yeah i know what you meen matty, but i am just going by assuming that GM and Toyota have tuned their SC's for the optimal performance on their stock engines. (not over doing it, not under doing it)

 

I agree with matty here. the 2az is a great powerplant for the tC. the 2.4 l is nice. It just needs some performance tuning.

 

Excellent point Break Away. Same for me. If I wanted a racecar I would not use the tC as a platform to start with. It does look nice, I will be completely happy being faster than the 80% of non modded tC's and retaining a warranteed vehicle that I wont have to reconfigure back again for smog inspections.
Well, if it seeems steep in H.P./$ ratio to most people, less people will have it on the streets. Good for me!!

 

Nothing to do with supercharger efficiency. Its your logic is flawed. Air doesnt make power, fuel does.

--
Cheese

 

I have to differ with you you there. Air is the limiting factor. You get as much air in the engine as possible and then match the fuel to the air. If the supercharger/turbo is inefficient it heats the air up more. If the air is hotter, it is less dense and has less molecules of oxygen for a given volume. Less molecules of oxygen means less fuel which means less power. So you can have two superchargers running the same boost on the same engine(but not at the same time of course), the one that is more thermally efficient will make more power, all other things being equal.

 

Limiting factor or not, air doesnt make power. Increasing your quantity of air 100% does not make 100% more power. All the energy is in the fuel. Think about A/F ratio and it should be obvious why there is no direct correlation.

The gains of higher thermal (adiabatic) efficiency has a lot more to do with ignition timing than charge density but thats another discussion for another day

 

Actually, I would say think about AF ratio and it should be apparent why there is a direct correlation. I am sure it is never exactly 50% more air equaling exactly 50% more power, but I am sure it is not far off if you do everything right. If you don't do it right, I am sure that you can come up with an example where you get less power than air. I would like too see someone get much more than 50% more power out of 50% more oxygen (assuming of course the engine was set up reasonably to begin with)Now of course the fuel contains most of the energy involved, but nothing happens with out the appropriate amount of accompanying oxygen. So if that is true, how can you make more power just by adding more fuel? If it is not true you need to rewrite the chemistry/physics text books so they quit spreading untruths at all the universities.

And if the major benefit to lowering intake charge temp is ignition timing based, than you don't need intercoolers. You can just upgrade from pumpgas to racegas and get the same benefit.

 

Too much techie stuff for me...When is this thing coming out....already..

 

amen to that!

 

this topic was made in july "next 2 weeks"

 

Oh come on, it's all highschool level stoichiometry. Not even - highschool is wayy harder than this.

A/F ratio is how much air burned per unit of fuel. A/F is definitely proportional to amount of power gained - that is not to say that running a higher A/F = more power.

To get more power, you'd add more air. The ECU will compensate with more fuel keeping the ratio the same. The ratio stays the same but the unsimplified cooefficients will be higher.

For instance:

10 air + 1 fuel = 10:1 a/f and makes 30 hp.
with boost
20 air + 2 fuel = 10:1 a/f and makes ~60hp.

See? Simple.

The ECU will always at least try to compensate for higher airflow with more fuel.

Chuck47, disgruntled highschool student, now are we?

 

Amen to that!

 

Fuel contains all of the energy involved. Oxygen is only there to support combustion.

I never once said that its possible to add fuel without oxygen and make power. You make more power by burning fuel more completely. The energy is entirely in the fuel and wasted fuel is wasted energy.

Intercoolers reduce charge temperature and allow for more agressive timing. The hot intake charge of a non intercooled forced induction application tends to knock because of the temperature and therefor limits the advance of the timing.

 

^^ That is not the sole purpose of intercooling. In a FI system, the idea is not to simply create a higher pressure in the cylinder, it is to create a more dense charge. Cooler air is more dense that hot air. So by intercooling you are packing more molecules of oxygen in your system, meaning you can burn more fuel and create more power. Without intercooling you are raising pressures, but losing some of the advantages due to forcing a less dense charge in.

 

Good explanation. And that logic, mixed with a few reductions to compensate for real world operation have been used by many to guestimate the power increase for a FI system. It by no means is a way to design your system, but comes close enough to get an idea.

 

I don't know what other inference I am supposed to make when you say that supercharger efficiency has nothing to do with it, air doesn't make power and fuel does, and that what Dante said had flawed logic. What Dante said was not entirely realistic(100% efficiecency) and he was not subtracting power to drive the supercharger, but as far as the air thing he is right. You seem to be operating on the principle that the combustion efficiency and or peak combustion pressure timing has to get worse with the addition of the SC. I don't see that it is a given. It very well could get worse, but we have no way of predicting that. But why would they run so much boost than the available fuel could not support it with out retarding the timing so much that it beomes detrimental. And even if they did, his logic is not flawed, TRD is being held back by an artificial constraint(commonly available fuel), the principal is still true. If you add oxygen and maintain the combustion efficiency, you will make more power in direct relation to the added oxygen. You won't see all of that power on the dyno of course, as the supercharger take some amount of power to run, but that is a question of net power versus gross power .

 

I saw a representitive of Scion on television yesterday talking about the SC being released this summer, its now mid august. i woner if there is any truth to that. hope so. also to address above, turbos do NOT void your warrenty unless the problem in question was directly caused by the turbo.

 

you can blame a turbo for almost any engine malfunction, so yes, a turbo most likly will void your warranty on the engine

 

yes all they have to say is that you were running too high of boost, over the stock system, and what are you going to do about it? say no, then the only way to fight them is to take it to court then after legal charges you owe more than what it would have costed you to get a new car...

so yes turbos void your warrantee

 

ok so getting back on topic. I went to my local scion/toyota dealer on saturday and was looking at tC's (still havnt gotten one) and i asked the dealer if he had any info on the supercharger. He told me somewhere from 210-215hp not sure if thats at the wheels or crank but he also told me around $2500 installed, but didnt have any dates. I know the price seems way lower than what everyone is saying and thats a good thing if its true, if not dont shoot the messenger im just saying what he told me.