On Thu, 23 Sep 1999 11:52:55 -0700
Bj�rn Ratjen <bratjen@direct.ca> wrote:

> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Ratjen <bratjen@direct.ca>
>
> Hello Volks,
>
> Joel Walker and I have been tossing around the idea of using a Kompressor
> (supercharger) instead of a turbo for a Diesel engine. This basically would
> mean that a belt driven fan pushes cold air towards the combustion process
> instead of using the preheated one from an exhaust driven turbocharger.
>
> Here is a new question for connaisseurs:
> Who knows details of a possible setup for this and the pros and cons?
>
> The Kompressor (supercharger) setup may use a bit more energy, however that
> should not matter that much. What about the amount of air pressure though
> and how to regulate it?
>
> Bj�rn
>

Volkswagen beat ya to this experiment.

I have a SAE book here about VW's diesel technologies, and one of the
sections is about different turbos and superchargers.

VW went with a turbo for a couple of reasons. The superchargers were
less effient, they produced much more heat at similar PSI ratings. Also
the parasitic drag meant that they produced less power as well. All
around failure, with the graphics and statistics to prove it. Fuel
economy obviously took a nice dive too.

On small engined cars turbos are the way to go, you get power with no
loss in power, its basically free power. Superchargers are EASY to
setup, compared to turbos (less piping), so they are popular with the
bolt on performance folks...but only if they have big engines...

Don't bother...its all cons, no pro's except that its easier to setup.
But since VW already makes turbo charged engines even that pro doesn't
exist...it would be easier just to go swap engines...then try to
fabricate something.

--
============================================================---------
Dominique Cormann                Homepage: http://kozmik.guelph.on.ca

84 Rabbit D - daily driver
84 Rabbit GTD - work'in on it      Email:dcormann@kozmik.guelph.on.ca