They were big with the 4 cylinder guys. Please take all of this as "for
what its worth", as my info is about 8-12 months old (haven't owned a
rice burner in a while) and a lot of these things may have changed:
* Need an alternator of being able to sustain an 80amp load
* The units "cycled", rather than being continuous. If I remember
correctly the maximum "on" time was something like 30-40 seconds
* Operated via a "switch", sorta-kinda like NOS, rather than being "on"
all the time
* Produced 3-4lbs of boost max
* At the time were available for engines up to 3 liters. Didn't have
enough air flow for larger displacements.
Like I mentioned before, this info is old so they may have greatly
improved the product since I last checked...
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Tufts [mailto:rbt@frontiernet.net]
Sent: March 9, 1998 1:50 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: Nitrous VS Superchargers.
FRom Ron:
>>>>>>>>
FWIW, the blower on that Interceptor in the Mad Max movies was not
functional. It was a shell for looks only.
Although that begs the question as far as what the driveability and
performance impacts would be with a disengageable supercharger. Wonder
if
anybody has used an electromagnetic clutch to find out? I have a
feeling that
a freewheeling Roots-type blower would be mighty disruptive to the
intake
system, negating any advantages derived from the ability to disconnect
it.
Ron
>>>>>>>>>
On a related note: This weekend on (Hot Rod?) TV I saw an electric
powered
blower advertised (reminds me of the leaf-blower experiments). Does
anyone
know how good this electric blower is (I don't think they claimed that
much
boost)?
-Bob T. '98 CC V8 Sport+ 4X4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:21 EDT