[KIWI]

Hi guys,
I've been thinking about FI my 1zz for a while now and have decided that when my motor gets rebuilt i'm going to get forged internals and im gonna also get a centrifugal supercharger put on too, im not after massive power gains and would rather reliability over power.
I would greatly like any help from the more experienced spyder onwers on what to do and not to.
This is my list to date

Crower stage 1 cams (or the stage 2 FI set if a SMT can take those safely)
Wiseco pistons 8.8:1, 82mm ( or would the 79.5mm be better for reliability?)
Darton Sleeves if i end up using the 82mm pistons
Crower Conrods ( 4340 chromoly steel billet connecting rods)
haven't decided on clutch, supercharger or fuel injectors yet
Intercooler will be a air to water
i'm going to get some form of oil cooler with a thermostat
Crower or MWR (which ever is better) valve springs and retainers plus MWR valves
I already have a piggyback ECU with boost support
all seals/gaskets/lifters will be getting replaced with oem
Moroso oil pan
Money is not an issue as i'd rather get it right first time and please let me know if i left something out or dont partically need it

 

[DaveSchott]

Centri S/C = Rotrex, tons of info here on it. Or are you going with another brand?

 

[KIWI]

Properly another brand as I've never heard of rotrex in Australia.
I've read the rotrex threads which is why I'm using that style supercharger instead of a turbo

 

[Illusive]

Properly another brand as I've never heard of rotrex in Australia.
I've read the rotrex threads which is why I'm using that style supercharger instead of a turbo

We also offer a air to water intercooled turbo option that will get you better low end torque than a rotrex.

http://spyderchat.com/forums/showth...2-Spyder-1ZZ-FE-turbo-system-Pics-amp-Pricing

 

[sweetpete]

Search for Mandalay or Rotrex MR2 on here, he has a SW20 but is in Victoria and is an expert on them he is also incredibly particular in what he does as you will see when you read his build thread. he will be able to help you out and point you in the right direction.

 

[SgtSpyder]

Australia? Perhaps you’ve heard of Harrop. They offer versions of Eatons TVS superchargers.
The Rotrex is unique for centrifuge type superchargers. I can’t recall seeing another that reaches its RPMs or efficiency numbers.
The SMT will limit what you can do with forced induction. Not in terms of torque or horsepower, but in controllability.

 

[MANDALAY]

Rotrex is distributed by Bullet in QLD.

Looks interesting but i would NEVER add a piggy back on a build.

Also your best to search the SMT power limit , a manual would be better but we never received manuals here. Few grey imports around tho

 

[MANDALAY]

We also offer a air to water intercooled turbo option that will get you better low end torque than a rotrex.

http://spyderchat.com/forums/showth...2-Spyder-1ZZ-FE-turbo-system-Pics-amp-Pricing

That is a very BOLD answer . Relative to which ROTREX SC ?

Each to their own but the Rotrex is a very drivable car with all the characteristic of a N/A engine with just more power. Turbos just dont do that and never will

Either way its more about what he does to the engine and the rest of the car.

Frankly quoting RWHP is useless as we have different dyno's here. Ild bet my car if you quote him expected power with one of your kits he will NOT get it over here.

 

[Illusive]

Please don't take my response the wrong way. I'm not trying to win your car. I do have data to back up the claim

Another forum member ( http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7738 ) posted a dyno plot of thier built mr2 spyder 1zz with a rotrex, in a thread where I had mentioned I prefer twin screw superchargers over centrifugals. I overlayed it against our 1zz turbokit with the plot from our first turbo system (on a stock motor) with a gt2871r and it made more low end torque sooner than the rotrex.

Our current stock motor turbo system is based around a gt25r which is quite smaller than the 2871r and will see drastically better low end torque, even though the gt2871r has really good low end torque to begin with.

Here it is for comparison:

The same customer with the 1zz and gt2871r is getting a built motor in the next few months so we can get a better top end power comparo.

Our dyno plots were done in 3rd on a 6spd. I could have easily done them in 5th (or 6th) with load control turned on to try to get unrealistically better spool and torque but that would just be fudging the numbers. As it sits now the system makes 1.5 psi at 1500 rpms in 3rd gear with the gt2871r.

 

[MANDALAY]

Not getting into any debate as your prim concern is to sell.

The dyno is a tuning device. Trying to show Hp and then selecting 3 rd gear is evident.

What about tire size and 1:1 gear box ratio dyno pull. Bet you it will be lower.
Anything that is to be compared has to be on the same dyno, same day same everything.

Put the car on a 4 wd dyno as what we use here and again will be even lower.

And again all i commented was that was a bold statement because the pipe work can and would be different amongst other things,

All that your plot shows me is that the turbo totally lacks top end and that deviates from the true love of reving the engine.

 

[Illusive]

Not getting into any debate as your prim concern is to sell.

In this particular case no not really. When we finished the original turbo 1zz kit we had people asking for the costs to reproduce it. We decided to get all the pricing together and put it out there. If it sells great, if not we don't loose anything by not selling them, except the time spent gathering all the pricing and posting the info.

We aren't concerned with selling products, what we focus on instead is the end goal and try to meet customers needs to get them to that goal. I spend a lot of time talking down customers from crazy projects because they ultimately wont be happy or satisfied with the end result. I also spend a lot of time talking customers out of parts and electronics that just isn't neccessary for their goals.

Again please do not take my replies as flametory or offensive. I'm definately not trying to offend you or anyone who may be reading.

I do need to correct some error's on your reply however:

Trying to show Hp and then selecting 3 rd gear is evident.
What about tire size and 1:1 gear box ratio dyno pull.

Gear has EXTREMELY minimal to effect on peak power/torque display on a dynojet dyno. The calculations are based off a fixed roller mass combined with the rpm pickup to factor out any gear changes in power. You can even do a complete pull on a Dynojet dyno and show each gear's hp and torque all in one plot.

The reason I mentioned doing the turbo pulls in 3rd gear is that had I done the pulls in 5th or 6th and or turned on the eddy current brakes (can apply up to 2000 ft-lbs to each roller) to establish more load the additional load would cause the turbo to spool faster and appear to have a drastically better low end torque and spool characteristics. That's not representative of what it would be like on the street, or even close to real world conditions. We just dont believe in doing that and feel that those who do are purposly lieing and cheating their customers

Here we can see an example of our FR-S which shows 3rd and 4th gear dyno's. Run 004 was in 3rd run 007 and 008 were in 4th.

Put the car on a 4 wd dyno as what we use here and again will be even lower.

Glad that you asked, we have a 4wd dynojet dyno (424 xlc linx with dual eddy current brakes) and have just the files to compare to show:

Here is Sonar's dyno plot with the dyno in 2wd mode vs 4wd mode (linx system engaged vs dis-engaged)

We did the comparo because we were curious if the curves would change or the hp figures would be drastically different. Runfile 003 is linx engaged Runfile 002 linx disengaged

Anything that is to be compared has to be on the same dyno, same day same everything.

This is simply not true with Dynojet. You can go from one dynojet to another so long as they are both set up properly, and dyno within 1-2%. Dynojet themselves have millions of dyno run files that they can compare this against.

Also dynojet dynos include weather stations in the computer stack that take baro, humidity, temp readings constantly. This factors out weather to a large margin.

All that your plot shows me is that the turbo totally lacks top end and that deviates from the true love of reving the engine

Not sure what you mean by this?

Just remember that our turbo plot is on a stock internal 1zz-fe 235 whp is about the limit of a stock 1zzfe. It also doesn't drop off in power on the top end, it continues to make more power than the stock 1zz-fe from 1500 rpm to fuel cut 7,000 rpm.

Here is a plot that isn't overlayed for easier viewing Runfile 070 is the final tune for the customers car and Runfile 002 is Sonar's modded 1zz-fe n/a plot:

 

[KIWI]

Illusive, thanks for the offer but I'm gonna go with a centrifugal supercharger.
Don't like the way a turbo car drives even a small one plus I'd have to change my entire exhaust as I have a PPE header.
My brother had a ford falcon xr6 with a centrifugal supercharger and I liked how it drove, very calm when cruising and had the power when you needed it.
Another reason I don't want a turbo the heat they produce it can get very hot in Australia plus you fellas are in the states right? Postage would be insane and the import tax I'd have to pay would be crazy high

 

[MANDALAY]

Seriously the gear that should be selected is the closest to 1:1 whether it be 3.4 or 5th thats the real point im making.

Turbos have their place granted with out any doubt. I dont like the hot temperatures and the way it delivers power. Just not my cup of tea.

The torque curve you have i just dont like its maximum is at 3,500.

With the SC a bigger one with more power can be added , with a Turbo it will have lag and all the other stuff which just doesnt make it feel like a DD car. Not to mention all the strain on the drive line.

Just my 2 cents

Having said that your kit does look good and put together very well , at least your showing the masses that all the stuff you need before contemplating such a build.

I should point out different cars also have different figures. That rotrex plot has the Rotrex 30-94 . My engine is the 3SGE beams admittedly a 2 litre with the same SC currently but reduced C/R to 8.9:1 and i have 424 ft/pounds and 350 Hp at the wheels at 15 psi.

You can easily get that with a turbo but how will it drive and what will be the lag

 

[Illusive]

Illusive, thanks for the offer but I'm gonna go with a centrifugal supercharger.
Don't like the way a turbo car drives even a small one plus I'd have to change my entire exhaust as I have a PPE header.
My brother had a ford falcon xr6 with a centrifugal supercharger and I liked how it drove, very calm when cruising and had the power when you needed it.
Another reason I don't want a turbo the heat they produce it can get very hot in Australia plus you fellas are in the states right? Postage would be insane and the import tax I'd have to pay would be crazy high

No worries, and yes postage would be pretty killer. I think it would be cheaper to just boat(transport) your entire car here have us install and tune then boat it back to you.

 

[Illusive]

The torque curve you have i just dont like its maximum is at 3,500.

Try to look at the area's under the curve, not just peak figures. Sometimes its hard to see with turbo chargers because of the ramp up to what ever boost level is desired and then a slow taper to fuel cut.

With the SC a bigger one with more power can be added , with a Turbo it will have lag and all the other stuff which just doesnt make it feel like a DD car. Not to mention all the strain on the drive line.

I have to disagree here, with a proper twin screw supercharger set up, the shockload would be higher on the driveline than a turbo. Remember we initially started debating a Rotrex centrifugal supercharger, which in my opinion is a bad comprimise between a turbo and a supercharger. You get none of the benefits of a turbocharger, and none of the benefits of a proper twin screw sc. The only benefit with rotrex is usually packaging, and a pre-lubed rotating assembly.

I'm not saying that I dont like superchargers at all, I just dislike rotrex style superchargers. I would much rather fit a twin screw or roots type blower on a car than a rotrex. They will out perform a turbo charger on the bottom end, which is why people generally want a supercharger.

For example if we look at ronnin's twin charged 2zz-ge with a proper blower on it, you can see it makes around 140 wtq at 2500 rpm, and 190 wtq at 3,000 rpm

Having said that your kit does look good and put together very well , at least your showing the masses that all the stuff you need before contemplating such a build.

Thanks

I should point out different cars also have different figures. That rotrex plot has the Rotrex 30-94 . My engine is the 3SGE beams admittedly a 2 litre with the same SC currently but reduced C/R to 8.9:1 and i have 424 ft/pounds and 350 Hp at the wheels at 15 psi.

Oh that might be a fun comparo, do you happen to have any dyno plots from 1,500 rpm to fuel cut?

You can easily get that with a turbo but how will it drive and what will be the lag

If you look at our turbo spyder overlay you can see that at 2,000 rpms the turbocharger is making 120 wheel torque and at 3,000 rpms its making 170 wheel torque. The rotrex is making 160 wtq at 3,000 rpm, and unfortunately the pull doesn't start from 1,500 rpm so we cant see what it would have made at 2,000 rpm.

For an even more fun comparo lets compare the turbo 1zz against a greddy supercharger 2zz
These are uncorrected figures, which are higher than their std corrected figures, but you get the idea here:

The greddy is making 120 wtq, if we are generous at 3,000 rpms

The point I'm making with the wheel torque figure comparisons, is that with the system we built there is virtually zero lag, the car makes more power than a modded n/a motor from 1500 rpm to fuel cut, and it makes more low end torque than a built rotrex set up. That translates to a smoother power delivery, and better response than the rotrex can give.

Also to add, I tuned one of our old car clubs trial superchargers on a 2zz with a pfc about 8 years ago, and for those not familiar with trial's set up it uses an intercooler and a magnetic clutch with a bypass on the supercharger. The car made around 147 wtq at 3,000 rpms and carried a flat torque curve to fuel cut. We ended the dyno session around 240 whp. I also drag raced the car for him at irwindale drag strip (1/8 mile), and it managed an 8.9 @ 83 mph full weight.

It was a fun car to drive, but the turbo spyder is just hands down faster car with a smoother power delivery.

It's really hard to change folks minds about a proper turbo system vs a proper rotrex set up and show that the turbo can out perform the rotrex in the bottom end and the top end.

 

[Illusive]

Here's one last example of why we try to dyno the car's as close to real world as possible.

The closest 1:1 ratio in the sti is 5th, but 5th gear puts you at 100+ miles per hour and isn't representative of what people will see or feel on the street.

Here is an example of 3rd gear vs 4th gear on my sti. Runfile 008 is 4th and Runfile 010 is 3rd. You can see a dramatic difference in low rpm torque and spool just by simply using a higher gear. I dont have any 5th gear pulls, but the trend goes the same way, you would see even better low rpm torque and spool vs 3rd and 4th gears.

That is why we posted dyno plots showing a 3rd gear pull on the turbo spyder. It's more representative of what the car feels like on the street. I could just as easily done pulls in 4th or 5th gear and inflate the low end torque numbers, as well as turned on the load controll on the dyno, but its not representative of the what the car feels like on the street and frankly that would be dishonest

 

[uspspro]

I'm still wating to see a Rotrex SC setup like the Koenigsegg. A big ass Rotrex, spin it really fast, limit boost up top with a computer-controlled secondary TB on the inlet.

I know that the Rotrex does not make the best powerband. But the clean simple setup, and the behavior of the engine on twisties the make it a great setup IMHO. YMMV.

It's very easy to drive, very predictable just keeps pulling w/out surging, lag or drop-off.

 

[MANDALAY]

Here's one last example of why we try to dyno the car's as close to real world as possible.

The closest 1:1 ratio in the sti is 5th, but 5th gear puts you at 100+ miles per hour and isn't representative of what people will see or feel on the street.

Here is an example of 3rd gear vs 4th gear on my sti. Runfile 008 is 3rd and Runfile 010 is 4th. You can see a dramatic difference in low rpm torque and spool just by simply using a higher gear. I dont have any 5th gear pulls, but the trend goes the same way, you would see even better low rpm torque and spool vs 3rd and 4th gears.

That is why we posted dyno plots showing a 3rd gear pull on the turbo spyder. It's more representative of what the car feels like on the street. I could just as easily done pulls in 4th or 5th gear and inflate the low end torque numbers, as well as turned on the load controll on the dyno, but its not representative of the what the car feels like on the street and frankly that would be dishonest

See thats a typical Turbo spool up and then die Also typical of OEM 2 liter Turbo's

With the SW20 because it came with a Turbo also there isnt much to argue as Turbo will always be king .
With cars that didnt have a Turbo option there is much less bias and you see SC's
So you tell me the 86 will show both SC and Turbo some time soon but put a Turbo in it and it will not give you what the car is all about

Here is my dyno with a proper twin roller 4wd dyno. Its a small Rotrex but the same one you posted. JUST like a N/A engine just more power



Im currently in the process of doubling the SC size . What will it do well just pull the whole curve up. Predictable and controllable

SC has no restriction and the air moves quickly , less chance of knocking compared to a restrictive turbo , not to mention the much higher engine bay temps.

 

[KIWI]

No worries, and yes postage would be pretty killer. I think it would be cheaper to just boat(transport) your entire car here have us install and tune then boat it back to you.

LOL, the sad thing is your properly right and it would be cheaper.

USPSPRO, You should of seen my brothers centrifugal supercharger setup,
his supercharger was massive, ill try to find the dyno sheet of it but I remember it was about 450rwkw and over 800nm of torque the motor was fully built way past what I'm looking at doing, he ended up selling the car as the power was that great he fused 2nd and 3rd gear together, plus the fuel economy would of but a bugatti veyron to shame, it was a thristy bugger

ILLUSIVE, I would prefer a twin screw supercharger setup, but there is a lot more involved or so I've read and i will agree a turbo would be more ideal but i don't want to lose my exhaust, I know sounds stupid but I paid a lot to get that PPE header onto Australia

 

[Illusive]

See thats a typical Turbo spool up and then die Also typical of OEM 2 liter Turbo's

The us Sti is a 2.5 litre. The stock turbo can't support more than 15 psi above 6000 rpm, so the torque divebombs as you approach fuel cut. But yes that is typical of most stock turbo systems.

We expected good spool and quick response with the short pipe path and near zero pressure drop core. But It totally exceeded our expectations, it's not everyday that you get to design a turbo system that can out perform throughout the entire power band compared to a modded n/a car and a supercharged car as well.

With cars that didnt have a Turbo option there is much less bias and you see SC's
So you tell me the 86 will show both SC and Turbo some time soon but put a Turbo in it and it will not give you what the car is all about

We actually have plans to stick to NA power on the FR-S. we already have a set of heads on order so we can get some flow bench figures and start experimenting with ways to improve upon the design.

We also have some really unique ideas that we can't share until we have the project completed because no one has done it or thought of it before.