Hellion Street Sleeper VS. Twin screw dyno!

[Torinate]

Real world example - Turbo car left lane making 2 psi less then my supercharged car in the right lane. Turbo car trap’d 151mph & some change that day to my best of 147 mph. Same fuel and all other variables very similar. Turbo car makes mo PWR with less boost - end of thread.

great you said this, this is what i was taught a long time ago.

Your lungs would just be a blower and not a compressor. A turbo physically compresses the air as it passes through it. It isn't just merely moving it from one place to another like your lungs would. A roots style supercharger has no internal compression much like your lungs. Any compression that takes place is within the manifold or engine itself. If we take 2 different sized roots superchargers and installed them on an engine, if we had 10 psi with both, we'd also have the same flow with both. 1PSI = 1LB force per square inch (not Pounds of air per square inch!) - think about it, a square inch is a unit of area, not volume. 10 PSI = ten pound of force exerted exerted on every square inch of internal surface area of the intake manifold and intake ports = says nothing about how much air is in the intake/engine ( if it did it would be per cubic inch) just how much force the air is exerting as it gets force fed from the turbo's compressor.

Wow. Ok.

There are 100 reasons why the turbo car trapped 4 mph more. Is that 370 hp worth though? Maybe a turbo car does make more total power through a quarter mile pass. Look at power and boost at shift points etc. and drop off. Average power at all the rpm used in the run averaged out. Not disputing that. In your example, if the turbo car made 750 hp to your 800 hp peak and he beat you, makes complete sense. If he’s dropping to 4500 at shift but still has an available 600 Hp there and you’re dropping to 4500 at shift but “only” make 500 there, he will have the higher average hp even though your peak is higher.

Next. A turbo DOES NOT compress air inside it! Neither does a centrifugal blower or a roots blower. They compress air in the intake stream and rely on the spinning nature of the impeller to create the boost in the intake tract. A twin screw does though. It compresses inside the housing itself. The turbo cold side is very very similar (not exact though) as the centrifugal blower. Instead though, the turbo uses wxhaist gases to spin the impeller and a centrifugal uses a belt to spin it.

Sponsored

 

[Torinate]

Again. Not trying to be a goof at all.

I am not partial to either. I plan to add FI this winter. I’m just looking for the best fit for me. In Ontario, I’m easily looking at 10k for the cheapest supercharger and close to 15 for a really nice turbo set up. Yea, I know, how come right? Well, 32% on every Canadian dollar to American dollar. So for every dollar US I spend, it’s now 1.32. The. Import fees if any. Duty if I have to pay. Not cheap to play.

Honestly, this is a challenge to find the right mode of FI. There’s so many awesome choices...

 

[HELLION TURBO]

SAE correction factor inflates turbo numbers at high altitudes. The topic has been discussed previously...

Hello.

The comparison above was done on the same dyno in the same conditions. The correction factor does not affect the comparison between power adders.

The correction factor does not inflate any numbers, it corrects, and when taken to a lower elevation the same numbers will be seen. That is the reason we use the correction factor when comparing runs from around the world.

High altitude or low, a twin turbo combo will out run anything on the road

Team Hellion

 

[gixxersixxerman]

Next. A turbo DOES NOT compress air inside it! Neither does a centrifugal blower or a roots blower. They compress air in the intake stream and rely on the spinning nature of the impeller to create the boost in the intake tract. A twin screw does though. It compresses inside the housing itself. The turbo cold side is very very similar (not exact though) as the centrifugal blower. Instead though, the turbo uses wxhaist gases to spin the impeller and a centrifugal uses a belt to spin it.

this is what was posted on a old forum ages ago.. RX7 forum i believe. always figured it to be correct. So if its not im wrong there, but still the bigger turbo on my car made more power then the smaller turbo at the same boost because one flowed more air into the engine. Ill pull my logs and show the airflow for the same pressure. ones quite a bit higher.

 

[gixxersixxerman]

Again. Not trying to be a goof at all.



Honestly, this is a challenge to find the right mode of FI. There’s so many awesome choices...

ive been researching also, every time i feel pretty set on one option, something like this comes up and makes me second guess.

 

[lxh89]

Hello.

The comparison above was done on the same dyno in the same conditions. The correction factor does not affect the comparison between power adders.

The correction factor does not inflate any numbers, it corrects, and when taken to a lower elevation the same numbers will be seen. That is the reason we use the correction factor when comparing runs from around the world.

High altitude or low, a twin turbo combo will out run anything on the road

Team Hellion

Sorry but that's misinformation. Take a look at the SAE J1349 standard:

http://www.mie.uth.gr/ekp_yliko/SAE_ΔΥΝΑΜΟΜΕΤΡΗΣΗ_ΜΕΚ.pdf

Section 5.5.2 On any engine where the power output is automatically controlled to compensate for changes in one or more of the listed inlet air and fuel supply test conditions, no correction for that test parameter shall be made. For example, boosted engines with absolute pressure controls shall not be corrected for ambient barometric pressure.

That last sentence is referring to a waste gate turbo system. The numbers you are quoting are inflated.

 

[HELLION TURBO]

Sorry but that's misinformation. Take a look at the SAE J1349 standard:

http://www.mie.uth.gr/ekp_yliko/SAE_ΔΥΝΑΜΟΜΕΤΡΗΣΗ_ΜΕΚ.pdf

Section 5.5.2 On any engine where the power output is automatically controlled to compensate for changes in one or more of the listed inlet air and fuel supply test conditions, no correction for that test parameter shall be made. For example, boosted engines with absolute pressure controls shall not be corrected for ambient barometric pressure.

That last sentence is referring to a waste gate turbo system. The numbers you are quoting are inflated.

No misinformation here.

We are comparing two systems on the same dyno, same conditions, same PSI seen at the engine manifold. A switch from a belt driven supercharger to a twin turbo kit gained 370 hp on this dyno at the same boost level.

The SAE paper you quote is used for OEM manufacturers to compare their engines for OE applications. These testing procedures are done to set consistent testing of OEM engines for comparison by a 3rd party and have set parameters before the test begins. They do not take into consideration having less than 90 kpa ambient pressure, and have many more baseline parameters that are not available to normal chassis dynos. The paper refers to this type of testing as non-standard. We test outside those parameters so we rely on the correction from the chassis dyno software. That software has been correct and reliable for our purposes in referencing our systems. If we were testing to meet SAE J1349, we would need to meet those test cell requirements, and from our real world testing the results would be the same.

We have tested hundreds of vehicles on dynos all over the world and they are spot on when it comes to comparing our systems, hence why we use dynamometers.

Bottom line, and to escape semantics, a twin turbo is very efficient and doesn't lose as much power through its drive mechanism as a supercharger.


Team Hellion

 

[Torinate]

There’s no

No misinformation here.

We are comparing two systems on the same dyno, same conditions, same PSI seen at the engine manifold. A switch from a belt driven supercharger to a twin turbo kit gained 370 hp on this dyno at the same boost level.

The SAE paper you quote is used for OEM manufacturers to compare their engines for OE applications. These testing procedures are done to set consistent testing of OEM engines for comparison by a 3rd party and have set parameters before the test begins. They do not take into consideration having less than 90 kpa ambient pressure, and have many more baseline parameters that are not available to normal chassis dynos. The paper refers to this type of testing as non-standard. We test outside those parameters so we rely on the correction from the chassis dyno software. That software has been correct and reliable for our purposes in referencing our systems. If we were testing to meet SAE J1349, we would need to meet those test cell requirements, and from our real world testing the results would be the same.

We have tested hundreds of vehicles on dynos all over the world and they are spot on when it comes to comparing our systems, hence why we use dynamometers.

Bottom line, and to escape semantics, a twin turbo is very efficient and doesn't lose as much power through its drive mechanism as a supercharger.


There’s no question twin turbos are efficient. Not disputing any of the horsepower numbers at all. Except of course, how does the turbo make 370 MORE horsepower than a supercharger at the same boost level on the same car in the same conditions? If these were 2000+ hp machines it’s certainly plausible and makes complete sense. However, these are not those. I can certainly see a difference caused by the loss of HP from spinning the blower and “maybe” IATs, but nowhere near 370 HP! If that was absolutely true, one could surmise the blowers make an absurdly amount of hp to be able to just lose 370 hp and yet still make more than 200 hp more than no blower at all! Perhaps one of the other blower companies will step in and give a realistic idea of actual horsepower loss from driving the blower.

Take a 400 whp car and add a blower. Now you have a 650 whp car. So the blower would theoretically have to increase the power to 1020 to be left with that 650 whp number after driving losses. No offence to the supercharger companies if this is correct, but man if it’s true, they will need to rethink their drive system to reduce some of those losses.

Procharger Tech or Paxton or Whipple or Edelbrock out here to give us an idea of actual losses?

My concern is not the actual hp number of the car, just that 370 hp difference. Same car same boost etc. My take is that something was amiss. The turbo car even had less timing...

 

[lxh89]

No misinformation here.

We are comparing two systems on the same dyno, same conditions, same PSI seen at the engine manifold. A switch from a belt driven supercharger to a twin turbo kit gained 370 hp on this dyno at the same boost level.

The SAE paper you quote is used for OEM manufacturers to compare their engines for OE applications. These testing procedures are done to set consistent testing of OEM engines for comparison by a 3rd party and have set parameters before the test begins. They do not take into consideration having less than 90 kpa ambient pressure, and have many more baseline parameters that are not available to normal chassis dynos. The paper refers to this type of testing as non-standard. We test outside those parameters so we rely on the correction from the chassis dyno software. That software has been correct and reliable for our purposes in referencing our systems. If we were testing to meet SAE J1349, we would need to meet those test cell requirements, and from our real world testing the results would be the same.

We have tested hundreds of vehicles on dynos all over the world and they are spot on when it comes to comparing our systems, hence why we use dynamometers.

Bottom line, and to escape semantics, a twin turbo is very efficient and doesn't lose as much power through its drive mechanism as a supercharger.


Team Hellion

Yes your turbo dyno numbers are consistent but still wrong. You need to use non corrected numbers for comparison if you want apples to apples.

Your dynojet dealer will confirm this if you dont believe me.

Tony

 

[HELLION TURBO]

Yes your turbo dyno numbers are consistent but still wrong. You need to use non corrected numbers for comparison if you want apples to apples.

Your dynojet dealer will confirm this if you dont believe me.

Tony

Tony,

Looks like the only thing we agree on is to disagree.

We have been in business since 2004 and have had thousands of customers dyno all over the world. They have proven our product and it has shown with dyno numbers as well as runs at the track.

We will bring closure to this issue with the confidence and integrity to say that all of our data is truthful and repeatable no matter where you are located.

Have a great weekend,

Team Hellion

 

[Torinate]

Ok. I’ll tell you what.

I will purchase both the supercharger and turbo kit. You or a shop can do the install of the supercharger and turbos. We will do a dyno with tuning on the blower. Then, remove the blower and install the turbo. I’ll pay for the blower regardless. But if the turbo doesn’t make the 370 whp more, I get it and the installation free. If it does, I’ll gladly pay for the kit and installation! I’d like the top mount with the upgraded turbos if that’s possible. It will be a true no changes comparison. I’m in Ontario but would bring the car to the states to do it.

For me, the initial cash outlay would be like 25 k. Fortunately, I have the means to do it. But, I stand to get the turbos free and then would sell the blower “used”. So when everything is said and done, I would (hopefully) have a twin turbo for the cost of installing a supercharger and the amount of difference between a new and used only once blower.

Honestly, I’m game if you are! In the end, I would end up with a twin turbo beast for a fraction of the cost!

Of course, if the car did make the 370 whp difference, well, I’d be ecstatic! I’d still sell the blower but the turbo would end up costing me the cost of the turbo, installation and the cost of the blower installation and depreciation. But I would end up with a car making 370 more whp than a blower car.

Did I miss anything or does this sound fair?

Honestly. PM your thoughts. We both stand to win!!! I’m sure over the winter there will shops (Beef maybe? Lidio of whom I completely trust). I was reatly going to do the install myself, but I have more to gain this way.

Again. Not trying to be a goof, but just proposing a business deal.

I know your stuff and reputation and both are excellent! Your products are top notch, systems I would spend my money on for sure. If you were a different turbo company, I would not make this proposition at all as I wouldn’t be interested in putting them on my car.

What do you think?

There’s lots of reasons this may not work out. But there’s also lots of reasons it could!

 

[Black Dog]

SAE correction factor inflates turbo numbers at high altitudes. The topic has been discussed previously...

This!!

 

[Black Dog]

I would like to say the guys at Hellion are nice guys. And thanks for giving us guys other F/I options. We all will never agree. Some are smarter than others. I am not the smartest. But I will argue that I am not the dumbest.

 

[Mike5876]

Ok. I’ll tell you what.

I will purchase both the supercharger and turbo kit. You or a shop can do the install of the supercharger and turbos. We will do a dyno with tuning on the blower. Then, remove the blower and install the turbo. I’ll pay for the blower regardless. But if the turbo doesn’t make the 370 whp more, I get it and the installation free. If it does, I’ll gladly pay for the kit and installation! I’d like the top mount with the upgraded turbos if that’s possible. It will be a true no changes comparison. I’m in Ontario but would bring the car to the states to do it.

For me, the initial cash outlay would be like 25 k. Fortunately, I have the means to do it. But, I stand to get the turbos free and then would sell the blower “used”. So when everything is said and done, I would (hopefully) have a twin turbo for the cost of installing a supercharger and the amount of difference between a new and used only once blower.

Honestly, I’m game if you are! In the end, I would end up with a twin turbo beast for a fraction of the cost!

Of course, if the car did make the 370 whp difference, well, I’d be ecstatic! I’d still sell the blower but the turbo would end up costing me the cost of the turbo, installation and the cost of the blower installation and depreciation. But I would end up with a car making 370 more whp than a blower car.

Did I miss anything or does this sound fair?

Honestly. PM your thoughts. We both stand to win!!! I’m sure over the winter there will shops (Beef maybe? Lidio of whom I completely trust). I was reatly going to do the install myself, but I have more to gain this way.

Again. Not trying to be a goof, but just proposing a business deal.

I know your stuff and reputation and both are excellent! Your products are top notch, systems I would spend my money on for sure. If you were a different turbo company, I would not make this proposition at all as I wouldn’t be interested in putting them on my car.

What do you think?

There’s lots of reasons this may not work out. But there’s also lots of reasons it could!

I think your idea is great but how about if the car makes 370 more hp....you have to give the blower to Hellion and then they can sell it to someone....lets make it a win / win situation!

 

[sdiver68]

OP in this thread does a nice job of explaining why correction factors should not be used with forced induction.

https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=873912

Seems pretty clear. When SAE, Dynojet themselves, and honestly anyone with knowledge of the engineering principles involved states these correction factors are wrong then I'll go with that. Correction factors are based on temperature and pressure. A FI engine kit has both an intercooler to change temperature and a device specifically engineered to alter pressure.

Having said that, Hellion is very much in the running for my FI choice. I dont blame them for the marketing. Regardless of dyno bench racing, I want a high quality kit with the right set of pros/cons vs the competition.

Sponsored