Chrysler 300C & SRT8 Forums banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey everyone, I have a 2010 AWD 300C on the way. Been shopping for superchargers and am comparing the SMS 296, Arrington TVS 2300, Vortech V3 and Procharger HO. Plan on adding headers, exhaust and KW V2 suspension. If I missed one for the 5.7 that is still available please add. Comparing HP/TQ gains, reliability, and maintenance which supercharger do you think is the best and best value?
If you have all ready posted information on superchargers on the forum, chances are I have all ready read it but would love an update on your supercharger. Thanks, Rich
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Picked up my 2010 300C AWD the other day and am very happy with it.
I have been leaning towards the Vortech kit as everything I've read points to better fuel economy until you put your foot into it. Looking more into the TVS 2300 set up. So far it looks like since it is belt driven you will lose maybe 1-2 mpg under normal conditions but seems to offer more HP/TQ gains throughout all rpms. Can anyone verify? Thanks!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
656 Posts
Picked up my 2010 300C AWD the other day and am very happy with it.
I have been leaning towards the Vortech kit as everything I've read points to better fuel economy until you put your foot into it. Looking more into the TVS 2300 set up. So far it looks like since it is belt driven you will lose maybe 1-2 mpg under normal conditions but seems to offer more HP/TQ gains throughout all rpms. Can anyone verify? Thanks!
Congrats on the new ride. I like the twin screw for a supercharger but if you are concerned with mpg you should really look at a turbo, especially for higher boost. A good intercooler on either will help keep you in better priced gas. Don't know how much boost the new 5.7L pistons will take but they look very stout. Keep us posted on your choice and results.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
if you want to go boost on a 5.7 if it were me, i would go with twin turbos my self from sts but if your set on supercharging then procharger, kenne belle, techo, vortech are all good options keep it around 6psi on a stock 5.7 engine
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,949 Posts
be careful not to run too much power / boost ...... AWDs have particularly stressed drive components - I believe the transfer box needs an upgrade to take the extra horses, but no-one seems to make upgraded components
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
656 Posts
if you want to go boost on a 5.7 if it were me, i would go with twin turbos my self from sts but if your set on supercharging then procharger, kenne belle, techo, vortech are all good options keep it around 6psi on a stock 5.7 engine
Very good advise for pre-2009 5.7L engines but may be outdated for 2009 and up. The top ring lands are much improved with the newer engines.


be careful not to run too much power / boost ...... AWDs have particularly stressed drive components - I believe the transfer box needs an upgrade to take the extra horses, but no-one seems to make upgraded components
Myth
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,949 Posts
midnightsun300c said:
really? yet theres lots of people claiming that. Either way, I have no stories from over here.... we dont get them & never have (or the 5.7 / 3.5 engines any more - its diesel or 6.1 only now....and those seem to be missing pending the new model arriving). Still it would be a shame to spend lots of money to find it wasnt a myth - do you have evidence either way, it would be useful to have a source to read?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
656 Posts
really? yet theres lots of people claiming that. Either way, I have no stories from over here.... we dont get them & never have (or the 5.7 / 3.5 engines any more - its diesel or 6.1 only now....and those seem to be missing pending the new model arriving). Still it would be a shame to spend lots of money to find it wasnt a myth - do you have evidence either way, it would be useful to have a source to read?
Yes a myth in every way. No evidence, lots of speculation, and proof to the contrary...that is pretty much a myth by definition. How many people do you consider a lot? I've only heard of two TC failings, both of which had fairly modest horsepower gains over stock, one with head and cam the other stroked. These failings were without the benefit of slicks, 10" tires, or even sub 12" ETs. With the clarity of hindsight the failings can better be explained with intermittent traction than anything else. The truth of the matter is the cause of failure is unknown, but what is known is that horsepower alone is not the cause.

I've been running over double stock horsepower for some time now with no TC issues. I've destroyed the right front axle tripod on launch without hurting the TC. The TC is not the weakest link on my setup. The OP has a 2010 with that has from what I hear is a 2 wheel drive option so the TC is even less of a concern with high horsepower.

I hope AWD300CYA posts back with some particulars on his 2WD/AWD transfer. If the power transfer is variable, something like a 75/25 split that still uses some front tire traction but delivers the bulk of the force to the rear half would seem to make the sky the limit for horsepower. Turn the boost down for winter and full time AWD at a 60/40 split and the boost up for summer and a 75/25 split.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,949 Posts
thats great you had no problems...........we all know about pre '09 axles & drive shafts, but in general everything in the power train on RWD seems pretty good. Its good to know they didnt drop the baton on the AWD. As with RWD though, the trans has pretty finite limits I guess?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
656 Posts
I think the NAG1 can handle a lot more horsepower than it is commonly given credit for. I think the culprit is line pressure when the hp goes north of 500. The clutch packs engage too slowly and burn up. A shift kit/valve body upgrade goes a long way in lengthening a stock trannys life. But everything has its limits and all increases in torque to the drivetrain presumably shorten its' life. I have been completely impressed so far with how well these cars handle the added stress. And yes, I have my fingers crossed when I say that...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
From what I've read on various forums, the slower boost build-up of a centrifugal supercharger like Procharger/Vortech, is the preferred set-up for an AWD, versus the more sudden boost delivery of a twin-screw blower (KenneBell, SMS, Techco- out of business anyway).

I have a 6psi Procharger system waiting to be installed :)


 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
656 Posts
From what I've read on various forums, the slower boost build-up of a centrifugal supercharger like Procharger/Vortech, is the preferred set-up for an AWD, versus the more sudden boost delivery of a twin-screw blower (KenneBell, SMS, Techco- out of business anyway).​




I have a 6psi Procharger system waiting to be installed :)
I am sure you will love your Procharger and be able to do everything with it that you could do with any other blower. In regards to centrifugal vs. twin screw there are a lot of different aspects to consider and the strain on the drivetrain has more to do with the way you set your system up than the system itself.

Consideration 1: Both the twin screw and centrifugal start spinning as soon as you turn the key and they both discharge the boost until the wastegate is closed.

Consideration 2: What impellers have you chosen (i.e. brand, model, upgrade) determines how big a bite with each revolution takes which determines where the sweet spot on the rpm range is.

Consideration 3: What size pulleys, both on the crank and on the blower are you using? This will not only determine when the boost peaks but what your maximum boost will be.

Consideration 4: What size and length spring you have on your wastegate will determine when it starts to close and when it completely closes.

Consideration 5: How much vacuum assist is employed and how it is controlled helps determine or modulate the wastegate spring and controls how fast and hard the available boost comes on.

Consideration 6: The centrifugal impellers are located a lot further from the intake valves than a twin screw so there is a delay that needs to be accounted for.

Consideration 7: With either setup the sooner you bring boost on in the rpm range the softer it will make the transition because with either setup you will be making less boost when fully engaged and therefore within the given time frame dictated with all your other settings the amount of change in torque per unit of time will be less.

Traditionally the centrifugal seem to be set to engage at about 3000 rpm but you can manipulate that to engage sooner or later. My twin screw wastegate is controlled by vacuum so it can be encouraged to engage sooner or later depending upon throttle position and rpms. If I set my spring size and vacuum settings so my boost came on later and smoother I doubt you could tell the difference between the two setups as a driver.

Now consider performance between the two, and let's take the assumptions (setup conditions that you imagine) that you made and the twin screw is making more boost sooner in the rmp range. If I wanted to limit the shock to my drivetrain to equal yours I would simple adjust my wastegate to open sooner so it is opening at the same boost level as yours. But that would mean that I would be generating more horsepower sooner than you and therefore my twin screw would be outperforming your centrifugal with the same stress on my engine. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,824 Posts
If you're worried about the TC, be it myth or not, go the route of a turbocharger. The slight delay (and yes there will be some) will reduce the launch stress it has to deal with. That being said, I am interested in what it would take to retrofit a 2010 style TC to an older version, and wonder if the gains are indeed worth it. Ideally, I will be looking for around a 600HP setup, on a 6.1L based engine though, so I'll be following this to see what indeed comes of it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
184 Posts
i have the procharger HO on my SRT8. still get 20-23 MPG as long as im not rodding the piss out of it.... in which case it drops considerably. just over 500hp and no drivetrain issues.. (YET)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
656 Posts
If you're worried about the TC, be it myth or not, go the route of a turbocharger. The slight delay (and yes there will be some) will reduce the launch stress it has to deal with. That being said, I am interested in what it would take to retrofit a 2010 style TC to an older version, and wonder if the gains are indeed worth it. Ideally, I will be looking for around a 600HP setup, on a 6.1L based engine though, so I'll be following this to see what indeed comes of it.
Don't really follow the logic here? Isn't peak torque about 4500 in a stock engine and even higher rpms with a taller cam, long tubes, cat back? Isn't this well past either super or turbo engagement? Aren't you pushing the transition from vacuum to boost into even more torque if you delay? Won't you also be developing more boost at the higher rpm? Won't that actually create more strain on the drivetrain? Isn't the amount of torque at transition what you want to diminish for less shock?

I too wonder about the new TC. I hope the OP gets back with us on the real world functioning. Not knowing the inner workings I wonder if there are any clutches that may be subject to failure even with a large portion of the torque being sent to the rear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,824 Posts
Don't really follow the logic here? Isn't peak torque about 4500 in a stock engine and even higher rpms with a taller cam, long tubes, cat back? Isn't this well past either super or turbo engagement? Aren't you pushing the transition from vacuum to boost into even more torque if you delay? Won't you also be developing more boost at the higher rpm? Won't that actually create more strain on the drivetrain? Isn't the amount of torque at transition what you want to diminish for less shock?
Won't so much apply to track racing, but for good ol' street performance, you aren't going to load up and launch it. You are right if you talk about launching it after revving the engine to 3,000 or so RPM.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
656 Posts
Won't so much apply to track racing, but for good ol' street performance, you aren't going to load up and launch it. You are right if you talk about launching it after revving the engine to 3,000 or so RPM.
Well, lets talk street performance. Say you're pulling away from a stop light in the "fast" lane in 1st gear; you get to about 2500 rpm and the guy in front of you decides that you are trying to mate your grill with his bumper and pulls sharply the right; you try to pull passed him, trying to let the guy behind you through, but the guy to your right doesn't want to let you over and you step on it. **This is not street racing, only a common occurrence that inadvertently happens to the most innocent of us in an attempt to be courteous to the drivers behind us.**

So the a**hole's twin screw on your right kicks in immediately (WOT @ 2,500 rpm). Your turbo waits until [email protected] 3,500 rpm and engages. Doesn't your tranny suffer more than his? As well, doesn't he already have a length on you? Aren't you now going to tuck your tail and move behind him so you can complete the totally selfless act of allowing the guy behind you the courtesy of the open road?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,824 Posts
Well, lets talk street performance. Say you're pulling away from a stop light in the "fast" lane in 1st gear; you get to about 2500 rpm and the guy in front of you decides that you are trying to mate your grill with his bumper and pulls sharply the right; you try to pull passed him, trying to let the guy behind you through, but the guy to your right doesn't want to let you over and you step on it. **This is not street racing, only a common occurrence that inadvertently happens to the most innocent of us in an attempt to be courteous to the drivers behind us.**

So the a**hole's twin screw on your right kicks in immediately (WOT @ 2,500 rpm). Your turbo waits until [email protected] 3,500 rpm and engages. Doesn't your tranny suffer more than his? As well, doesn't he already have a length on you? Aren't you now going to tuck your tail and move behind him so you can complete the totally selfless act of allowing the guy behind you the courtesy of the open road?
Once in motion, the stress is reduced as opposed to flanking it all at once, much the same way drags only feel the pressure right at launch, not once in motion (no curl once they are moving). The transfer case would be the same way - once it is rotating, the power hitting it will not be as harsh.
Not arguing that this is not ideal for a race scenario, but as a pure preservation tactic, it would work. Again, this is assuming the transfer case is the weak point of the power system, which I'm agreeing with you, it is not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
656 Posts
Once in motion, the stress is reduced as opposed to flanking it all at once, much the same way drags only feel the pressure right at launch, not once in motion (no curl once they are moving). The transfer case would be the same way - once it is rotating, the power hitting it will not be as harsh.
Not arguing that this is not ideal for a race scenario, but as a pure preservation tactic, it would work. Again, this is assuming the transfer case is the weak point of the power system, which I'm agreeing with you, it is not.


You bring up a worthwhile concept but your example may be a little missleading...Let me ask you a couple questions to help illustrate my suspicion:
  • Do you think that torque is time dependent? i.e. Is the pressure on the driveline more if the same torque is applied at a higher rpm?
  • Do you think that it is easier, or takes less energy to accelerate an object (a wheel let's say) once it is in motion. For example is it easier or take less energy to go from 100 to 200 rpms than from 200 to 300?
  • Do you think that the initial wrinkling or as you said curling of the drag slick is reflective of the increased torque at launch or is it the hub turning the wheel that turns the inner tire until the slack is taken up in the soft walled tire as the surface of the tire is held by friction to the track?
  • Do you think that the un-wrinkling of the drag slick is due to the reduced torque or the centrifugal force from higher rotation speeds reforming the tire taller not leaving any slack to be wrinkled?
Now back to your notion that more boost at a higher rpm is easier, or creates less torque and or stress on the drivetrain than less boost at a lower rpm. One of the variables that we need to consider is how much boost are we talking and in particular what is the multiplier between the crank (exhaust) and the boost device? i.e. How much more torque from boost is being generated with every increase in engine rpms?

Let me be a bit presumptuous and address what I think what might be getting convoluted here. Turbo lag as the turbo spools prior to boost being delivered to the intake is not the same as the time it takes the full boost from the turbo once fully spooled to be fully transitioned to the intake. Once fully spooled and the wastegate starts to close doesn't a turbo and centrifugal supercharger act on the engine the very same way? Isn't the shock to the engine a factor of the time it takes the wastegate to fully close? I have driven in some turbo cars that will spool forever and then boom! the hp has more than doubled in an instant and you are searching for the eject button on the seat. Conversely when I do my setup for winter on my twin screw the transition comes on as early as 1800 rpm and the full transition is spread over as much as 2000 rpms! My boost gauge will go from 20" of vacuum to 20lbs of boost in one seamless motion. So like I said earlier it's more how you set it up rather than what flavor of boost you like the taste of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,824 Posts
[*]Do you think that it is easier, or takes less energy to accelerate an object (a wheel let's say) once it is in motion. For example is it easier or take less energy to go from 100 to 200 rpms than from 200 to 300?
Despite the fact the rest is all valid, this is what needs to be highlighted, as yes, it does take less force to move an object that is already moving. Static friction is what we are dealing with here, and the amount of force required to move an object once it is moving works on a downward curve (assuming the plain we are moving across is indeed flat and level). Our cars already know this. It takes a lot more fuel to accelerate up to cruising speed than it does to maintain cruising speed. Ergo, if we already have a part in motion, adding increasing the amount of force to it will cause less of a peak burst of static friction, thereby decreasing any load pressures.

Again, when it comes to the TC though, it's all moot, since it's hardly the weak point on most people's setups. After doing some price research, the twin screw setup isn't something I'll be going after anymore either.
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top