Roe vs. other SC's

Vandal_Mav

Viper Owner
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Posts
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Boise, ID
Roe vs. other SC\'s

Just trying to get insider (first hand) onfo on which SC system I should buy for my '97 GTS. I like the Roe because it appears the easiest conversion but is it the best?
 

plumcrazy

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Posts
16,243
Reaction score
7
Location
ALL OVER
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

easiest to tune i think. but best for what application? what kinda driving are ya looking to do?
 

Schulmann

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Posts
1,618
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

All depends on what you want to do. I am running with Roe SC so I will give you my opinion on Roe:
- Good Quality
- Outstanding customer support
- Boost level is easy to change
- Nice look
- Real bolt on system
- Can be tuned if you are familiar with tuning basics and if you have the tools.
- Chimical intercooler available
 
OP
OP
V

Vandal_Mav

Viper Owner
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Posts
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Boise, ID
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

I'm not a "hard driver".
The car gets used only 6 mo/yr (nice weather) and I'm just interested in increasing the HP to ensure I kick the #$%@#% out of any other vette, farrari etc.
 

BlueGTS

Viper Owner
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
845
Reaction score
0
Location
Morris County, NJ
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

It really depends on what HP level you are looking for. The twin screw is the least efficient forced induction method. For that reason it has the lowest peak HP potential versus other centrifugal supercharges or turbos. With that said, if you are good with 600-700 rwhp it is a great choice.
 
OP
OP
V

Vandal_Mav

Viper Owner
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Posts
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Boise, ID
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

I think 600-700 would be more than adequate for me. So I assume I'll need to get:

1) Roe SC
2) cold air induction
3) flowed heads
4) headers
5) exhaust system

Correct?
 

Casey

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 24, 2001
Posts
4,662
Reaction score
0
Location
Valparaiso, IN.
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

Just trying to get insider (first hand) onfo on which SC system I should buy for my '97 GTS. I like the Roe because it appears the easiest conversion but is it the best?

Heffner SC setup! Looks great, and packs one hell of a punch! :headbang:
This would be my suggestion! But to be honest, you might want to Call Heffner and have him install his DIY TT setup, and leave the SC alone. From my experience, once you start boosting, you will want MORE! :2tu:

1494snakes_009-med.jpg




1494snakes_012-med.jpg


1494snakes_014-med.jpg
 

Schulmann

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Posts
1,618
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

Casey, It looks like you have a centrifugal supercharger and not a twin turbo. Am I right ?
 

RedGTS

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Posts
1,141
Reaction score
0
Location
Tennessee
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

The twin screw is the least efficient forced induction method.

This is not true. The twin-screw is actually one of the most efficient forms of forced induction there is and is more efficient than a centrifugal. The reason the twin-screw doesn't have the top-end charge of a centrifugal is because it moves a fixed amount of air per revolution (thus you get maximum boost at very low rpm), while the boost (and therefore amount of air) with a centrifugal rises with rpm. But the centrifugal creates more heat in the process and needs intercooling at anything over very modest boost levels. Thus, you can run the Roe s/c at 7 lbs without an intercooler while the basic 7 lb Paxton kit uses an intercooler.

With that said, the Paxton is the way to go if you are ultimately going to want 800 rwhp+ (and don't want to have to run NO2 to get there). IMO the Roe is the better choice for people who want to add 150-250 rwhp.
 

BlueGTS

Viper Owner
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
845
Reaction score
0
Location
Morris County, NJ
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

The twin screw is the least efficient forced induction method.

This is not true. The twin-screw is actually one of the most efficient forms of forced induction there is and is more efficient than a centrifugal.

I would have to disagree with this completely. The twin-screw SC is in no way one of the most efficient forced induction methods. Turbos by far and away have the least parasitic loss. The next in line would be the centrifugal blower followed by the twin screw. I never said it wasn't a great Scer or anything about intercooling. What I did say was that is is not the most efferent, IE it robs the most HP to make HP. :2tu:
 

CitySnake

Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Posts
7,115
Reaction score
0
Location
Manhattan, USA
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

The twin screw is the least efficient forced induction method.

This is not true. The twin-screw is actually one of the most efficient forms of forced induction there is and is more efficient than a centrifugal.
You beat me to it. Putting aside the issue of choice here, the twin screw is the MOST efficient forced air induction method.
 

aslowdodge

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Posts
50
Reaction score
0
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

twin screw suffers less parasitic loss than centrifcal. Only the turbos are more efficient Blue GTS is probably confusing a twin screw with a a whipple or roots.
 

Casey

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 24, 2001
Posts
4,662
Reaction score
0
Location
Valparaiso, IN.
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

Casey, It looks like you have a centrifugal supercharger and not a twin turbo. Am I right ?

Those pictures are from when I had the Heffner SCic setup. Lots of power!

Much more than a Roe, setup, at least with NO other mods other than Exhaust.

725rwhp.

My car is alot different these days! Heffner is THE man! :2tu:

1494baralmostdone_008-med.jpg
 

Casey

Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 24, 2001
Posts
4,662
Reaction score
0
Location
Valparaiso, IN.
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

Here's what Heffner is putting out shortly, and it's worth every penny!

----Heffner's post at another site---
Last week we put the finishing touches on our prototype entry level turbo system. We wanted to spend a little extra time making sure that this system could be installed with as few modifications to the car as possible.

The first dyno runs that we made were with 5.5 pounds of boost. This boost level gave us a return of 561 rwhp and 620 rwtq. This was roughly an increase of 25 rwhp per pound of boost.

The next runs made were with 8 pounds of boost. This boost level put us up to 627 rwhp and 678 rwtq but put us slightly past the limits of our stock fuel pump. We will be installing a fuel pump voltage booster later this week and doing a little more tuning.

The car was driven to Atco Raceway in New Jersey last Thursday for some initial quarter mile testing. The trip was over 200 miles long and the car performed flawlessly.

All runs made that day were made on the 5.5 psi setting. The best of three runs made that day on 17 inch Kumho radials was a 10.87 @ 133 mph with a 1.77 60 foot time. This is on an otherwise stock 96 GTS with the only other modification being a B&B cat back system.

This system can be installed by a qualified technician in less than two days. The only modification to the car is drilling holes in the fiberglass core support for routing of intercooler plumbing. Within the next few weeks we will be releasing a few pre production kits to recommended installers to verify proper fitment. Production systems will be released shortly after that.

Please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks.
 

Simms

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Posts
3,320
Reaction score
0
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

You can't compare the DIY Paxton kit to the Paxton packages tuners put out.

I'd go Roe if you want a true DIY kit.

If you want endless hp numbers, go with a Paxton kit done by a tuner that can be upgraded to different levels as your needs change.
 

BlueGTS

Viper Owner
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
845
Reaction score
0
Location
Morris County, NJ
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

twin screw suffers less parasitic loss than centrifcal. Only the turbos are more efficient Blue GTS is probably confusing a twin screw with a a whipple or roots.

That is exactly what I was doing, and obviously I was mistaken. I see the difference in rotor design between the twin screw and the Whipple but I did not know that the difference was enough to make the twin screw have less parasitic loss than a centrifugal. Can someone explain why that is? Does anyone have the actually loss percentages for each type of blower?
 

MbnViper

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
489
Reaction score
0
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

whipple is a twin screw s/c :rolleyes:

and yah go for the Roe DIY for DIY Roe is King

wonder why no one posted a Paxton DIY timeslip until now :confused:
 

BlueGTS

Viper Owner
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
845
Reaction score
0
Location
Morris County, NJ
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

whipple is a twin screw s/c :rolleyes:

I miss typed, I ment roots versus twin screw. I knew the rotors were different but I did not know it made that much difference in efficiency. Time to do some reading.
 

gthomas

Enthusiast
Joined
May 21, 2003
Posts
1,201
Reaction score
0
Location
Peoples Democratic Republic of New Jersey
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

twin screw suffers less parasitic loss than centrifcal. Only the turbos are more efficient Blue GTS is probably confusing a twin screw with a a whipple or roots.

That is exactly what I was doing, and obviously I was mistaken. I have seen the difference in rotor design between the twin screw and the Whipple but I did not know that the difference was enough to make the twin screw have less parasitic loss than a centrifugal. Can someone explain why that is? Does anyone have the actually loss percentages for each type of blower?


I've heard ~5% for turbo's, with s/c's being 3-4 times more. However.....
I remember it being more in terms of hp. A Top Fuel Dragster needs about 400hp to turn the blower. But you first must have the hp to turn the s/c.
A Vortech centrifugal s/c is about 70+% efficient, while a Kenne Bell Twin Screw is 90%. More efficient, makes more power/uses less power.
Roots are the worst, taking more power to turn.
 

BlueGTS

Viper Owner
Joined
Mar 11, 2003
Posts
845
Reaction score
0
Location
Morris County, NJ
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

Back from reading. The Centrifugal is the most thermally efficient SC, which was my initial understanding.

Another interesting fact is that there is a large difference between the Roots and Twin Screw. The Roots rotors touch and wear which creates heat. Also the Roots blower does not compress in the blower housing but rather does the compression in the intake which is less efficient. Not that anyone makes a Roots blower for the Viper but since it was mentioned above I got curious.
 

AG98RT10

Viper Owner
Joined
Feb 14, 2004
Posts
637
Reaction score
0
Location
Appalachians
Re: HP \"under the curve\"

Just reading comments and looking at dynos, it always seemed to me that the roots or twin-screw blowers were less peaky than the centrifugal models. Looking at Roe's web page, their SC seems to make gobs of HP and TQ from way down low, like 2500 rpm. Isn't that a lot more controllable power than a peaky centrifugal curve that comes on really strong about 4500?

I'm asking as I've not driven either - really like to know.
 

1TONY1

Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Posts
5,661
Reaction score
0
Location
Dalton Ga. (Chatt. Tn.)
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

Another s/c thread :(

Horsepower numbers..... bla, bla.

Roe s/c and water/mth: 10.16 @ 141 mph 1/4 mile with no nitrous and a crappy 1.52 sixty foot, conservative tune in the heat.

Don't show me your dyno sheets, show me some time slips :laugh:
 

Simms

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Posts
3,320
Reaction score
0
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

Don't forget that the a Roe produces more area under the curve than a basic Paxton setup running similar boost.

Its not always peak numbers.

Plus, listen to 1TONY1, 9.55 @ 144!
 

gthomas

Enthusiast
Joined
May 21, 2003
Posts
1,201
Reaction score
0
Location
Peoples Democratic Republic of New Jersey
Re: HP

From Kenne Bell:
It has come to our attention that our potential customers, enthusiasts and the media often confuse the "Roots" style superchargers with the "Twin
Screw." They all labor under the false misconception that both of these positive displacement superchargers are identical in operating principle and
efficiency! Frequently the Twin Screw is referred to as a "Roots." It IS NOT a Roots. These products ARE NOT THE SAME! (see Twin Screw vs. Roots
Operation).
It has been well documented in numerous tests by automotive engineers around the world that the Twin Screw concept is, unquestionably, more
efficient (cooler air charge temperature and lower parasitic loss). Ford, GM, Chrysler, Saab, Volvo etc. are among the many who have tested the Twin
Screw. The Mazda Millenia has used one for years and in 2001 Mercedes selected the Twin Screw for their latest high performance cars.
It is not our intent to knock the Roots type. Both are proven, reliable OEM quality superchargers. However, the Twin Screw is clearly more efficient.
Over 80 companies, including Eaton, have been licensed to produce the patented highly efficient Twin Screw rotors for compressors and
superchargers. Millions have been produced. The Twin Screw is a product who's time has come.
The superchargers tested were the Kenne Bell/Autorotor 3150 (Twin Screw) and a popular comparable Roots type. Both are rated at 1.5L and
recommended for applications up to 450HP. They were tested at 12000 rpm and 70° at sea level with the 3 boost levels indicated. Both are commonly
used superchargers. Two larger superchargers - a Roots type and a Kenne Bell/Autorotor 420 Twin Screw with ratings of 600HP - were also tested.
Again the test results confirmed the Twin Screw enjoyed up to 30% lower air charge temp and 30% less parasitic loss at all 3 boost levels.


From Eaton Corporation:

TWIN SCREW vs. ROOTS


Because of their ability to produce an abundance of boost (HP and torque) at virtually any engine rpm, the Twin Screw and Roots type are the two
most logical choices for supercharging. Both are essentially positive displacement SUPERCHARGERS (each revolution produces "X" cfm
regardless of engine rpm). Although their appearance is similar, one should not confuse the two. Internally they are as different as night and day.
LOWER POWER CONSUMPTION: The Twin Screw requires 10-16 less HP (depending on boost) to drive, leaving more horsepower for the
engine to transmit to the vehicle wheels for increased acceleration, passing, towing, hill climbing.
COOLER CHARGE TEMP: It also discharges air into the engine at a much lower temperature. The cooler denser air charge from the Twin Screw
equates to even more engine horsepower and torque potential with less thermal stresses on the engine.
INTERNAL COMPRESSION: The Twin Screw compresses the air between the rotors. This "internal compression" means less work to boost the
air pressure and quicker boost delivery to the engine. The compressed (boosted) air resides in the supercharger and makes it behave like an air
tank . . . squeeze the throttle and out comes the boosted air. The amount and boost level depends on throttle depression.
Eaton Corp. who is currently manufacturing the Roots type - and is also licensed to produce the Twin Screw - has this to say in their literature when
comparing them: "A Screw Compressor [Twin Screw] also provides more air for an engine's cylinders but it first compresses the air, thus
providing more boost than a Roots [Eaton] type supercharger. The additional boost allows engine manufacturers to extract more power
from an engine." ...Eaton Corporation
 

Gerald

Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Posts
5,401
Reaction score
0
Location
Near Tampa Bay
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

Another s/c thread :(

Horsepower numbers..... bla, bla.

Roe s/c and water/mth: 10.16 @ 141 mph 1/4 mile with no nitrous and a crappy 1.52 sixty foot, conservative tune in the heat.

Don't show me your dyno sheets, show me some time slips :laugh:

Is ur car that slow? :shocked:
 

JGK95

Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 11, 2001
Posts
1,428
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

Vandal_Mav,

The cost of doing the Roe/Paxton supercharger($7500), cold air induction(~$200.00-$250.00), flowed heads($3,000.00 mimimum + labor), headers($2,000.00), Exhaust system(~$1500.00) comes to about $14,250.00.

It is definitely possible to get 600-700 RWHP with a pair of turbos.

The centrifugal blowers are definitely less efficient than the twin screw blowers although the ability to do an intercooler makes their top end power greater unless you add the water/methanol injection kit to the twin screw.

In My Opinion, Turbos are the way to go without question.

For what you want to do, I would recommend a nice entry level twin turbo system.

Paolo Castellano of Monster Power Performance is in the process of finishing up his prototype bolt-on twin turbo system to be available soon.

Here is a link to the basic informational page describing the new system:

http://vca2.viperclub.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB24&Number=551712&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Here is a link to the more detailed information discussing what the customer should be looking for in a properly designed turbo system:

http://vca2.viperclub.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB24&Number=551727&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

In a nutshell, this system offers you an efficient, cold air intake bolt-on twin turbo system that requires no cutting on the core support for the base non-intercooled version. The turbos supplied are T-04 based and should be at least as efficient as the twin screw in terms of air intake temperature.

This system is also fully upgradeable to 1500+ Hp with the appropriate fuel system, engine management and engine build characteristics.

Jay K.
 

Qualitywires.com

Supporting Vendor
Supporting Vendor
Joined
Oct 18, 2000
Posts
7,050
Reaction score
0
Location
Louisville, KY
Re: Roe vs. other SC\'s

paxton kits are just good for what they are rated at...you plan on doing higher HP numbers...you will find many weak links in the kit..I know many have produced higher HP...but wait and see what kind of issues you will run into...(heating, belt issues, tensioner issues, etc..) that is why I machined my own parts and took everything but the blower off my car. I have completely redesigned system. I am pretty sure out all the system, the centrifugal system is the most parasitic system out there.
 
Top