I think most Supercharger additions actually are done after the owner has
already increased the compression and is not satisfied with the results.
Sometimes one has to take steps backwards in order to move forward.
Yes, The term "Modified Engine" is the operative case here. However, I believe
Judson intended the usage to actually mean "An engine that has
increased Compression" over stock. So you put increased compression on top of
increased compression and that is where the troubles lie. But if you
modify the engine to lower the baseline compression and tune the cam timing to
better handle the boost, you can (or should be able to) add power
without overstressing the engine.
Also, as Kas points out, controlling timing and fuel flow while the boost
increases, helps keep detonation and running the engine lean in check.
Hopefully, as I consider these things, I don't miss any details.
Joe (C)
BillDentin@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/13/01 7:02:31 PM Central Daylight Time, spitlist@gte.net
> writes:
>
> << I fully intend to make you eat your words! I am going to build a complete
> engine specifically engineered to handle the Supercharger. It will have
> decreased compression, forged pistons, a cam ground specifically for the
> supercharger and the best rods we can find for the price. >>
>
> Good for you, Joe. I hope I get to eat my words. I had a 1959 TR3A with a
> Judson Supercharger. I broke the crank and cracked the block warming up for
> an autocross at an early NATC in Illinois. The bottom end of the Triumph
> engine appears to be a weak link. The Judson directions said something o the
> effect of, "Do not use on a modified engine." At least when I did it, they
> were right. I hope you find a path that works.
>
> Bill Dentinger
>
> Bill Dentinger
|