This is a discussion on Electric Supercharger? within the Forced Induction forums, part of the LSx Technical Help Section category; Has anyone heard of or used one on their car, or do you know someone who has? Its basically a ...
01-09-2012, 10:04 AM #1
Has anyone heard of or used one on their car, or do you know someone who has? Its basically a mini fan inside of a cone air filter that spins very quickly when you hit the throttle. Its kind of hard to explain so I'll post a link to the website that I found it on. Any input would help. Thanks.
Link: Electric Super Charger 2.5 PSI [ECharger] : Performance Chip - Car Performance Chips ECU Tuning Flash
01-09-2012, 10:20 AM #2
I've never used one but have heard people say that they do not build any compression to do any difference.
01-09-2012, 11:30 AM #3
Thats a bummer. This company posted "consumer reviews" and one guy said he gained 38 hp on his M3
01-09-2012, 12:13 PM #4
Save your money..
01-09-2012, 12:18 PM #5
iv heard of them but never seen one installed or used for me to witness i wouldn't waste your money!
01-09-2012, 12:27 PM #6
I looked into those before. From what Ive found an actual turbo spins somewhere around 100,000 rpm. There is no way possible for an electric fan to spin that fast. All they do is create a blockage in your intake. And then if the thing should happen to come apart youve got all sorts of debris in there. Not a good thing
01-09-2012, 01:09 PM #7
Look @ it this way..
There are lots of companies out there makeing these, and plenty of promo video for their so called gains etc.
Yet not one youtube (least none that I could find) video of any sort of dyno test of one in action..
But you can bet if you gave Joe Blow $100.00 bucks his car will make 1000hp with it installed...
01-09-2012, 01:45 PM #8
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
2001 3.8 Black - sold
- 2000 SS Black M6
i dunno, someone did the twin leafer blowers on their vette and had substantial gains, lol
01-10-2012, 06:05 AM #9
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Iowa City, Iowa
- 2006 Z06 LSX 427 TT Corve
Do they say how many lbs/min air flow it has? My turbos have 75 LBS/Min compared to my old turbos at 60 LBS/Min CHRA. That 15 lbs/min added airflow gave me another 105rwhp per turbo. The 60 lbs/min x two turbos supported 880rwhp and 900rwtq on a 427.
01-10-2012, 07:40 AM #10
Suggestion: If you are particularly irritated by another member's posting habits and are constantly fighting the urge to flame them, you can click on that person's profile, and select "Add to ignore list." This will make that person's posts invisible to you.
01-10-2012, 08:06 AM #11
Here check this out, it lays it out in reality..
S-Series.Org • View topic - The truth on Electric Superchargers
The truth on Electric Superchargers
by ircmaxell » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:12 am
Well, as you may have never seen advertized on e-bay, some people are claiming tremendous gains using electric superchargers
or at e-Racing :: OFFICIAL SITE :: The e-RAM Electric Supercharger from e-Racing Motorsports
Well, I am bored (it's 3am and I am at work with nada to do), so I decided to do some math... 2 and a half hours worth of math...
The boring stuff... But remember this for later....
a N/A 4.3L engine takes about 64.56 CFM per 1000 RPM at WOT(that's at an intake pressure of 25 inHg, giving 5 inHg to losses, which is pretty accurate). That's 322.8 CFM at 5000 RPM.
In order to achieve 0 vaccum (aka ZERO intake pressure, well actually atmospheric intake pressure), you would need to feed it about 74.66 CFM per 1000 RPM. or 373.3 CFM at 5000 RPM. that's literally 0 boost.
1 PSI boost : 81.1 CFM per 1k RPM, or 405.5 CFM
5 PSI boost : 106.94 CFM per 1k RPM, or 534.70 CFM
10 PSI boost : 132.4 CFM per 1k RPM, or 662.0 CFM
If I just stopped there, that E-turbo would seem like it works... heck, it says it puts out 900 CFM, right?
Well, right, 900 CFM at atmospheric pressure... That equates to 840 CFM at 1 PSI... 670 at 5 PSI... and 535 at 10 PSI
That's asuming a compressor designed SPECIFICLY for high flow high pressure applications, and is 100% efficent... but hey, let's assume that...
so for now, it seems like we should get 10+ PSI out of the thing up through 4k RPM, and then tapers back to somewheres around 7 or 8 psi
so far, not too shabby...
Now comes the fun part...
producing that airflow requires a lot of energy... 900 CFM = about 2605 Joules (3.5 HP, or 2605 watts) asuming a 100% efficent compressor, and a 100% efficent motor... 2605 Watts boils down to about 189 AMPS at 13.8v...
Hold on one second... Didn't the website say it only draws 700 watts and 55 amps??? and that 2605 watts and 189 amps assumes the impossible, a 100% efficent compressor (prob closer to 75%) and a 100% efficent motor (prob closer to 60%)... that combines to be about 4839 watts needed to produce this... 350 amps... in laymans terms, that's off from the 55 amps by a factor of 7...
Oh yeah, adding in to that inefficency, that brings our HP needed up to around 6.5 HP... (is that close enough to 1hp to be a negligable difference?)
Lets look at the reality of it
IF it is a 700 watt motor...
At 100% efficency, that's 243.97 CFM at 0 pressure...
Now let's refer way back to the CFM requirements of our engines...
243 CFM would give us atmospheric pressure untill 3k RPM, where it would become an absolute paracidic loss...
Now don't get me wrong, having atmospheric pressure in the engine would do wonders for volumetric efficencys, but nothing too significant... MABY 2% hp... but thats not the 10-15 HP they promise, nor the 1psi boost...
But wait... there is more... in the real world, compressors are inefficent, the whole system would prob only have an output energy around 450 watts or so given all the ineffiencies...
That gives about 156.83 CFM... at 0 pressure...
That would be enough to sustain our engine at atmospheric pressure untill. well, only untill 2000 RPM... After which would become a COMPLETELY paracidic loss...
HECK, that 156 cfm wouldn't even sustain the engine at no boost past 2500 RPM...
are you sold yet? Please feel free to inquire if you would like to know more details on the calculations...
The basic formulas I used
Everything else was just conversion factorrs...
(edited 04:12 EST)
Oh yeah, I forgot something
A motor turning that kind of power generates a lot of heat...
That would increase the charge air temp by a large amount...
Lets say 40 degrees from an intake temp of 70 degrees... (it's prob closer to 80 degree increase), not including the heat due to compression...
That brings our CFM down from 153 to 145... even lower...
So in summary
the claims are rediculous...
A. It does as it describes, but draws an insane amount of electricity to do it
B. It draws what it says in terms of current, but puts out next to NO CFM...
It's a sham, don't buy into it...
01-10-2012, 08:16 AM #12
I can provide more reality checks upon request..
01-10-2012, 01:53 PM #13
haha now i know exactly why you have the "TECH TEAM" logo lol nice work on putting that thing to shame... i knew from the first time i heard of one of these things back in 2007 i would have to see it to believe it and left it at that, but never took the time to put down the numbers.... Great job!
01-10-2012, 03:38 PM #14
01-10-2012, 03:43 PM #15
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Iowa City, Iowa
- 2006 Z06 LSX 427 TT Corve
I would need to convert the cfm to lbs/min to see what it really could support. The idea sounds like a sound idea but I don't think that fan can supply enought air to be of any help.
01-10-2012, 03:49 PM #16
01-10-2012, 04:02 PM #17
These have been around since the 90's from what I remember. Never seen one installed on a car, nor have I ever seen a video of one from a consumer.
Get yourself a Volant air intake system and you'll have a twin turbo set-up
01-10-2012, 04:03 PM #18
01-10-2012, 04:05 PM #19
01-10-2012, 04:07 PM #20
I was just talking to a fellow co-worker who is also a car guy just today about that infamous X-pipe E-bay ad. Probably one of the funniest things I've ever read/saw in my life.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)