Can my motor handle a procharger?

[nitrorocket]

My car is plenty responsive with 8:1???? A 6 cylinder might nedd the added compression, but not a stout V-8.

[3kidsnotime]

The least expensive part of a supercharged engine is the shortblock! All the money is what you put on top of it, If your engine runs good, Id leave it in the car and enjoy it while it still drives, You will be happy in the long run, Id build another short block and have everything ready, then do the switch and you have a good selling engine or short block if you use your heads, Go with a quality piston I would not use a heavy speed pro or trw they are quite weak the oil ring groove is slotted from side to side for the oil return, and they really dont like alot of cyl psi, For economy if thats where your at SRP has quite a good selection of off shelf piston as well as Probe keep static around 9.0 to 9.25 with aluminum heads on a centrifugal type supercharger, Youll need to figure your compression height to figure it out, Also a good thing to do is on the bottom of the cyl bore take a cartridge roll and run a slight radius on it This will help the oil from not being scraped off the piston, and fresh machine work from not cutting the skirts, Also go with a gapless second ring, Standard low friction rings rotate in the cylinder and if the gaps get about .250 alighn You will get a cutting torch effect and thats not good, Good luck on the project Jeff

[camcojb]

Originally Posted by 3kidsnotime

The least expensive part of a supercharged engine is the shortblock! All the money is what you put on top of it, If your engine runs good, Id leave it in the car and enjoy it while it still drives, You will be happy in the long run, Id build another short block and have everything ready, then do the switch and you have a good selling engine or short block if you use your heads, Go with a quality piston I would not use a heavy speed pro or trw they are quite weak the oil ring groove is slotted from side to side for the oil return, and they really dont like alot of cyl psi, For economy if thats where your at SRP has quite a good selection of off shelf piston as well as Probe keep static around 9.0 to 9.25 with aluminum heads on a centrifugal type supercharger, Youll need to figure your compression height to figure it out, Also a good thing to do is on the bottom of the cyl bore take a cartridge roll and run a slight radius on it This will help the oil from not being scraped off the piston, and fresh machine work from not cutting the skirts, Also go with a gapless second ring, Standard low friction rings rotate in the cylinder and if the gaps get about .250 alighn You will get a cutting torch effect and thats not good, Good luck on the project Jeff

I would not use a gapless second ring. Worst thing I've ever done is to try them, they use oil, smoke, etc. I have not tried the gapless top rings and have heard they're better, but do a search on Total Seal gapless rings on most car sites and you'll get a ton of negative reviews.

Jody

[3kidsnotime]

I have pulled a few engines down that they were installed upside down, And had major problems, I owned performance marine for 10 years and built an average of 200-250 supercharged engines a year and the last 7-8 years they are all we would use. I have seen a far cry more problems with a low friction ring. Im also wondering How a gapless second ring is affecting the job of the oil ring No oil should ever pass on the second ring, If the oil ring was doing its job??????

[camcojb]

Originally Posted by 3kidsnotime

I have pulled a few engines down that they were installed upside down, And had major problems, I owned performance marine for 10 years and built an average of 200-250 supercharged engines a year and the last 7-8 years they are all we would use. I have seen a far cry more problems with a low friction ring. Im also wondering How a gapless second ring is affecting the job of the oil ring No oil should ever pass on the second ring, If the oil ring was doing its job??????

Like I said, do a search. Try Chevelles.com, Camaros.net., LS1Tech, etc. It is well documented. Could be for the same reason that they now put a bigger gap on the second ring than the top ring for improved sealing; maybe sealing the second ring is an issue, it's opposite of what the new ring gaps do.

I do not know why, but I know of several engine builders who used to use them, and do not anymore. I tried 4 times with pro shops doing the finish, etc. as per Total Seals specs, and they all smoked and all used oil. I went to the simple Speed Pro plasma file fits and ended all issues.

Jody

[camcojb]

here's one from a quick search:


Here is something I have posted before so it's easier to just copy it

I do not use or recommend gapless rings at all any more.
As for the Total Seal ones, every engine I have ever taken apart that had them had at least one & usually more of the gaps lined up.
Almost every performance engine builder I know advises against them.
I advise against them.
I have seen absolutely no gains except for the static leakdown numbers which don't tell you crap about what's going on under a load at RPM.
I have personally seen more crankcase pressure (blowby) at higher RPM's in the same basic engines with the 2nd gapless rings.
When you read magazine articles citing great gains with the newest widget try to remember who is paying for the article or the advertising in the magazine.
I use 004-.0045 top & ..005-.0055 second gaps on most performance engines except for KB's which I use very rarely.
Even the OEM's are going to larger 2nd ring end gaps & most major ring manufacturers are recommending a wider gap also.
Just a few of my thoughts on crapless 2nd rings

I have not used the top gapless rings so I can't comment except to say that at temperature you have almost no gap with standard rings.
__________________
Mike (Wolfplace)
VISIT US AT
Lewis Racing Engines
++Now offering full 4axis CNC block machining++
================================
"Life is tough.,, Life is even tougher if you're stupid."

-----John Wayne-----

[3kidsnotime]

O well im new here and to each thier own thats what makes this world great, And just learing I guess we all are, If I did it correctly I inclosed a pic of one of my engines just off the dyno and the one in the back ground is going on in a few days, They each have those rings TSI TR9190 they are 4.505 5 over and untill I have problems with them Ill keep using them, Thanks

[camcojb]

Originally Posted by 3kidsnotime

O well im new here and to each thier own thats what makes this world great, And just learing I guess we all are, If I did it correctly I inclosed a pic of one of my engines just off the dyno and the one in the back ground is going on in a few days, They each have those rings TSI TR9190 they are 4.505 5 over and untill I have problems with them Ill keep using them, Thanks

I agree, if they work for you then keep using them. I've tried 4 times without success, and read many engine builders saying the same, so when I see a post about those rings I "jump in"!

Jody

[3kidsnotime]

here's a couple of pics:

[tracy]

Originally Posted by Blown353

8:1 is too low and outside the efficiency range for a centrifugal IMO. I'm running about 9.2:1 on 91 octane, non-intercooled for now (water injection though) with 15 psi of boost through an intake that flows 305 per port and heads that flow 290/220 @ .600 (and have very good midlift flow and a very good I/E ratio across the board)-- so that 15psi of boost doesn't mean I'm trying to shove too much air through crappy heads/intake.

.

Blown, I am interested in hearing about your experiences with the water injection. I just don't see too many people on here that talk about using this type of setup.