but fuel? Gotta try it out, I guess....
I really doubt that it is Teflon. Here is a pic of some SC rotors
Jason
99 Z24
157hp/171tq
wheres my boost??
The Bonneville SSEi was a more expensive car than the GTP
But I get what you're saying...just had to throw that in there haha
14.330 @ 96.37mph
i was thinkin about this too the otherday john
think old school carbed b8s with an 871 charger for example. carbs sit on top of the charger... sucks fuel through the charger into the motor.
starting to think the whole fuel thing wasnt true as well... maybe just possibility of puddling?
http://www.myspace.com/15102113
I've see those rotors before
SPD RCR Z -
'02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT -
'04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI -
'78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap
wow those rotors really show how small out SC really is
Jason wrote:I really doubt that it is Teflon. Here is a pic of some SC rotors
blower rotors, not SC rotors
Although, you guys can keep calling them SCs if you want...for simplicity's sake
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
OHV notec wrote:Jason wrote:I really doubt that it is Teflon. Here is a pic of some SC rotors
blower rotors, not SC rotors Although, you guys can keep calling them SCs if you want...for simplicity's sake
Ummm....your off a bit.
A "blower" is a supercharger. It's a type of supercharger. A turbo is a supercharger too. Go look it up. Now go away
Made it easy on you. Read....then type.
I used to race cars, now I race myself.
5K PB: 24:50
10K PB: 54:26
"A supercharger is any device that pressurizes the air intake to above atmospheric pressure. Both superchargers and turbochargers do this. In fact, the term "turbocharger" is a shortened version of "turbo-supercharger," its official name."
There's the punchline right there. Now go read before you post a reply.
I used to race cars, now I race myself.
5K PB: 24:50
10K PB: 54:26
John Lenko wrote:Exactly... so, the GM S/C kits rotors aren't teflon coated... period.
But... they are epoxy painted... which still strips off with harsh cleaners apparently... one guy used GM Top End cleaner and apparently it made a mess of his rotors. I imagine the same would happen with Seafoam.....
I figure the epoxy paint is probably just fine with nitrous... but fuel? Gotta try it out, I guess....
Luke Heier from a performance forum post::: (Adjustable FPR-- Blew my engine...!?!?!)
Luke Heier wrote:I had the same thing happen to my stock FPR. It turned my S/C into a secondary gas tank. It didn't wreck anything, but what a mess. It took a while to get all of the gas out and finally get it to turn over.
I'm assuming this means it doesn't affect it. I dont know if it screwed anything up but you might ask.
John Lenko wrote:Exactly... so, the GM S/C kits rotors aren't teflon coated... period.
But... they are epoxy painted... which still strips off with harsh cleaners apparently... one guy used GM Top End cleaner and apparently it made a mess of his rotors. I imagine the same would happen with Seafoam.....
I figure the epoxy paint is probably just fine with nitrous... but fuel? Gotta try it out, I guess....
i was going to say how my rotors looked painted and it was starting to come off when i took it apart, BUT i just saw them. up there.
neet, but that was AFTER i cleaned them, gave it to Brian and he cleaned them. and thats just with alke injection and water injection, it had around 70K on it.
yep i rember that.
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
Team Vision Racing (aka hypsy) wrote:"A supercharger is any device that pressurizes the air intake to above atmospheric pressure. Both superchargers and turbochargers do this. In fact, the term "turbocharger" is a shortened version of "turbo-supercharger," its official name."
There's the punchline right there. Now go read before you post a reply.
Hot damn, get off your high horse and pick up a textbook.
1) NEVER did I state that a turbocharger is not a form of a supercharger, I'm not a friggin idiot...why don't
you learn to
read.
2) That page also says this: "The drive gear, in turn, rotates the compressor gear" along with the quote you posted above. Oddly enough, a roots-type BLOWER is not a compressor ('pressurizer' for those of you who can't correlate), as it does not compress the air within, therefore it can NOT have a compressor gear. A supercharger is a compressor, a blower is not a compressor. A blower introduced into a restricted system causes the SYSTEM to compress the air, but the blower is not a compressor...see how that works?
From dictionary.com:
"supercharger
n :
compressor that forces increased oxygen into the cylinders of an internal-combustion engine"
A blower is referred to as a SC planely because over the years it has become common use, it does nothing to 'charge' the air on its own (charge=increase the energy of), it just acts as a fan and one-way valve.
I used to think of you as an alright guy Ryne, but you've been a real a-hole lately. Maybe time for a vacation or something.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Ok Mr. Smartass Notec.....
1) I never said anything about you saying a turbo wasn't a type of supercharger. That was just a general add-in for those who don't know.
2) A supercharger is just a general term to denote anything used to compress air into a cylinder. So yes....a Roots-type is a SUPERCHARGER just because of the simply fact that it compressed the air going through it, whether or not it has a compressor gear.
"That's the job of the supercharger. Superchargers increase intake by compressing air above atmospheric pressure, without creating a vacuum."
3) To add even more from that page,
"The Roots supercharger is the oldest design. Philander and Francis Roots patented the design in 1860 as a machine that would help ventilate mine shafts. In 1900, Gottleib Daimler included a Roots supercharger in a car engine. As the meshing lobes spin, air trapped in the pockets between the lobes is carried between the fill side and the discharge side. Large quantities of air move into the intake manifold and "stack up" to create positive pressure. For this reason, Roots superchargers are really nothing more than air blowers, and the term "blower" is still often used to describe all superchargers. Roots superchargers are usually large and sit on top of the engine. They are popular in muscle cars and hot rods because they stick out of the hood of the car. However, they are the least efficient supercharger for two reasons: They add more weight to the vehicle and they move air in discrete bursts instead of in a smooth and continuous flow." What's this mean? THAT A ROOTS-TYPE IS A SUPERCHARGER. THE OLDEST AND LEAST EFFICIENT THERE IS, BUT A SUPERCHARGER NO LESS. It may do nothing but push a little air, or blow it as they say, but it still meets EVERY requirement to be a supercharger.
4) Blower became the generic term for ALL SUPERCHARGERS because of the Roots-type characteristics
5) Frankly I don't care if you think I am an ass. Never have cared if anyone thought that now have I? I seem to get by just fine no matter what anyone thinks of me. If you don't like the way my posts sound then you have 2 choices...1) Don't read them OR 2) Read them a different way. Y'all make it sound like every post is evil or something. Go ahead and think that if you want though. Doesn't hurt me one bit.
6) Me proving you wrong, twice now, doesn't make me an @!#$. Just so we're clear on that too.
Volumeking: Not quite. Good try though.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:05 PM
I used to race cars, now I race myself.
5K PB: 24:50
10K PB: 54:26
ding ding and in this corner we have ryne weighing in at... and in the opposite corner we have..... wow lets not bite off any ones ear over the net here.. and how did teflon not being on sc rotors turn into an internet free for all brawl
I'm 166 as of last Sunday
Heaviest I've ever been, and more body fat than ever
Good thing I'm getting back into shape.
I used to race cars, now I race myself.
5K PB: 24:50
10K PB: 54:26
great, here we go...
Team Vision Racing (aka hypsy) wrote:1) I never said anything about you saying a turbo wasn't a type of supercharger. That was just a general add-in for those who don't know.
Do you not read your posts when you type them???
Team Vision Racing (aka hypsy) wrote:"In fact, the term "turbocharger" is a shortened version of "turbo-supercharger," its official name."
There's the punchline right there. Now go read before you post a reply.
Good lord, you spent your post telling me I don't know something, and then you say you didn't say it...gimme a break
Team Vision Racing (aka hypsy) wrote:2) A supercharger is just a general term to denote anything used to compress air into a cylinder. So yes....a Roots-type is a SUPERCHARGER just because of the simply fact that it compressed the air going through it , whether or not it has a compressor gear. "That's the job of the supercharger. Superchargers increase intake by compressing air above atmospheric pressure, without creating a vacuum."
It's not that it doesn't have a 'compressor gear', that was for emphasis on the point...which you apparently missed because you both agreed and disagreed with it in this section. To help you understand, I've underlined the part where you disagreed, and put the incorrect info in bold. It is incorrect because, just like I had finished explaining, it doesn't actually compress the air (if it sat in free air the air at the outlet would come out at the same pressure as at the inlet). The fundamental characteristic of a COMPRESSOR is missing from the roots equation. If you still don't get the point, nobody will be able to help you figure it out.
Team Vision Racing (aka hypsy) wrote:3) To add even more from that page, "The Roots supercharger is the oldest design. Philander and Francis Roots patented the design in 1860 as a machine that would help ventilate mine shafts. In 1900, Gottleib Daimler included a Roots supercharger in a car engine. As the meshing lobes spin, air trapped in the pockets between the lobes is carried between the fill side and the discharge side. Large quantities of air move into the intake manifold and "stack up" to create positive pressure. For this reason, Roots superchargers are really nothing more than air blowers, and the term "blower" is still often used to describe all superchargers. Roots superchargers are usually large and sit on top of the engine. They are popular in muscle cars and hot rods because they stick out of the hood of the car. However, they are the least efficient supercharger for two reasons: They add more weight to the vehicle and they move air in discrete bursts instead of in a smooth and continuous flow." What's this mean? THAT A ROOTS-TYPE IS A SUPERCHARGER. THE OLDEST AND LEAST EFFICIENT THERE IS, BUT A SUPERCHARGER NO LESS. It may do nothing but push a little air, or blow it as they say, but it still meets EVERY requirement to be a supercharger.
You're pretty good at using the good ol' copy and paste functions, but your comprehension hasn't developed unfortunately
Nothing you just posted does anything to disprove anything I wrote...However, you're statement that it meets every requirement is obviously flawed, as I've already proved. The only 'requirement' it meets is that people call it by that name. People also call Paris Hilton 'talented'...just saying...
Team Vision Racing (aka hypsy) wrote:4) Blower became the generic term for ALL SUPERCHARGERS because of the Roots-type characteristics
Thats hilarious, I'd like to hear what makes a centrifugal SC anything like a roots? Besides the fact that they are both made primarily of a metal? and they both have a rotating assembly inside a concealed assembly with an inlet and exit? None of their operating characteristics are even remotely similar...
Team Vision Racing (aka hypsy) wrote:5) Frankly I don't care if you think I am an ass. Never have cared if anyone thought that now have I? I seem to get by just fine no matter what anyone thinks of me. If you don't like the way my posts sound then you have 2 choices...1) Don't read them OR 2) Read them a different way. Y'all make it sound like every post is evil or something. Go ahead and think that if you want though. Doesn't hurt me one bit.
6) Me proving you wrong, twice now, doesn't make me an @!#$. Just so we're clear on that too.
I said you were acting like an ass lately...get it right
lol
I would skip your posts like this, but when everyone starts getting large quantities of misinformation (one of the things the org is known for), I have a problem...not to mention you started this
Oh yeah, you have yet to come close to proving me wrong...remember, I never said it wasn't commonly called a SC
gman, you don't want to know, Ryne's 166 would be an oversized pancake lol
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
haha im glad we could take it as a joke and last i checked i was like 170 and im a skinny white boy that doesnt know where all that weight is haha
Dude....face it. A Roots is a SUPERCHARGER, whether or not you think so. Go ask any performance builder. It's not a hard concept. Just because it is, by far, the dumbest, worse, and cheapest way to do things doesn't mean it's not a supercharger. The air coming out the outlet is compressed more than the air going in. This alone makes it a supercharger. If it doesn't to you.....then I don't know what else to say to you.
Oh and just because I'm 166 and have my highest bodyfat ever, don't think I'm a pushover. I may look small (muscularly) but my 17% BF says differently. Right now I'm at an "average" rating. I've always been under 12% until my knees started getting really bad and I slacked off. Now I'm getting back in the gym and will be at my 145-150lb/12% BF playing level by spring.
In any case I'm done. Some people get something in their head and won't see any facts that go against it. They find a way to read the words that makes them seem right.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:50 PM
I used to race cars, now I race myself.
5K PB: 24:50
10K PB: 54:26
