# eaton supercharger



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

would it be possible to put a non turbo exhaust header on the tt and mount one of the new eaton tvs superchargers on the rear of the motor where the turbo would be? you would have instant boost and the cobalt guys are getting 400 hp out of them. And you could get rid of the rats nest of hoses under there, and hella easy to tune.


----------



## wrparrish (Nov 13, 2008)

I dont think the angle from where the pulleys are on the side of the motor is even remotely close to where it would need to be if you were going to mount it to the rear. 
I also thought the TVS was setup go on top of the IM, which wouldnt work either.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: (wrparrish)*

I dont see the pullies being a problem, you could do it like the alternator on a 16v g60 but I guess there isnt really anyway to mount it to the rear of the motor. You basterds need to figure this out. check it tvs 1900, the bees knees knukkas!


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: eaton supercharger (abacorrado)*

There are several supercharged 1.8 20v's I know of, do a Google search


----------



## jt932 (May 27, 2005)

*Re: eaton supercharger (l88m22vette)*

This one is a BBM setup. I do not know whos car though. Looks like it is in a corrado.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: eaton supercharger (jt932)*

hella easy to tune???? why would it be any easier to tune than a turbo? you'd be starting completely over from what is known about the 1.8. and for what?? low end power on a 1.8 is nver going to be much..........where with a turbo, 400 is simple simple and if you'd like to double that: you can! 
Also, look at it this way
money you spent to do this project and hit 400hp
SAME money spent on a turbo kit would yeild WAY more than 400hp.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: eaton supercharger (jt932)*

yeah b ut I doubt there is A/C on that car


----------



## MKIIIGolfGTI (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: (abacorrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abacorrado* »_You basterds need to figure this out. check it tvs 1900, the bees knees knukkas!

are you retarded?


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: (MKIIIGolfGTI)*

look man just pointing out new technology that a lot of people may not be aware of. so what are you really mad about, the profanity, the spelling or were they just out of vagisil at riteaid


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: (abacorrado)*

and yeah it would be easier to tune you would not have to deal with questions about wastegate functionality or variable boost onset due to ignition and fuel changes.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: (abacorrado)*

And i gaurantee the novelty of driving a 400 hp 1.8t as a daily will quickly wear thin.The on/off powerband gets tiring.


----------



## jt932 (May 27, 2005)

*Re: (abacorrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abacorrado* »_look man just pointing out new technology that a lot of people may not be aware of.

It may be new but the Whipple and Opcon lysholm superchargers are still more efficient than the TVS.


----------



## fetah (Sep 10, 2006)

*Re: (jt932)*

I'm satisfied with my BT 332 whp car. Yeah the lag is definitely annoying but that's only in first gear, works great as launch control








Its definitely fun when you run into a C55 AMG like today mhmm
Chevy put turbocharged motors in their new Cobalts and Mini did the same thing. I guess only the new S4 kinda took the other route there. While we're at it does anybody know why they still put the T after V6T. Everything I've heard hits at a marketing scheme.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: (fetah)*

the screws aren't more efficient and the eaton is half the price


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (abacorrado)*

the T is just marketing. 
if i had 3.0 liters, the supercharger makes sense. 4 cylinder does not. no one has done a supercharger that really was a nice package on a 4 cylinder. there really isn't enough crank down low to spin the charger like there is on a V6 or bigger. so you end up with decent low end w/ no top end. 
the TT has VERY short gears (good thing there's 6 of them). i've put 50k miles on my BT and daily life is fine! more than fine. i drive a 375hp on 91 car, get good mileage and can destroy most things i run into.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: (M this 1!)*

http://www.hotrod.com/techarti....html 
Don't know about you but i would kill for that low end combined with the top end


----------



## jt932 (May 27, 2005)

*Re: (abacorrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abacorrado* »_the screws aren't more efficient and the eaton is half the price

The wipple is more effeicient temp at %80 vs TVS at %76 and they both have about the same volumetric efficiency at %99.9.
So I guess they are about the same and yes the TVS costs less. Now if you are looking at cost, then by the time you are done, the money you spent on completing a 1.8T project using the TVS, you could have probably still made more power using the correct turbo setup.
If you want the low end torque that bad, then start on your build and report back with results. I do not think anyone is saying "Don't do it". If you do go ahead with the project, I think it would be interesting to see the results and it would be one of a kind.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: eaton supercharger (abacorrado)*

With all this blower talk and the effort needed, how has the topic of a s/c 3.2 swap not been mentioned yet? Its literally bolt-in and is all kinds of better compared to a blown 1.8l


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: eaton supercharger (l88m22vette)*

3 grand compared to 10


----------



## jt932 (May 27, 2005)

*Re: eaton supercharger (l88m22vette)*


_Quote, originally posted by *l88m22vette* »_With all this blower talk and the effort needed, how has the topic of a s/c 3.2 swap not been mentioned yet? Its literally bolt-in and is all kinds of better compared to a blown 1.8l

If you are going to swap a 3.2 in then twin turbo it. 565hp vs 350-400hp, at least from HPA's and VF's websites.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: eaton supercharger (jt932)*

ok 3 grand compared to 20


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: eaton supercharger (abacorrado)*

Ask Issam (INA) about his 1.8 s/c kit, I guarantee that its cheaper to do a turbo (supply vs. demand)


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: eaton supercharger (l88m22vette)*

yeah never saw that finished, would like to though.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: eaton supercharger (jt932)*

if you can get a 1.8T switched over to SC for 3k and put out 400hp, then it'd be cool. 
that SC motor has some low torque, but not really that much. i'm guessing that motor is a 1.9 based on the dyno title. My 2871 has just as much toque though at about 3500 and then ends at 400 lbs/ft. instead of 290


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: eaton supercharger (abacorrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abacorrado* »_yeah never saw that finished, would like to though.

It was finished.








You can see here how the C30-94 behaves on a 1.8 20V motor.See video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j750e_3fgs
Heaton's are cool chargers but are bulky and not as efficient as other offerings.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: eaton supercharger (Issam Abed)*

Damn that thing sounds amazing, sorry, I didn't realize the kit was done Issam, its sweet http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I have to say, 400whp and a power curve that is more like a 30* incline makes all my turbo interest go out the window...how is mileage affected? Does it suffer because you don't have the pretty clear on/off boost boundary like a snail? I'm assuming from the powercurve (I took a screenshot) that you can't pretend its an economical 4cyl...










_Modified by l88m22vette at 3:53 PM 4-29-2010_


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: eaton supercharger (l88m22vette)*

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors...%3AIT
guess someone already did it with an old schoolt eaton


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*Re: eaton supercharger (Issam Abed)*

Hey Issam how does the boost curve look on your setup?


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: eaton supercharger (abacorrado)*


_Quote, originally posted by *abacorrado* »_Hey Issam how does the boost curve look on your setup?
I promised I wouldnt release information until we did the long term testing I wanted.
I have learnt the hard way in this scene and we do not release products now until they are filly tested first in our cars (I have a GTI that has been a donor vehicle for alot of projects







) and then prototype customer cars.
All I will say is if you are planning to not go beyond a K04-023 because of fear with throttle response and lag then this is for you.


----------



## JettaRed (Aug 14, 2000)

*Re: eaton supercharger (abacorrado)*

Years ago, I put a neuspeed supercharger on my AEG 2.0 8v engine. It bumped hp to 134 whp from advertised 115 crank. It was fun when compared to a NA 2.0, but pretty limited on total hp. Neuspeed used an eaton charger in an integrated custom housing and manifold. No intercooler. The problem was that as you raised boost (I got mine up to 12 psi a with smaller pulley), the hp loss was significant. It took about 25 hp to produce 12 psi at 6500 rpm.
Oh, and it was more than a turbo kit would have cost. However, it was real easy to tune since boost was linear.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: eaton supercharger (Issam Abed)*

Can't wait to see the info, I still haven't bought turbo parts


----------



## cetanepusher (Mar 24, 2008)

*Re: (jt932)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jt932* »_
It may be new but the Whipple and Opcon lysholm superchargers are still more efficient than the TVS.

By less than 2% at RPM levels above 5000 RPM. 
Torque curve on a TVS is linear. Would explain why the superchargers on the new VW twincharger engines are Eaton TVS's


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

*1.4 twin vw*

Um.... I believe that the twincharged 1.4 has a standard gen 5 eaton not tvs


----------



## turtledub (May 10, 2006)

abacorrado I sent you a message.


----------



## swingwing205 (Jun 13, 2001)

M this 1! said:


> the T is just marketing.
> if i had 3.0 liters, the supercharger makes sense. 4 cylinder does not. no one has done a supercharger that really was a nice package on a 4 cylinder. there really isn't enough crank down low to spin the charger like there is on a V6 or bigger. so you end up with decent low end w/ no top end.


That's not true at all, HP is HP, and TQ is TQ, no matter the size of the motor making it, or the number of cylinders. The limitations on what you can do with any given supercharger are based on the supercharger design itself, not the motor driving it, although some motors are better suited for turbos instead of superchargers (Example, Hondas. they have no low end torque, but all the upper end go you need, which is better for turbocharging, since turbos are exhaust driven). Your outcome of having upper or lower end is a combination of about 2 dozen different things, not just the size of motor or # of cyls. Esp true this is when force induction is involved.

And, in basic reality, there are 2 kinds of superchargers: Compressors (which compress the charge in the housing before it gets shoved into the boost pipes), and Displacers (the Eaton and any other roots style charger fall under this category), which don't compress air in their housings, but just move it through to the other side faster than the motor can swallow. Most superchargers that everyone seems to be in total love with are Compressors (Lysholms are the most commonly spoken of around here), and they are good for most apps, but not all.

Compressors tend very much to increase crank drag (Lysholms are notorious for crank dragging), and it takes a lot of power to twist them in order to make boost, but they are excellent choices if you're trying to get upper mid on up end power, because they can make boost almost like a turbo, w/o the install headaches (Like turbos, they do better once they're moving, due to issues of lag). Roots chargers are great for lower and mid range power, and don't drag the crank in vacuum at all since they aren't Compressors, but rather Displacers (Compressors are always loading the crank for power to some degree, even in vacuum), but they aren't good for upper end power, because they have a tendency to heat the charge air up as the RPM goes up (unless the TVS technology has fixed that, I don't know).

Displacers are a lot like water pumps, and it's best to treat them with the same benefits and limitation on mind when figuring out when and where to use them. The Eaton M90 is great for G60s....I have one on my '91 DD Corrado, and never had the first problem with it, and it was installed almost 4 years / 35K miles ago.


----------

