And he can do that fine, because the blower that he is running is so much more efficient that the air at 24psi is WAY cooler than the air coming from that M62 at 17psi, especially since, in case you didn't notice, his car is Intercooled AND has a larger cam. Let me know of someone running 11'* with an M90 or M62 making 24psi boost. I don't see what point you are proving. We all know you can put a big turbo on a Bonnie, and with the right turbo, IC, cam, and tuning you could run 24psi boost no problem, but not with an M62...you aren't proving anything.

Ok.... now you're just arguing, you called an M62 a turbo even, it'* not a turbo at all. It'* a revolutionary new thing called a Supercharger... Belt driven, you should check it out sometime!

No I didn't. The centrifical supercharger on DK'* car is basically a belt driven turbo. It is a blower, but much like a turbo, it even sounds like a turbo. What I was saying is that if you put a turbo, IC, cam, etc.... on a Bonneville you can run 24psi fine.

A turbocharger is an exhaust driven device. A supercharger is belt driven, they both have VERY different tendencies, and both drive very different. Both push air into the engine, but it is very different. Quit arguing for the sake or arguement. I don't try to be a bad guy but a lot of people are sick of it from a couple people. If you're gonna be "to the letter" then be that way with what you say, no one likes a hypocrite.

Great, you know what I hate pullin out the soapbox

No..Jeff, don't be sorry. I'm very tempted to go erase all the bickering and bullsh!tting that I read in this Force Induction thread.

Keep working on your car and keep sharing the results. Please don't let bickering and pandering stop you from posting. I and the majority of this forum have learned much from your R&D. And you are very correct, there is not alot available for Series I engines so this is good information.

The next person that wants to argue in this thread will be sternly warned. Let the man post....keep it constructive or hit the road..literally.

[soapbox off]

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, in fact I really don't think I am arguing at all. I am saying that there is a HUGE difference between DK'* engine and jeffrey'* and that there is nothing that can really be compared there except for the displacement of the engine. I am trying to be as constructive as possible with this. He said he was trying to prove a point, and nothing about what he was saying proved anything but what we already know, a more efficient power adder, with the addition of an intercooler, big cam, and tuning can safely make more boost than an M62.

I know the difference between a turbo and a supercharger, my car is a friggin '90 Turbo Grand Prix. A turbo is exhaust driven, and a supercharger is belt driven. Digital Ken'* supercharger is basically a belt driven turbo, obviously it is a supercharger because it is belt driven, but the design of it is like I said a turbo that is belt driven instead of exhaust driven. If you ever hear it, it sounds like a turbo too!!!

I know that. I understand that you know a lot about these cars and these engines, and I respect you very much for the things that you have come up with and made for your car and helped others with for their cars. I think the intercooler will be a very nice addition to your Bonneville and should hopefully set you up for 13'* with the right pulley and tuning!

I never meant for this to turn into an argument, and I am sorry that it did. The points that I were trying to make were valid and constructive IMO, and I am sorry if they weren't in others opinions.

where would one find this little thing and is this somethin that should be replaced like all the other stuff example o2 sensor...replaced what every x number of miles...wastegate have that?

I've been told that compressing air reduces its ability to hold water in the vapor state, but I'm not too sure about that. If it'* true, then its not inconceiveable that air density at some specific pressure and temperature is sensitive to the process it has undergone.

Water in air? Welcome to the wonderful world of non-reactive "pseudo" two component systems; your first approximation is to ignore the air entirely, and look only at the partial density (or partial pressure) of the water vapor --- once it reaches the dew point density (or vapor pressure) for the temperature you're operating at, it condenses. The system isn't ideal, meaning there are odd corrections, but this gets you into the 10% ballpark.
Remember, density is a state of function, not path.
(Thanks Physics Forum)

That being said, there is a displacement effect that occurs when you put more water in the air. You not only have an "equalibrium" effect in temperature, but also density and pressure, thus raising the volumetric density and efficiency of a defined volume. Now we start to go back to the basic caveman research. Fuel + oxygen + ignition = fire. The more of any of the first two of these components you have, the hotter and bigger the fire. So the denser the oxygen or fuel, bigger bang, more ponies.

Oh, and as Physics say, cooling air DOES compress it. Cooling ANYTHING causes the molecules to come closer together, which happens to be the definition of "compress". How do you think superconductivity works? By cooling the temp to less and less Kelvin. It works with matter AND anti-matter, thus it'* universal.

Was that more than 2 cents???