Keep in mind that WWII era piston engines the turbo or supercharging was mostly to "normalize" the intake charge because as you climb the air gets thinner and thinner. A P-51 would only make 12 PSI of boost at sea level in the "emergency power" setting. WWII era aircraft had big honking turbo/superchargers because at 30k feet there was precious little air available so their job was to try and cram as much of the thin air as possible instead of making huge boost PSI numbers.

Many years ago, I was a machinist at Franklin Engine. They were the first to put a turbocharger on an aircraft engine. It was used for altitude compensation. As a point of interest, they also produced the Tucker engines. Nearly broke a leg tripping over one that came in for repair.

@@Guysm1l3y it was also done for power in general. Planes like the B-36 would have needed more than double the engines if it wasn’t for the turbochargers. While 12psi doesn’t sound like much (was actually 18+) it was a 601ci engine. Which was about enough to double the hp of an engine. They also had manifold pressure of 67 inches of Mercury or 18psi and was bumped up to 70-75 which is 20+psi That little change had a large impact on the P-51 raised the the hp by 200+ Also when referring to boost on a particular engine depends on how much air the motor moves on its on. A turbo or blower may only make 10psi on 1 engine and 25+ on another.

Looks on you tube a guy have a twin Procharger Car but the Is past away Is a forma Drag Racer....

@@manuel39164 Mustang Mike Modeste. The original Mustang Mike. Yes my boy passed back in 2016. He had a 670ci BBF with twin F-1X’s. He was amazing dude and the first with Twin prochargers which he did build himself.

no it seems to have very little drive power

I think torqstorm has a twin charger setup already for the ls. Steve will just make it better...

Some use a cogged belt drive. Some of the old stuff actually used multiple v-belts.

@@NBSV1 interesting, never heard of those

This was built for the owner of Torque Storm superchargers. Why would he run turbos? Lol

Nope. They would make more boost though

Centrifugal superchargers make linear power and hit peak efficiency towards redline rpm. Roots or screw type superchargers will make power lower in the rpm. Its also probably making an extra 1000 hp at the crank, but you don't see that number on the dyno because the superchargers are using that power. If you use a turbo, you'll see higher HP numbers.

@@some1else155 Centrifugal superchargers have a rising boost curve, so their power delivery is definitely not linear. The peak torque is usually at or around the same RPM as peak power, and, the higher the boost, the higher up in the RPM the torque and power peaks are. You'll see that in Steve's videos of ProCharged engines with a big, single charger. A roots blower or screw supercharger does have a linear boost curve, which is why the shape of the curve doesn't really change as you crank up the boost; the numbers just get higher. The non-linear boost curve of a centrifugal supercharger is why they see more use in applications where the RPMs are staying high most of the time. Because their boost surges in like a turbocharger, they suffer in the lower RPMs. Roots blowers or screw superchargers make boost instantly and at low RPMs - and, with proper intercooling and/or a fuel with a high latent heat of vaporization, they'll carry that power well past 7,000 RPM. They'll never match the peak power of a centrifugal supercharger, but I bet the area under the curve is WAY higher. The dyno curve on this lines up with what Steve said when he commented that this engine is running out of blower. Even with two of them, they're not moving enough air after 5,700 RPM to keep pushing up the torque peak. That explains why the torque begins to level out around 5,700 RPM and then the power starts to roll over at 6,900 RPM.

@@JayRussellDuramax I always figured that in general roots/screw's loose too much efficiency with rpm and fall off. But now I'm thinking about it more with a bigger/correctly sized positive displacement blower it'll continue to carry as you say. Correct me if I'm wrong though? Linear power and linear boost aren't quite the same thing. A centrifugal is more likely to make linear horsepower on a dyno graph as it carries more boost with rpm. ie the horse power keeps climbing with rpm, while a positive displacement blower's power will follow its NA torque curve more closely?

Steve said it. These chargers do not produce enough enough airflow for this engine on the top. This bbc is probably an easy 2200- 2500hp with twin 88s. Although i am turbo biasd. Hate all those pulleys and belts. No thanks

@@some1else155 No, you're correct on the loss of efficiency. Hopefully this won't be a TL;DR, but I'd like to continue this conversation! The reason I'm differentiating between a Roots blower and a screw supercharger is that their method of compressing the air is completely different: A roots blower doesn't compress air on its own, and it was never designed to. It was designed in the mid 1800s to replace a bellows for supplying air to industrial furnaces and such. The reason they can be used to "supercharge" an engine is because they physically force more air into the intake manifold than the engine is naturally inducting, hence "positive displacement". Even with a helical rotor design, a Roots blower doesn't have a decrease in cross-sectional area between the rotors as they turn, so it can't compress air internally. But, the air moves through them from top to bottom, so, even if it did, it wouldn't compress the air. A screw supercharger does compress the air internally. Because the screws do have a decrease in cross-sectional area between them as they turn, and the air moves from front to back as the screws turn, the air is compressed within the supercharger. I think they still have the positive displacement effect, but, they don't work exclusively off of that like a Roots blower does. So, getting into your question about them losing efficiency at higher RPMs: A Roots blower, since it wasn't designed to compress air, begins to add a lot of heat into the air as RPMs increase. However, this can be mitigated with an intercooler and/or fuels with high latent heats of vaporization - like Methanol. I think top-fuel engines running on Nitro-Methane still use Roots blowers. A screw supercharger is more efficient at higher RPMs than a Roots blower, but it still loses efficiency at higher RPMs. A centrifugal supercharger works on a completely different principal from the other two: As far as I understand it, a centrifugal supercharger is essentially a belt-driven turbo, so the same principal is at work to compress the air in a turbocharger and a centrifugal supercharger. As the air is induced by the compressor wheel, it is essentially flung outwards against the compressor housing at such a velocity that the air is compressed. Though, if you remove the charge pipe from a turbo or centrifugal supercharger, you'll feel a lot of air coming out of it, the compressor isn't actually forcing air into the engine at all; the engine just inducts its displacement of already compressed air. Does that make sense? This method of compression is linear, so that's why the boost rises linearly with RPM (I was mistaken in my first post when I said the boost isn't linear). Getting into the dyno curves now: The way a centrifugal supercharger works means that, at low RPMs, there isn't much additional air density to make torque, so the low-end torque doesn't increase very much. However, as the RPMs increase, the air density increases linearly, which is why the torque continues to climb with RPM. Because Horsepower = Torque x RPM / 5,252, if the torque is increasing linearly, the horsepower is increasing exponentially. That's why the power delivery of a centrifugal supercharger isn't linear. The torque is continuously increasing, so the vehicle accelerates harder as the RPMs rise. Because Roots blowers were designed to move large amounts of uncompressed air, they work very well in low boost situations. That's why they're so good at making low-end torque! Screw superchargers are designed to continuously move compressed air - which is why they're used in industrial air compressors that are receiving constant demand. This means that screw superchargers are more efficient at sustaining boost than Roots blowers, but not as efficient at higher boost numbers than centrifugal superchargers. As far as I know, the RPM range of peak efficiency for screw superchargers is in between Roots blowers and centrifugal superchargers. So, if you compare the same engine running the same boost on each type of supercharger, the screw supercharger should have the most area under the curve. Neither the Roots blower nor the screw supercharger have a linear boost curve. That's why the power curves for the same engine NA vs supercharged via a Roots blower or screw compressor are basically just scaled versions of each other. If the engine has a flat torque curve, the vehicle pulls the same throughout the entire RPM range. Does that make sense?

Procharger is just a brand name.

I think you are mistaken these are pro chargers not super chargers. Clearly there is a major difference and clearly Steve has forgotten probably more then I know about them. I realize he just miss spoke in the video didn’t have time to reshoot whole video to fix a line he said

Torquestorm is the brand name of these. They’re centrifugal superchargers. Pro charger is also a brand name. They too make centrifugal superchargers.

And 1/2 the cost. Seems this system may have been designed by Torqstorm to sell more product…

@@danmyers9372 actually one complete kit is cheaper then a F1x12 or F2 head unit alone. The twin kit is price close to a F1 or F2 kit, but you get a complete kit turn key, not have to buy piping and blow off separate. It's more aim at the budget minded street application. They are great kits. I own one and sell them.

Yeah. Agreed. A 4XX inch LS combo with a F1X will make this on good fuel. 565 and twins is not impressive honestly.

British Broadcasting Corporation of course

1800hp at the crank isn't that much?

@@hunterpetrovich1154 no not for that combo. His pump gas stuff makes 2500 hp

@@hunterpetrovich1154 dude have you really tried driving a 1500-1800 HP and 1000 plus foot pounds of torque on the street or Street raced something with that power? Its a handful and plenty of power for the street or track. A 3200 lb. Car would be in the high 8's with that setup. Once you get it to hook off the line. Think about this..all the Streetoutlaws guys usually use anywhere from 1200 thru 2500HP to make there highly promised street cars go down the street using all the traction control devises etc to get the cars to hook. The only place they are putting down 2800 - 4500HP is at a stcky track. Most of the time they are detuning their cars to get them down a road.. And the cars are anywhere from 125000.00 to 300,000 dollar cars.

@@TENNESSEETRACKHAWK see what I wrote to Hunter.....

@@MRnicknitro919 Well no not 1800 but 1400 lol but I hear ya. I just want that SMX so bad but I just cant pull the trigger. maybe next year. Its a one time purchase never have to upgrade ever again lol

Actually fits in a first gen camaro, as well as most A body's prob a ton other

no actually their kit is actually a little less than a F2 kit, and look at boost per HP pretty good.