Historically roots superchargers have been used to take big-inch V-8s to the next level of performance. And in recent years automakers have jumped on the bandwagon with the increased use of roots blowers on factory hot rods and muscle cars, such as the 2003-2004 Mustang Cobra SVT, current Shelby GT500, Corvette ZR1, Cadillac CTS-V and upcoming Camaro ZL1. One supercharger company wants to buck that trend. Eaton Corp. wants OEMs to use its new line of superchargers on small-displacement engines. But can they compete with the popularity of turbochargers on smaller engines?
Due to tightening CAFE rules, environmental concerns and the upward swing of gas prices over the last decade OEMs have been downsizing power plants in more pedestrian models. To eradicate any power deficits auto manufacturers have combined direct-injection and turbochargers (i.e. Ford EcoBoost) to provide increased power (or to match the power of the older, larger engines) and increased fuel efficiency.
Eaton, supplier of Roots-type superchargers to Ford and GM (as well as Audi and Nissan), wants a piece of the OEM small engine pie. President of Eaton’s vehicle group, Ken Davis says his company can help automakers with their engine downsizing, because its new supercharger can increase the performance of small engines.
Eaton would like to double its supercharger business over the next five years according to Davis, who went on to say that they “are [diversifying] from high-horsepower vehicles into smaller engines. The trend is toward downsizing powertrains and providing better fuel economy.”
Some critics believe that turbochargers are more efficient than superchargers (superchargers suffer from parasitic losses because they are spun by the engine crankshaft, as opposed to the exhaust gas-driven turbine in a turbocharger). Davis disagrees, citing immediate response as an equalizer.
“Turbocharger manufacturers will talk about engine downsizing, but they don’t talk about “downspeeding.” And that’s where we are effective because we can deliver air to the engine immediately,” said Davis, who believes that a roots supercharger, combined with an ECU programmed to operate at low rpms, provides immediate throttle response, something that a turbocharger may not be able to deliver. Lower engine rpms help reduce fuel use. Roots superchargers have also been credited for increased fuel economy under cruise.
Is Eaton’s case good enough to convince OEMs to use superchargers on small fuel-efficient engines? Do you agree with the assertion that the instant boost response of the Roots supercharger makes up for the parasitic losses? Would having more low end torque and thereby requiring less revs contribute to less fuel consumption? Would you prefer OEMs to stick with turbochargers? Or would you like to have supercharged small four-cylinder options in the marketplace? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
I found this on motortrend. I wanted to see what the SVTP people thought?
:beer:
Due to tightening CAFE rules, environmental concerns and the upward swing of gas prices over the last decade OEMs have been downsizing power plants in more pedestrian models. To eradicate any power deficits auto manufacturers have combined direct-injection and turbochargers (i.e. Ford EcoBoost) to provide increased power (or to match the power of the older, larger engines) and increased fuel efficiency.
Eaton, supplier of Roots-type superchargers to Ford and GM (as well as Audi and Nissan), wants a piece of the OEM small engine pie. President of Eaton’s vehicle group, Ken Davis says his company can help automakers with their engine downsizing, because its new supercharger can increase the performance of small engines.
Eaton would like to double its supercharger business over the next five years according to Davis, who went on to say that they “are [diversifying] from high-horsepower vehicles into smaller engines. The trend is toward downsizing powertrains and providing better fuel economy.”
Some critics believe that turbochargers are more efficient than superchargers (superchargers suffer from parasitic losses because they are spun by the engine crankshaft, as opposed to the exhaust gas-driven turbine in a turbocharger). Davis disagrees, citing immediate response as an equalizer.
“Turbocharger manufacturers will talk about engine downsizing, but they don’t talk about “downspeeding.” And that’s where we are effective because we can deliver air to the engine immediately,” said Davis, who believes that a roots supercharger, combined with an ECU programmed to operate at low rpms, provides immediate throttle response, something that a turbocharger may not be able to deliver. Lower engine rpms help reduce fuel use. Roots superchargers have also been credited for increased fuel economy under cruise.
Is Eaton’s case good enough to convince OEMs to use superchargers on small fuel-efficient engines? Do you agree with the assertion that the instant boost response of the Roots supercharger makes up for the parasitic losses? Would having more low end torque and thereby requiring less revs contribute to less fuel consumption? Would you prefer OEMs to stick with turbochargers? Or would you like to have supercharged small four-cylinder options in the marketplace? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
I found this on motortrend. I wanted to see what the SVTP people thought?
:beer:
