• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

W202 C230 Kompressor standard boost pressure (and boost curve)???

I suspect the figures you quote in your first post are correct.
A NA 1.8l will only make circa 130-140hp at best. Add half again as much air - which is what 7psi is relative to the atmosphere and there's your 200hp.

Although a Roots blower can be termed 'positive displacement', there is no sealing as such, so a lower delivery at lower speed is probably part of its operational characteristics.

Hypothesis admittedly, but plausible I think.
 
Just found this on Wiki

''deliver a nearly-fixed volume of air per revolution at all speeds (minus leakage, which is nearly constant at all speeds for a given pressure and so its importance decreases at higher speeds)''

Which to me says that the leakage is a lesser proportion to the delivery with increasing rpm, or, put the other way around, the delivery assumes a greater value as the percentage leakage lessens.
 
Its a 2.3.

7psi doesnt magically make 200bhp on a 130bhp 1.8 unless you had amazing compressor efficiency and a huge bump in VE, and you wont on a supercharged engine.

Leakage decreases as the comp rpm rises, but this USUALLY makes up for the increasing amount of air consumed by the engine, so it starts at 7psi and stays about 7psi, starting at 2psi and trippling as rpm rises is not how my experience (key word here) of this type of supercharger is, that is more my experience of centrifugal superchargers.

And for that reason, I suspect something is up, and the only way to know is to test it.
As proven when I removed the air bypass and proved the common "it wont even run" internet myth to be BS, the only way we will know isnt by theory and wikipedia, but by trying it.
 
I see where you are coming from re trebling of boost with a mechanical supercharger does seem odd.
Pity no one else running the same car can provide some info as to how their car behaves.
 
Interesting. I dont really know how this type of supercharger works but I would have thought if you exclude the control systems, that boost pressure was directly proportional to rotation speed. Is this not the case?

Cheers for all the info StavFC, its great to read and very interesting.
 
Kinda depends on the engine a Roots blower is bolted to as they don't in themselves provide internal compression, so the MAP is dependent on the rate at which the exiting air is consumed.
Is it a Roots blower though? Or a Lysholm type?
And what is the engine capacity - 1.8 or 2.3?
 
Ched- Pretty much mate.
Engine rpm increases, as does blower rpm.
Blower pushes in more air, but engine consumes more air.
Depending on the entire setup (whats restricting what basically) the boost often rises or falls to some extent, but three times the top end boost as it was in the low/midrange is pretty bloody odd for a positive displacment unit unless there something else causing it to do that.
Dont forget, what I'm experiencing may not be what all of them do, I may have a problem (or an advantage) hence the start of the thread, but as nobody else knows what theirs runs, I cant be sure, lol.

Its an Eaton M62, which isnt a basic 2 lobe roots, but isnt a flash Lysholm unit either. Matters little/none to this though really.

And we talking 2.3, the clue's in the title, lol (capacity is irrelivant to this though tbh).
 
I had no idea about the above either, never had a Merc before. I've seen lots of cars with C180 Kompressor so presumed they all were.
To be fair, regardless of compression, the result is the same.
I suspect the 1.8 runs more 'boost' for its 197bhp than the 2.3 though.
 
Back to the info on post #1 then. Lets assume that 5psi for the mid-range is correct. And that on account of the SC being present, the required power output is achieved without the longer cam timing and larger valve sizes that a NA unit would require to make decent power. Given that, the base engine there is going to get breathless towards its upper rpm, restricting its breathing and causing the boost to rise to 7psi.
All that's left to account for is the low boost figure at low rpm. Isn't it possible that is caused by nothing more than the inherent internal leakage of the SC?
It's hard to imagine that any wear has occurred internally as the parts don't actually touch, and any external leaks would surely be audible.
All of which leaves me thinking that their is nothing at all wrong with your car!

In summary , the large difference in boost is a low boost due to internal SC leakage at low rpm and poor breathing of the engine at high rpm.

Some of the tuners offer different sized pulleys to increase boost. Might their be some before and after graphs of either power/torque or boost, from which you can figure out what your car should be doing as standard?
 
7psi is at peak power, ie 5500-6000rpm, so its nothing to do with it getting breathless.

Regardless of science and theory, experience of cars with positive displacment blowers suggests such a large % boost increase as revs rise is unusual (but not impossible, nothing is).

The EASIEST thing to do, as nobody can tell me what theirs does, is check for leaks from the pipework and especially the throttle bypass, and if nothing changes, there you go, thats just how it is.

All the internet tuning and psuedo science in the world isnt going to help over just trying it, thats why I simply wondered if anyone had any numbers.
 
It is breathless after the point of maximum torque.
What speed does Tmax occur?

What other SC engines are you referring to?
 
Is it, or it is? Breathless and peak torque are not related.
Maximum speed? Don't know, the car isnt fast enough for me to have tried.
Others? 2x Minis, XB Falcon, Rover V8, Camaro, Mustang. The boost increase on my car goes up just like centrifugal supercharged cars I've driven, not like the aformentioned cars did.
 
Breathless and peak torque are not related.

Oh yes they are. Beyond peak torque rpm the cylinder can no longer fill as well as they did. From that point on its a battle between reducing MEP and rising frictional losses with the friction finally winning and the rpm of maximum power being set right there.

It was the rpm of maximum torque (Tmax) I was asking. I'll be surprised if it is much higher than 4000rpm.

Your boost spikes as you close the throttle - which is just a severe strangling of the engine. Insufficient cam timing and valve size do exactly the same beyond the rpm of max torque, merely more gradually.
 
I'm amazed this thread is three pages! Lol.

Me- Does anyone know the standard boost pressure/curve?
Everyone- Nope
Me- No problem, I know how to test to see if anything is making it like it is, I'll just do it.
The end.

You know on your 'hi im new' thread, when you said that the Smart forum people suggested you go here as you might like it more? You ever get the impression they was just trying to get rid of you as you was bugging them?

'Breathless' in DRIVING terms is where the car feels like its running out of steam. Bugger all to do with peak torque.

The rest of it, well, its not even worth replying to, as well as flawed 'logic' from someone with seemingly no practical experience, its irrelivant and doesnt help one bit.
Sorry this sounds blunt, but all these posts by you are hugely patronising and annoying as they arent even on the subject of the thread, never mind correct.
 
I'm amazed this thread is three pages! Lol.

Me- Does anyone know the standard boost pressure/curve?
Everyone- Nope
Me- No problem, I know how to test to see if anything is making it like it is, I'll just do it.
The end.

You know on your 'hi im new' thread, when you said that the Smart forum people suggested you go here as you might like it more? You ever get the impression they was just trying to get rid of you as you was bugging them?

'Breathless' in DRIVING terms is where the car feels like its running out of steam. Bugger all to do with peak torque.

The rest of it, well, its not even worth replying to, as well as flawed 'logic' from someone with seemingly no practical experience, its irrelivant and doesnt help one bit.
Sorry this sounds blunt, but all these posts by you are hugely patronising and annoying as they arent even on the subject of the thread, never mind correct.

Stav I think on this forum you need to sometimes get used to having a thick skin. Nobody is trying to get rid of you. I for one would like to gain some advice about turbocharging, although I have bought the books I think I could benefit from speaking with someone who has built their own even if it is for a different vehicle. Sometimes people come across as being patronising without realising it. In a discussion, people always put their own ideas across sometimes at the expense of others. We all try to get knowledge of how to make the best of our cars.
 
I wasnt getting offended or anything, its just I was getting 'advice' from people with clearly no experience of it, and that gets a little frustrating when I've been owning and tuning forced induction engines day in day out for over a decade, lol.

Anyhow, I got the car running properly with the bypass throttle removed from the loop, at last.

As mentioned previously blanking it off seemed to cause a boost spike that popped the bung out every time so was useless, but using a boost pipe from (I think) one of my old Volvo turbos I replaced the bypass throttle with the twin dump valves that are fitted as standard to Skyline GT-Rs, which just happen to fit perfectly.

If you unplug the secondary throttle, although it doesnt bring up any dash lights, it DOES disengage the supercharger clutch, so you cant do that. For the purpose of the test I left it plugged in but not connected to any of the cars pipework.

I connected up the vac pipes etc to operate the dump valves and started the car, and all was well, the dump valves are held open by the vac when off throttle, just like the electronic bypass one does anyhow, and the car ran fine.

One thing you do notice is you have the supercharger blowing right from under 1000rpm as unlike the electronic bypass throttle that stays open until 1500rpm, the dump valves close the minute you use any throttle. To be honest though, this does little, just a tiny bit more punch around idle speed.

On throttle unfortunately (or fortunately, depends how you look at it) the boost curve is exactly the same, so there is no leakage or partial opening of the throttle bypass.
When you let off the throttle the Skyline dump valves are MUCH quieter though, removing the sometimes annoying chuff the electronic throttle does when you let off, probably as they are reacting far faster so the boost doesnt spike as much. You see that on the boost gauge, with almost no spike as you shut the throttle with the dump valves fitted, but over 15psi spike on the standard electronic throttle.

I'm a little confused to know when the supercharger is disengaged too? I was 'told' (woo, more Merc forum mis-infortmation, lol) it was disengaged under 1500rpm, but thats not strictly true, as the stock electronic throttle stays open until 1500rpm, wasting all the superchargers boost, but you could clearly hear (and see on occasion on the boost gauge) the supercharter is running even at 1000rpm. I couldnt be sure if it disengaged at all, but sounded like all but possibly total idle speed (about 750rpm it seems) it is running.
It certainly CAN be disengaged as pulling the bypass throttle plug out does it, but when, who knows? It even stays engaged on the over-run, which is pointless but I guess if fuel-cut is activated then its not affecting economy.

I drove it about 6 miles with the supercharger disengaged, and to be fair, its not that slow feeling, quicker than a C180, enough to happily cruise at 80 on the motorway without needing much throttle.
IF I can work out which of the wires to the bypass (maybe any of them) affects if the supercharger is engaged, I reckon it could seriously improve fuel economy if I can engage and disengage the supercharger on a switch...

And thats it really. Only way left to try that can increase boost without a different sized pulley is pre-compressor water injection, which I guess I'll have to knock up to give it a go when I can be bothered...
 
Thanks for experimenting and reporting back to us . . .

Whitey
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom