The V8 Owners Forum -

Hi,
I'm new to this website but I thought I'd pick your brains since you all seem to know a lot more than me. I have a mkIII capri with a 3.5 Rover V8 in it and I want to supercharge it.
I got hold of a Wade RO34 Type 4 supercharger (the one with the 90 degree bend in the inlet) on the cheap thinking it might be useful. However, it doesn't have a snout or drive shaft so I would need to source them or have them fabricated. Then there are the obvious problems with mating it to an inlet manifold (of which I think the offenhauser is the only real choice for height purposes) and sourcing a correct carburetion or injection systm (of which I have no real idea which to use).
The other option I am now considering is that you can pick up superchargers from the mini cooper s which have been upgraded quite cheap (£80ish). So I was thinking of using two of these Eaton M45s, one per bank and fabricating custom inlet manifolds and running each bank on a twin webber 40.
So I open it to you guys. Are these stupid ideas and what are the things I haven't thought about yet?

Many thanks in advance,
Simon

what about this Sprintex supercharger for £500
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/sprintex-supercha ... dZViewItem

Comes with a free range-rover!

Yeah I'm watching that with interest as a third option. I already have a range rover though and the wife may kill me if I acquire another! Still £500 is good for a fully working system.

see http://www.v-8.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=368 the general opinion is that twin chargers inst worth the hassle.

The opinion in that thread seems to be largely based on the fact that the two superchargers he was using were too underpowered. I think this system using ex-mini ones would offer more pressure for less cost than my older wade design for example.

cavebloke wrote:The opinion in that thread seems to be largely based on the fact that the two superchargers he was using were too underpowered. I think this system using ex-mini ones would offer more pressure for less cost than my older wade design for example.

Hi Simon,

Roots and Screw compressors are both positive displacement compressors. Each revolution they take, they will move a fixed amount of air equal to their displacement (at least in a perfect world, since alot of other things come into play like inlet restriction, clearances, etc).

My 5300cc engine will need 2650cc per revolution.

My 1000CC IHI superchargers have an maximum RPM of 14500.

So with an overdrive of 1.325, twin superchargers give 2650cc.

Maximum Engine Rev is 5800.

So 5800 X 1.325 = 7685 rpm for supercharger.

If my figures are good for maximum of 6PSI I need of an ratio of 1.735

5800 x 1.735 = 10063 RPM for supercharger.

Of course, it is only an theoric view of application.

Cheer.

yes the thread got that way but the start of it asks why go through all the mounting and packaging hassles not to mention belt run when one larger supercharger works. I think it applies to you as well specially when you are questioning mounting your other one to an inlet manifold. Course I have no idea what your machining capabilities are or what equipment you have. If you have a machine shop and know how to use the stuff then go for it.

Marki I agree completely with you. Put twin superchargers on engine represents an quantity of work and research. It is certainly not an ''Bolted It kit'' And that requires like you say accesses to machine shop to realize the custom plenum and all brackets.

I'm not worried about the machining as I have access to a CNC machining company and CAD through a friend. I am wondering in terms of bhp cost to run the superchargers will the two newer Eaton M45 ones be more efficient in terms of bhp cost per yield than the older bigger Wade unit. Basically my question is has the efficiency of superchargers moved on much?

I think it would come down to a project "because you can" rather than "because you should".

Thats actually a really good way to put it Eliot.

I was really hoping you guys were going to be more enthusiatic about this but I guess I did just want to do it because I could. Many thanks for the sound advice, I'm not quite sure whether you have set me on the straight and narrow or whether my childish side will win, but thanks anyway.

To be honest you set us all of in the wrong direction. You started making out that you had a single charger but you would have to make parts as well as buy parts. This led me to think you were trying to save hassle and money and use two other chargers you had laying around. The advice you were getting was based on this I.E its a lot more hassle, will cost more and probably be less reliable than using a single charger, not to mention giving absalutely no advantage.

Hi Simon
have you seen this?
http://www.lateral-g.org/sandlin/
I think it demonstrates that anything done well has it's merrits, just not sure I would go down this route myself. Multi small supercharces done well would look good, just not sure it is better as an engineering solution
Mike

cavebloke wrote:I was really hoping you guys were going to be more enthusiatic about this but I guess I did just want to do it because I could. Many thanks for the sound advice, I'm not quite sure whether you have set me on the straight and narrow or whether my childish side will win, but thanks anyway.

Well i guess this isn't a chav type forum where every goes "wow that would look cool - yeh do it".
Many of things i do on the dakar are "because i can" or "because its interesting" - not because i actually need to do it!
It would make an interesting project - and will work, but a larger single would work better.
I did spend some time last night trying to find the web site for a bloke who used two cheap to obtain (in the US) eatons (m62's i think) on a chevy or rustang - but ive lost the link.