TTS Supercharger

[fstbusa]

#1 wtf are you talking about rebuilding a turbo motor every yr. There are turbos with 60k plus miles on them with no rebuilding whatsoever.

#2 a turbo puts no more wear on a motor than a supercharger does. Both of them are force feeding the motors just using different methods.

#3 The additional parts needed for a turbo setup are the same as a supercharger setup. You need a plenum capable of handling positive pressure and some type of fuel management system. All this is also needed by a charger setup.

#4 You can get the same hp and reliability out of turbo as you do a s/c setup. You can run the same boost with and without spacers. The pistons, rods, valve springs, ect all can take the same power regardless of whats feeding it. You don't have to go into a motor ANY more than a s/c setup so quit feeding people with b/s.

#5 Turbos don't just "kick in". Its not an on/off thing. It builds boost with engine load. The more load the more boost. If you've ever ridden a 2 stroke dirtbike, a turbo acts just like a 2 stroke powerband. You are right about smooth acceleration from idle with a s/c. They are great and I have nothing against them. They do have a wider powerband also. You can also have a pretty good powerband with a turbo also. Not many people ride around below 3k rpm. A stage 1 turbo with 10lb spring will build boost around 3-3500rpm. Seems like a decent powerband to me even though its not as broad as a s/c.



<!--EDIT|fstbusa
Reason for Edit: None given...|1118670787 -->

 

[Xcellerate]

So I guess the 12 to 18 psi and more pressure a turbo charger
puts out does not wear the engine at all over time. Who's bullshittin who? A supercharger has less pressure during boost
and less engine wear. The only people who usually argue that point are the mechanics that constantly FIX the turbo busas as the engines wear out. Ask a source other than the bread and butter guys who get paid for workin on busa with turbos and see if I'm wrong! I'm not sayin turbos are bad, I'm stating a fact superchargers in this case a Rotrex made specifficly for motorcycles are less strenuous over time on engine wear than turbos. That's a fact! That's my only statement, and there's no way you can argue that point. So for my bang for buck a
Rotrex supercharger may not out perform a turbo of equal
cash expenditure but it will run more cost effectively than a turbo made to exceed 300 H.P. The powerband and psi is alot less deterimental to the engine with a supercharger with 300 H.P. than a turbo at that same level of H.P.

Now if this argument is gonna take money out of some turbo installers pocket... Sorry. BUT... my statement is very accurate!



<!--EDIT|Xcellerate
Reason for Edit: None given...|1118702381 -->

 

[Xcellerate]

"A stage 1 turbo with 10lb spring will build boost around 3-3500rpm.  Seems like a decent powerband to me even though its not as broad as a s/c"

above your quote! Funny you turn right  around and try to compare a baseline turbo with what I was talking about. The conversation is about 300 H.P. and above. The context of the argument is the turbo puts out more H.P. in stage two
price range than a supercharger in stage two. That was what
the context of the post represented when I posted under that. So don't try to mix my words with a more tame less aggressive stage one turbo. Yeah a stage one could possibly get by without cracking the engine open. However this conversation was about why someone would pay over 5,000
for a supercharger that puts out 290 H.P. over a turbo that puts out more H.P. Your 300+ H.P. turbo
isn't for little ole ladies and if you use it like a comparable supercharger your engine is gonna wear out much faster than
a supercharged TTS Rotrex system dialed in at 300 H.P. (Stage 2).



<!--EDIT|Xcellerate
Reason for Edit: None given...|1118702089 -->

 

[fstbusa]

ok fine.... a stage II turbo with innercooler as you say has the potential to make close to 500hp if your motor is built for it.

a turbo has the POTENTIAL to put out that many psi. Thats what a BOOST CONTROLLER OR BLOW OFF VALVE IS FOR. It limits the psi to whatever you want it to be. I can set it for 18 psi or for 6 psi, or for 7.5 psi. not a big deal. The extra pressure is blow out the dump pipe.

and how you get that a turbo will wear your motor out faster than an s/c is beyond me and I"m not going to argue on the internet.

I guess until the $/hp is comparable then there won't be many s/c busas around.



<!--EDIT|fstbusa
Reason for Edit: None given...|1118704234 -->

 

[CaliSuperbikes]

Sup kids, I'm Jason Keats, I own California Superbikes, and I'm the US Distributor for TTS. I post as TurboGrizz over on SH.org. I'm here to help settle this argument, since I don't like misinformation being spread. I know all the details about the supercharger kits (and btw, the conversion rate today is over $1.80 per British pound, pushing the price to $5K).

So, reading over the posts here, the main issue raised appears to be maintenance/reliability. Here's the deal - they're comparable! Both offer similar wear on your engine, and both are fairly maintenance free. As long as you treat your bike right, they'll both offer years of fun! Of course, with either route, you whomp on it hard enough, you're gonna eat up bits here and there. Now, a turbo CAN be harder on your engine, because it produces far more heat than a supercharger, as far as 300 hp level kits go, that is not significantly detrimental. The only thing you will see on a turbo that you won't see with a supercharger that can be incredibly harmful to your motor at this level is boost creep. You simply won't get that with a supercharger - a supercharger is engineered to give you X pounds of boost at Y input RPM, that's it. I've not seen boost creep with the Ghetto kits, but there were severe problems with the Hahn and Boost Unlimited Kits

I agree whole-heartedly, our stage 2 kit is a little pricey, but honestly, it's because the Rotrex unit itself is so bloody expensive to us. Check out the HKS and Autometrics car kits using the Rotrex blowers - they're even more expensive for pretty much the same thing. Our real savings is the stage 3 kit, the price of which includes the expensive necessary add-ons (pistons/rods). We're trying hard to bring down the price, but as you can see, the exchange rate is hurting us - as it is, I'm trying to do as much as possible on this side of the ocean so we make our entry level kits more competitive. However, the superchargers themselves are coming out of Denmark, meaning the most expensive aspect of our kits is going to remain fairly expensive for now.

Jason



<!--EDIT|CaliSuperbikes
Reason for Edit: None given...|1118712203 -->

 

[CaliSuperbikes]

The price seems to be right where the stage one turbo kits are.

yeah but it doesn't say whether its a kit or just the charger?

if its just the charger then there is alot more to it than that.  You need a plenum, fuel management system.  rising rate regulator.

There's no need for a rising rate regulator at all with our kits. Since boost is easily calculated and consistent, we can incorporate the boost rate into our fuel map, and simply use a large fuel pump and bigger injectors to compensate. No fuss, no muss - our pump and injectors are drop in. Therefore, no meddling with the stock fuel lines, no drilling holes in your tank, and no problems with the fuel pump that the Ghetto seemed to be experiencing until TMH recently changed fuel pumps to the model that comes pre-insulated.

Jason

 

[Mr Brown]

There was a blower bike up at St. Louis prostar races. Was it one of yours? Gray busa, no lowers, horizontal belt driven blower, throttle side.

 

[CaliSuperbikes]

Nope, built before I got into the business. But I know which bike you're talking about - it's running the same TTS kit we sell though. Stage 2 I believe.



<!--EDIT|CaliSuperbikes
Reason for Edit: None given...|1118714270 -->

 

[1127 TO 1299]

$ 4186.00 if the pound is still 1.6 to 1usd

1.81 Pounds for 1 USD

 

[CaliSuperbikes]

$ 4186.00 if the pound is still 1.6 to 1usd

1.81 Pounds for 1  USD

About 2 months ago it was actually around 1.94 dollars per pound. That sucked.

 

[bacharles]

Now that I'm in the market for a turbo on my bike, the Supercharger is gaining in notoriety in my mind. I'm gonna study this concept a little more. Keep all this great info coming you guys.

 

[fstbusa]

I'd be interested in the injectors you guys are using grizz.

also makes sense about mapping for fuel when you know exactly what the boost will be.

 

[Lofty]

A supercharger has less pressure during boost
and less engine wear. [/QUOTE]


Huh?

PSI is PSI......what are you talking about?

10 PSI with a SC is the same as 10 PSI with a turbo.

The only difference being that a turbo didnt rob HP from the motor to make it.

 

[CaliSuperbikes]

I'd be interested in the injectors you guys are using grizz.

also makes sense about mapping for fuel when you know exactly what the boost will be.

We're using Weber Injectors. They're 480 cc/min. Great little guys.

 

[CaliSuperbikes]

A supercharger has less pressure during boost
and less engine wear.

Huh?

PSI is PSI......what are you talking about?

10 PSI with a SC is the same as 10 PSI with a turbo.

The only difference being that a turbo didnt rob HP from the motor to make it.[/QUOTE]
We're fortunate to being the Rotrex superchargers, whose incredible efficiency compared to earlier superchargers allows for minimal parasytic loss to drive it.

BTW, you're wrong about PSI being PSI. All blowers are not made equal. It's about mass flow. I'll put it this way, imagine a hose with a diameter of 3/8" (like an air hose that drives air tools), and a blower (super/turbo, doesn't make a difference here). Now assume that both are making 10 PSI. Now you have to agree that squirting 10 PSI from the blower, and 10 PSI from the house, will give you vastly different volumes of air. You couldn't just run an air compressor making generating 10 PSI to your engine, you'd starve it for air. But 10 PSI from the proper blower, and you'll make 300 hp!

So as you see, PSI is not PSI. Not meant to be a ####, just meant to be informative. In the case of my superchargers and the turbo's on busas, they're similarly sized and as such produce similar HP/PSI.

 

[Mr Brown]

I ran a Simms and Rohm blower on my 92 Gixxer 11, made about 170hp, the motor noise was unbelievable, and the cool factor was second to none. Drawbacks were heat, seating position, heat, ridiculous throttle travel, did I mention it generated a lot of heat?
It was definitely something different. I think a blown Busa would be cool......

 

[Mr Brown]

A supercharger has less pressure during boost
and less engine wear.

Huh?

PSI is PSI......what are you talking about?

10 PSI with a SC is the same as 10 PSI with a turbo.

The only difference being that a turbo didnt rob HP from the motor to make it.

We're fortunate to being the Rotrex superchargers, whose incredible efficiency compared to earlier superchargers allows for minimal parasytic loss to drive it.

BTW, you're wrong about PSI being PSI. All blowers are not made equal. It's about mass flow. I'll put it this way, imagine a hose with a diameter of 3/8" (like an air hose that drives air tools), and a blower (super/turbo, doesn't make a difference here). Now assume that both are making 10 PSI. Now you have to agree that squirting 10 PSI from the blower, and 10 PSI from the house, will give you vastly different volumes of air. You couldn't just run an air compressor making generating 10 PSI to your engine, you'd starve it for air. But 10 PSI from the proper blower, and you'll make 300 hp!

So as you see, PSI is not PSI. Not meant to be a ####, just meant to be informative. In the case of my superchargers and the turbo's on busas, they're similarly sized and as such produce similar HP/PSI.[/QUOTE]
The CFM makes no difference to engine wear. For this example PSI is PSI. The pressure of the air, and the heat caused by the pressure, is what causes parts to fail, not the amount. And no matter how effecient a blower is, it still suffers more parasitic loss than a turbo. Even the minimal loss that you claim, (and I'm not doubting you) is more than any turbo. A turbo is free horsepower.

 

[CaliSuperbikes]

I ran a Simms and Rohm blower on my 92 Gixxer 11, made about 170hp, the motor noise was unbelievable, and the cool factor was second to none. Drawbacks were heat, seating position, heat, ridiculous throttle travel, did I mention it generated a lot of heat?
It was definitely something different. I think a blown Busa would be cool......

Ahhh... old school blowers - inefficient as hell compared to the Rotrex. Old style superchargers generated butt loads of heat, were load, and took detrimental amounts of power to be spun. All in all, they sucked. Given the style of the Rotrex, efficiency is boost impressively, it's quite quiet, and doesn't get any warmer than the rest of the engine. It uses its own oil system, with the oil cooler mounted in the right ram air duct. Nifty, huh?

 

[Mr Brown]

Ahhh... old school blowers - inefficient as hell compared to the Rotrex. Old style superchargers generated butt loads of heat, were load, and took detrimental amounts of power to be spun. All in all, they sucked. Given the style of the Rotrex, efficiency is boost impressively, it's quite quiet, and doesn't get any warmer than the rest of the engine. It uses its own oil system, with the oil cooler mounted in the right ram air duct. Nifty, huh?

Yeah, they sucked, but I never saw another one in person.....
I always thought the noise was great, but that's just me...
Well no, I imagine since it's on a water-cooled bike it would be a lot cooler-running. It's hard to cool down hot oil with hot air.

 

[CaliSuperbikes]

A supercharger has less pressure during boost
and less engine wear.

Huh?

PSI is PSI......what are you talking about?

10 PSI with a SC is the same as 10 PSI with a turbo.

The only difference being that a turbo didnt rob HP from the motor to make it.

We're fortunate to being the Rotrex superchargers, whose incredible efficiency compared to earlier superchargers allows for minimal parasytic loss to drive it.

BTW, you're wrong about PSI being PSI. All blowers are not made equal. It's about mass flow. I'll put it this way, imagine a hose with a diameter of 3/8" (like an air hose that drives air tools), and a blower (super/turbo, doesn't make a difference here). Now assume that both are making 10 PSI. Now you have to agree that squirting 10 PSI from the blower, and 10 PSI from the house, will give you vastly different volumes of air. You couldn't just run an air compressor making generating 10 PSI to your engine, you'd starve it for air. But 10 PSI from the proper blower, and you'll make 300 hp!

So as you see, PSI is not PSI. Not meant to be a ####, just meant to be informative. In the case of my superchargers and the turbo's on busas, they're similarly sized and as such produce similar HP/PSI.

The CFM makes no difference to engine wear. For this example PSI is PSI. The pressure of the air, and the heat caused by the pressure, is what causes parts to fail, not the amount. And no matter how effecient a blower is, it still suffers more parasitic loss than a turbo. Even the minimal loss that you claim, (and I'm not doubting you) is more than any turbo. A turbo is free horsepower.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely - don't disagree with you at all. I just wanted to educate anyone who was reading about PSI. What I said above was not at all intended to talk about wear, just about power.