View Poll Results: Who makes the best blower/supercharger?
Voters: 372. You may not vote on this poll
Who makes the best blower/supercharger?
07-01-2004 | 12:36 PM
#3
Platinum Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 33
Re: Who makes the best blower/supercharger?
Dustin at Whipple has been great to work with, and his chargers not only runs very cool, they look very cool, especially in a Quad Rotor set up, makes the engine room look awesome. 
Jeff Jasby
Jeff Jasby
07-01-2004 | 12:52 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Registered
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland, OK
Re: Who makes the best blower/supercharger?
I'm sure I missed a couple major players, but that's all I could think of right now. I'm sure my decision would be based on one of these manufacture's though.
07-01-2004 | 12:59 PM
#6
Registered
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,174
Likes: 5
From: Flemington, N.J. U.S.A
Re: Who makes the best blower/supercharger?
I think it depends on a lot of things as to which one i sbest for YOU ....
They all make good stuff. But what do you expect from it ? How much power gain , how many engine mods, how much room , intercooled or not, fuel type, sigle carb ,dual carb, and $$$ ..
They all make good stuff. But what do you expect from it ? How much power gain , how many engine mods, how much room , intercooled or not, fuel type, sigle carb ,dual carb, and $$$ ..
07-01-2004 | 03:34 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Who makes the best blower/supercharger?
Roots are inefficient - they are blowers where centrifigals and screw (i.e. whipple) are compressors. The inefficiency equates to heat. Since you have an unlimited amount of cold water available, air to water intercooling the inlet charge addresses this nicely.
For large cubic inch applications which are not running at seriously high RPM, a Whipple is better suited than a centrfigal. Centrifigals are better suited for very high RPM applications.
For a typical boat, large cubic inch engine with redline under 6,000 RPM, I would say the Whipple is th best choice for the application.
However, a turbo would be even better as there is less sacrificial loss of horsepower - no belt to drive it. You can run less bost and make same HP levels. I am not sure about the whipple, but a centrifigal can easily eat up 80 HP just to run it. So to make X horsepower you need to run more boost than with a turbo.
Turbo's are more complicated setups and generally cost more. Not sure why there aren't more turbo's for boats as they are better solution for forced induction applications. Would be harder to have standardized kits as packaging would quite different for different boats. Superchargers allow more standardization and this makes it cheaper. If I were building an all out effort (i.e. custom, cost is no object), I would be doing a turbo setup.
John
For large cubic inch applications which are not running at seriously high RPM, a Whipple is better suited than a centrfigal. Centrifigals are better suited for very high RPM applications.
For a typical boat, large cubic inch engine with redline under 6,000 RPM, I would say the Whipple is th best choice for the application.
However, a turbo would be even better as there is less sacrificial loss of horsepower - no belt to drive it. You can run less bost and make same HP levels. I am not sure about the whipple, but a centrifigal can easily eat up 80 HP just to run it. So to make X horsepower you need to run more boost than with a turbo.
Turbo's are more complicated setups and generally cost more. Not sure why there aren't more turbo's for boats as they are better solution for forced induction applications. Would be harder to have standardized kits as packaging would quite different for different boats. Superchargers allow more standardization and this makes it cheaper. If I were building an all out effort (i.e. custom, cost is no object), I would be doing a turbo setup.
John
