How many hp does the G-Lader consume?

[G60 Bob 0]

I was reading is last months Evo that the charger in the new AMG Mercedes only uses 20bhp to run it whereas the charger on the Jag

S-Type R costs the output 100bhp :shock: !!!!

 

Does anyone know how many horsies the G-lader uses whilst boosting up our lives?

[coolrado 0]

not sure but its meant to be quite efficient compared to screw types

[Yandards 0]

Don't know either but that Jag is having some serious HP drain!

 

As a guess it would probably be a bit more than the drain of running aircon..

 

*Circling awaiting being shot down*

[olly elworthy 0]

think a g lader uses about 20hp too, but gives you xxhp,,

[junkie 0]

not sure but its meant to be quite efficient compared to screw types

 

Screw types are more efficient.

[Henny 0]

The engine compression change to make it suitable for running a G60 costs you about 40bhp (off a standard 1.8 GTI engine) meaning that if you take off the charger, you'll only have about 75bhp to play with... The g-lader supposedly costs 25BHP to drive it, taking that down to 50BHP, but you get out around 160BHP in total when the two are put together...

 

Just shows that the G-Lader is pretty efficient... 8)

 

Screw types can provide more boost that a G-lader and are easier to manufacture, but IIRC the G-lader is more efficient when you do the proper maths... 8)

[CaiosG60 PWR 0]

I'm pritty sure that a correctly installed lysholm can use as little as 1 or 2bhp to 'drive' it. Something to do with having the boost return setup correctly to help drive the charger when off throttle. Dont quote me on that though.

 

25bhp to drive the g-lader! Thats seams quite a bit really.

[Henny 0]

CaiosG60 PWR, I'm not sure on that figure for the lysholm there... :? If it's creating boost/compressing air, then it's gonna be creating friction, drag and therefore will need a rotational force to drive it and if a lysholm can boost as much as claimed (which I have no reason to doubt having seen Scruffydubber's move at Bruntingthorpe!) then there's some serious work going on there which is gonna use more than a couple of BHP to drive it!

 

Bear in mind that an Alternator takes about 5BHP to drive it when just powering the engine... ;)

[samg60 0]

I think Caiosg60 was referring to when the car is off boost and the boost return is lubricating the charger and help spin it thus not taking the power away from the engine, when you open the throttle and start using the boost you are quite right it will use hp (not sure how much) but the benefit of all that extra pressure will then result in giving you more power so not big deal about losing a few ponies.

as for efficiency from all the research I have been doing and the main reason I bought one is because they are more efficient chargers than g60s and provide better boost, and are virtually indestructible (I hope) ;-)

 

the person i bought the charger off (cheers Migs) supplied this explanation

 

http://www.timskelton.com/lightning/rac ... bypass.htm

[CaiosG60 PWR 0]

Yep, thats what I was refering too! ;-) :lol:

[coolrado 0]

there are loads of articles mentioning the g-laders high efficiency and most mention that they are more efficient than roots type or other designs

are you sure that the lysholm chargers are more efficient, or just capable of spinning faster without grenading and therefore be able to produce more boost to more than compensate for any bhp loss

 

you would need to measure the bhp loss for a glader and a lysholm charger both putting out the same boost pressure to compare them

[CaiosG60 PWR 0]

Yeah, coolrado I had always been told that displacment type chargers like the g-lader where better than screw types. However reports of how good the lyshom (autorotor) is are changing my view. Think it may be down to which model or make the screw charger is. People who own a lyshom report that 15psi from one feels like it gives more power than 15psi from a g-lader!?!?! I think a lyshom provides less boost at the same rpm when compared to a g-lader. But a lyshom can be used at a much higher rpm safely so this isnt a problem.

[samg60 0]

As I understand it the lysholm doesn't just move the air like a typical roots but is a positive displacement charger and compresses the air as it moves down the narrowing of the screws, I think :wink:

 

following taken directly from bahnbrenner site

 

"# Superior performance to the: G-Lader, Turbo, Roots (Eaton) and Centrifugal systems.

# Greater adiabatic efficiency (Approx. 80%)"

 

"Finally a rock solid direct replacement charger for the G60 enthusiast who wants more performance and reliability over the G-Lader. As shipped, with a 12+psi drive pulley the BBM screw compressor can bolt on in place of the factory G60 G-Lader with no other engine upgrades. With approximately 20% more efficiency over the G-Lader, translates to lower intake temperatures, nearly instant throttle response and much higher boost levels at low Rpm's. For the more extreme individuals, we offer smaller drive pulley sizes & stage kits to increase the boost over 22+ psi.""

[samg60 0]

For those interested here are some figures of the efficency of the two chargers.

 

Glader.

Volkswagen uses their own G-later spiral blower. They use the G40 (40mm spirals) on the Polo and the G60 on the 1.8 golf. The G-later is 55-68% efficient and produces good low down boost, but turbo charging has superseded it in the VW group.

 

Lysholm Screw Blower.

This appears to be the blower of the future and its only problem at the moment is the cost of manufacture. It has efficiency of 75-85% which far exceeds the roots (35-60%) and is well in front of the centrifugal.

It is lighter and smaller then the roots and requires less power to drive it.

It gives the best of both worlds in boost delivery. It provides substantial boost at low levels just like the roots, but continues to supply good boost further up the rev range like the centrifugal.

It was banned from top fuel drag racing in the early 90s but it continues to dominate the 500cu top alcohol class (3000bhp) and there is nothing which looks like beating it.

 

this was taken from the following

http://www.ttmtechnical.com/overview_of ... uction.htm

[CaiosG60 PWR 0]

I like the sound of something that was banned from drag racing!! :-) :-)

[Rich H 0]

I think it should be banned from Samg60's car :shock:

[G-Laden 0]

My friend is putting an Eaton M45 (of Cooper S fame) onto his 145 cloverleaf. he is a complete technohead, as has calculated that it saps exactly 11.67 bhp from the 155bhp T.Spark engine, but gives him 220 bhp to play with... typically so the T.Spark engines are very tough to tune, needing cams/head work/filter/exhaust/chip to get a mere 30bhp more from the 2.0 engine. When alfa were dominating the touring car circuit in the 93-94 season, they used the 1.8 T.spark as it has more torque comparatively than the 2.0 due to the lack of the cam variator. bit of info for you all there...

[CoxyLaad 0]

seems a bit strange that a charger can rob power yet its exact purpose is to increase the same bloody thing!

 

the only loss you really get is in general fuel consumption.

 

Anyone know what losses are involved for the vortech v1?

[Henny 0]

CoxyLaad, it only robs power 'cos you've got to physically drive the thing... thing is once you start driving it, it ADDS power so it's all pretty irrelevent anyway... it's only the efficiency which is important. 8)