clk230 supercharger

[wag]

i'm going to chip engine and additionally was told i would need to change the supercharger pulley.

is the 1998 clk230 charger an eton 45 or eton 65.

since read that the crank pulley is the one to change rather than supercharger one,

can the damper be removed easily from the charger pulley to remove the lag.

or any other advise would be appreciated.

 

[Shude]

can the damper be removed easily from the charger pulley to remove the lag.

Lag? The thing kicks in at just above tickover, something like 1800rpm, how little lag do you need?

 

[wag]

Something Like 2,450rpm

Nerd!

 

[GrahamC230K]

Something Like 2,450rpm

Nerd!

Yours comes in that high? Must be different to ours

 

[wag]

mine is an auto box,

would appreciate advise on which pulley to alter, and does anybody know of problems with exhaust manifolds cracking, when upping power.

 

[marcos]

Something Like 2,450rpm

Nerd!

Come on Shude whats the matter with you lol

 

[marcos]

Seriously though I'd start by asking the same question here there seems to be loads of info on pulleys etc so this site might be usefull for you.

 

[Howard]

Hello, i'm rude , can someone help me ?

No ???

Why not ?

 

[marcos]

I think howards right so unfortunately the link has been removed.

 

[stats007]

Hello, i'm rude , can someone help me ?

No ???

Why not ?

I think the nerd comment was referring to himself unless I'm missing something?

 

[Rose Chap]

I admit I'm not as mechanically adept as some on this forum but I thought the supercharger was always 'on', given that its driven from the engine crank and not the exhaust (unlike a turbo charger), thereby avoiding lag.

I'm happy to be corrected on this by the way! Knowledge is power and all that.

 

[Howard]

I think the nerd comment was referring to himself unless I'm missing something?

I believe it refers to Shude .......

shows how peoples minds think differently doesn't it .....

 

[esox]

I admit I'm not as mechanically adept as some on this forum but I thought the supercharger was always 'on', given that its driven from the engine crank and not the exhaust (unlike a turbo charger), thereby avoiding lag.

I'm happy to be corrected on this by the way! Knowledge is power and all that.

There does seem to be a difference between Shudes/Grahams `charger and mine(a later`02) CLK230K.
Theirs has an electro-mechanical clutch like the A/C one to engage the supercharger at a certain rpm(and can easily be heard to engage),mine however just has a simple pulley with the blower running all the time from tickover .However,there are some unidentified parts to the inlet ducting the purpose of which i am not sure which may divert the intake air around the `charger at low rpm....

 

[Will]

There does seem to be a difference between Shudes/Grahams `charger and mine(a later`02) CLK230K.
Theirs has an electro-mechanical clutch like the A/C one to engage the supercharger at a certain rpm(and can easily be heard to engage),mine however just has a simple pulley with the blower running all the time from tickover .However,there are some unidentified parts to the inlet ducting the purpose of which i am not sure which may divert the intake air around the `charger at low rpm....

Hi Esox,

It's surprising to hear that they no longer use this clutch on later 230Ks (presuming yours is the same type of engine, not the '1800cc' 230K - although I am not sure if these are the same or different?!?

Are you sure that the clutch has not siezed or something, I'm probably wrong but it sounds crazy to me? The pipework you are referring to is connected to the bypass valve for the S/C when it is not engaged and runnning (like at idle on the 230Ks that I've seen), allowing air to flow through the I/C and MAF into the throttle body.

As I said, I'm possibly (probably!) wrong, but it seems strange that they would change this.

Maybe someone else on here with a similar vintage model to yours can confirm?

Will

 

[esox]

Hi Esox,

It's surprising to hear that they no longer use this clutch on later 230Ks (presuming yours is the same type of engine, not the '1800cc' 230K - although I am not sure if these are the same or different?!?

Are you sure that the clutch has not siezed or something, I'm probably wrong but it sounds crazy to me? The pipework you are referring to is connected to the bypass valve for the S/C when it is not engaged and runnning (like at idle on the 230Ks that I've seen), allowing air to flow through the I/C and MAF into the throttle body.

As I said, I'm possibly (probably!) wrong, but it seems strange that they would change this.

Maybe someone else on here with a similar vintage model to yours can confirm?

Will

Theres definately no clutch on my supercharger.Ive had a look at Grahams and his pulley is very different - its very similar to the one on the A/C unit.Mine is a very simple ,err,pulley - no other gubbins on it at all.

Mine is the full 2297cc engine - not the Misubishi effort found in W203`s nowadays.
Having a clutch on seemed a bit weird to me,i thought the main advantage of superchargers was immediate oomph from idle,not at nearly 2000 rpm....

 

[GrahamC230K]

Theres definately no clutch on my supercharger.Ive had a look at Grahams and his pulley is very different - its very similar to the one on the A/C unit.Mine is a very simple ,err,pulley - no other gubbins on it at all.

Mine is the full 2297cc engine - not the Misubishi effort found in W203`s nowadays.
Having a clutch on seemed a bit weird to me,i thought the main advantage of superchargers was immediate oomph from idle,not at nearly 2000 rpm....

A fine example of a GTG experiment I remember demonstrating this at Kettering.

 

[Shude]

A fine example of a GTG experiment I remember demonstrating this at Kettering.

When the car is stationary and in neutral, with the bonnet open, just push the gas pedal and at the magic rpm the clutch engages with a tiny click and the supercharger starts to whine.

Anyone with a k' model should try this, if only because it sounds awesome

 

[wag]

i am by no means a rude person, the post was a perfectly honnest request for advise, to which i felt shude's reply was a little agressive.

the reason for my enquiry is that, there is may have been an option to change the s/c pulley rather than the crank pulley, thus removing the clutch on the s/c, along with chipping and mapped on r/r, would deliver an extra 40/50bhp, and along with a free flow manifold would add an extra 10bhp, all for a relatively low cost.

so i would liked to have known what the make and model of the s/c was.

 

[Shude]

...to which i felt shude's reply was a little agressive.

I thought I softened the supposed aggression with a

Oh well

 

[Will]

Theres definately no clutch on my supercharger.Ive had a look at Grahams and his pulley is very different - its very similar to the one on the A/C unit.Mine is a very simple ,err,pulley - no other gubbins on it at all.

Mine is the full 2297cc engine - not the Misubishi effort found in W203`s nowadays.
Having a clutch on seemed a bit weird to me,i thought the main advantage of superchargers was immediate oomph from idle,not at nearly 2000 rpm....

Hi esox,

Glad to hear that, sounds as though you have done a thorough check!

AFAIK the reason for the clutch on the earlier models is to reduce unnecessary wear on the S/C when idling, for example, when in traffic. There is still very little lag on these engines IMO as pretty much from take-off the S/C will be spinning, unlike a turbo which is waiting to spin up from exhaust gasses.

Other than the possible performance differences, does anybody know of any other reasons why this change was made (eg clutch problems etc?)

Graham - maybe they could have fixed your ECU fault in the end by changing the pulley on the S/C, bit late now mind...

Cheers

Will