The comparison plot was only to show the difference in the way the power is applied by different FI methods.
I want a N/A because thats what i like. After owning 2 turbos in my life the Rotrex really still is a N/A the way the power is applied, but makes it feel as if there are a couple more pistons.
Yes its not fair to compare cars as the weights are different but the engine alone its more than the other stock 4 cylinder turbos.
Then factor in lighter car and it would be faster, but then factor in a modified 4 cylinder turbo and it would probably be more.
No point in chasing numbers. There will always be someone , faster, dearer, better etc.
This is a street car, plenty fast and most of all drives like a N/A

your max torque is more like 470 NM rather than 288 NM. Ive never looked at a boost curve for a supercharger before, very different from a turbo in the delivery. the comparison dyno sheet is a good idea

Sounds good!

Wow, thats a very linear power curve, nice work!!

Its interesting how your setup seems to be more efficient than the turbo, ie it generally makes more torque (and hence power) at smaller boost levels.

On a side note, I thought you cant get torque figures (at the engine) on a chassis dyno, as its just measuring the torque at the wheels? I guess you could work it back if you knew the exact gear ratios and tyre diameters.

Cheers

The boost curve on that turbo is terrible too, it hits 15psi then slowly drops back to 11psi as the revs build. If it held 15psi it'd be a much better comparison, and the turbo would probably end up with more area under the torque curve.

You're right Arty, the flywheel torque can only be calculated with knowledge of ratios, tyre rolling radius, and linear force measured by the dyno. The only torque the dyno can report directly in the absence of this info is the braking torque it's applying to its rollers.

well coming from an NA, and loving it, i have to say that this would be exactly what he wanted.
"i want this car, but with a bit more power" or "double the power" in his case.

i'm a bit jealous that i will never get to experience this car.

so it DOES have more than 288nm, as i said ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_ken

so it DOES have more than 288nm, as i said ?

---

Yeah I'm a bit puzzled too, in the last image it says max 288 Nm, but the plot shows a max of almost 500 Nm. Care to enlighten us Mandalay?
BTW those a impressive results regardless!

Once i have it all together it will get to the track once only to record times.
Then all ill be doing is enjoying her and fine tuning.

If anyone has a dyno plot i would love to see it. Especially from Melbourne Performance as it is the same dyno

quote:

---

Originally posted by robk

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_ken

so it DOES have more than 288nm, as i said ?

---

Yeah I'm a bit puzzled too, in the last image it says max 288 Nm, but the plot shows a max of almost 500 Nm. Care to enlighten us Mandalay?
BTW those a impressive results regardless!

---

to have that large KW figure (very nice result), im in disblief it would have just 288nm of torque... (torque and kw are related) so surely this is a different way to measure torque maybe? ... like 288... if you told me this had 338nm, i would still not believe you.

im really interested to know more about the way it was measured and formulas etc.

i would think this would have a good 400nm or so.

fcuk i want this car so badly, its just pure awesome.