General Supercharger Thread

Trust me, I was on your site looking at the 2.3 pulleys you sell. I am also waiting on the new AFE CAI for the 1900. See how that pans out.

 

Parts on display.:
https://youtu.be/OmxaMmNCObc?si=cejE6rBgC6rDiYyg

 

If I install a SC'er, will I turn into a nit picking prick? Asking for a friend.

I'm just kidding. I love facts and stats as much as the next cat.

If I... I mean, my friend, haven't offended too many with the above comment, let's resume the high quality information that is shared here .

I got the green light from the "war department", just can't make myself pull out the plastic.

 

Just go 2.0...

 

If I go 2.0 I am gonna need a new 5.7 2.0 version engine. My bank account will scream at me, lol.

 

Close up of what is under the hood:
https://youtu.be/kTrxiSVddeE?si=IMW-PwwSpc3_0BwD

 

"Your friend's" life will improve drastically in every way. Talk of the town. Envy of the neighborhood. Women want to be him, men want to be with him. Or something like that

 

As a diversion from the soporiferously derailed disceptation...

.. how bad is it to lug a supercharged motor? Suppose, or example, I'm cruising along the highway at 1800 RPM and happen upon a hill. I know the truck has the power to climb the hill without downshifting, but it requires dipping in to the boost - say 2 or 3 psi maybe. Is it a bad thing to try and hold that gear at lower RPM but under boost?

Lets say I want to lock the transmission TC and prevent a downshift at all but WOT - is it unadvisable to throttle down to 90% to see 6 psi at an even lower RPM? Lets say 1500 or 1600?

One may ask 'Why wouldn't you just downshift?' to which I would respond 'because I said so...'.

What thinkest the brain trust? And why for?

 

I'm ignoring this thread until tomorrow. Did I mention I'm cutting over the Stage 1.5 next week? Lol

 

The 2.3 is a really nice “safe” stopping point. The 2.2 is the equivalent to what I have and starts getting a little friskier but still pretty safe IMO, especially if you keep it choked off with a more restrictive intake and exhaust. It kind of just makes the bottom end even more responsive.

 

This thread is like a psycho ex. It will show up at your house and boil your bunny.

You can't ignore it.

Don't ask me how I know.

 

Don't if you have any apprehension.

 

I do that all the time. I wouldn't consider 1800rpm "lugging". Where I run into trouble is when I go down to lower elevation with the smaller pulley: It'll hit a few psi boost at like 25% throttle on the highway in 6th gear, which is way lower than my PE is set to richen it up. In that case I end up downshifting to 5th just to get it below 0psi.

 

I got 3 mountains on my yearly trip from Michigan to South Carolina that annoy me. Twice a year I need another 60 or so HP to travel at a normal speed.

$8k for a SCer or $70k for a 3/4 ton truck that I will hate.

 

Yeah, I don't want to be on the other side to be honest. I have read what the 5.7 can handle and let's face it, it's not an LS engine that you can pic one up yesterday and be up and running again in no time. I wouldn't mind a pound or 2 of more boost. I will say compared to my previous MP112, where when I got it back from tuning I was like, that's it. I was expecting more. With the 1900 it's way different. The shitty rear end, is a shitty 1 wheel wonder, but damn it drags the tire and I have heavy ass BFG KO2 33's.

 

Jesus that monster turbo whistle just destroys all sound

 

That last line would seal the deal and erase doubts. I haven't looked at the 3/4 market but tough to beat a Toyota. Blower improves an already great platform.

 

I'm just messing with you. I've been down the engine swap road before...

 

Youll hate the initial charge but nothin but smiles afterward. Unless you run into issues like a few guys but theyre also trying to super mod

 

Looks like some Flintstones build with a giant ass turbo like the truck is going to tip over with it on one side.

 

Damn thats oh mean purr

 

Knock on wood, with all the engines I have done stuff too and raced, I have never blown an engine. Replaced a trans or 2 and a rear end.

 

How can you be soporiferous in this current climate of the thread? If anything, things have gotten rather obstreperous, downright vociferous. As to the meaning of your post, I think it’s not a huge problem but probably better for the engine to not. Isn’t high torque at low RPM hard on rods and bearings? I was seeing 2-3 psi on steep hills before at 1800-2200rpm in 5th/6th gear, but didn’t like that it was running a stoich AFR in those situations, so that had to be addressed with tuning to get it in the 12s during those scenarios.

 

Yeah im def gonna be gauge watching when I travel up to Oregon next month lmao. I dont think I even get close to our elevation after flag

 

Where you going when you’re here?

 

I replaced my trans after I installed the auburn lsd. It didn't like smoke shows and ripping around corners.

 

Keno. Just outside of klamath falls.
My family is there

 

Vociferous? Why, yes. Vehemently so…

So that’s something that does concern me - being hard on the rods - but I don’t know how justifiable my concerns are. Engines are more efficient at high load/low rpm. So if you are able sprinkle in some boost at lower rpm, you can increase the load without increasing rpm, which should net better efficiency.

BUT.. if you have to dip in to boost, I suppose you are putting more (excessive?) load on the rotating assembly. And you are putting more heat in to the cylinders. Since we are concerned with piston ring interference from heat buildup in the piston, we like to run the cylinder rich, but imagine PE hasn’t kicked in yet.

To counter the above, low rpm means less fuel per min is running through the cylinder, so the block and cooling system have more time to absorb and dissipate the heat compared to high rpm operation. So the excessive heat/no PE may be a moot point. Also, if the motor is loaded down with a comparatively steady rpm, timing and fueling should be theoretically easier for the ECM to monitor and adjust correctly. Perhaps this lessens the chance of detonation.

I’m reasoning with myself, not stating facts so please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect.

 

I might guess that there's some sort of bell curve where what your describing is ideal, but either side of that is of course less so. What you were saying got me to thinking about how fast coolant is circulating at a given RPM. Bell curve again, if the coolant is moving too slow, it wouldn't be removing the heat it has absorbed fast enough, and if it were circulating too fast, it wouldn't have enough time to absorb the heat it's there to remove. Finding the conditions where both are most effective is probably a never ending quest.

 

Or $9k for a semi