Ryan/Banks Super-Turbo Freightliner

RonA said:
I get the whole throttle response issue with a supercharger versus turbos, but has anyone made good power with one? By good I mean say 800hp. Seems like if it had good throttle response an 800hp setup that was reliable and hopefully a bit quieter might be fun. It wouldn't be much on top end, but might make a nice daily driver. Especially if the smoke level and egts were down a bit.
Click to expand...

This truck made over 800rwhp, but with a procharger. Had an 80mm single turbo that it was blowing into. Comes up on the turbo like yesterday! :rockwoot:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4EcrzWZ1dU"]8000lb Outlaw smokin 2010 - YouTube[/ame]

Banks also made 800hp at 4,000rpm and 808lb-ft at 1,200rpm with an Eaton setup on a Dmax, so the theory is sound.
 
I see some that look like a turbo with a belt driven gearbox, and others that look like a meshing screw type. What kind of lifespan do they have and what are the advantages of one over the other.
 
RonA said:
I see some that look like a turbo with a belt driven gearbox, and others that look like a meshing screw type. What kind of lifespan do they have and what are the advantages of one over the other.
Click to expand...

Roots/screw type are positive displacement. Lots of air at all rpms. Centrifugal charger are like turbos, they need to get "spooled" via rpm before they start displacing a lot of air. Roots type have a disadvantage that it creates a lot of hot air.

Someone more knowledgeable than me can explain it better.
 
They both claim 100,000+ mile lifespans.
the screws are a positive displacement type, so they move air and can create pressure directly proportionate to RPMs.
The centrifugal type are basically gear driven turbos, so they too have a map and only produce pressure when spun above a certain RPM. Of course, with the right gearing, this could be all the time.
Either will produce heat and uses crank HP to operate.
As with ANY compressor, more boost = more power consumed to create it.
BUT- if designed properly, the system can lower the losses associated with the compressors by staging them so that the later stage relieves the pressure from the early stage. In this case, the turbo pulls on the blower, reducing the pressure it needs to produce, thus drastically reducing the HP it needs to consume.
FWIW- I have found the larger the SC used to try and stay above the turbo's output, the more HP it consumes in the process (duh). So using an SC that is only producing enough flow/pressure to get the turbo(s) lit is more efficient. Of course in an all-out race application, this point is moot to some degree. I drive around on a large blower pulley to use very little HP and create min heat for DD/tow, but swap to an aggressive small pulley @ the track where MPGs arent applicable. ;)
 
TURBOLVR said:
They both claim 100,000+ mile lifespans.
the screws are a positive displacement type, so they move air and can create pressure directly proportionate to RPMs.
The centrifugal type are basically gear driven turbos, so they too have a map and only produce pressure when spun above a certain RPM. Of course, with the right gearing, this could be all the time.
Either will produce heat and uses crank HP to operate.
As with ANY compressor, more boost = more power consumed to create it.
BUT- if designed properly, the system can lower the losses associated with the compressors by staging them so that the later stage relieves the pressure from the early stage. In this case, the turbo pulls on the blower, reducing the pressure it needs to produce, thus drastically reducing the HP it needs to consume.
FWIW- I have found the larger the SC used to try and stay above the turbo's output, the more HP it consumes in the process (duh). So using an SC that is only producing enough flow/pressure to get the turbo(s) lit is more efficient. Of course in an all-out race application, this point is moot to some degree. I drive around on a large blower pulley to use very little HP and create min heat for DD/tow, but swap to an aggressive small pulley @ the track where MPGs arent applicable. ;)
Click to expand...

So basicly you are using the blower as a secondary stage and feeding it with a large primary turbo . That's gotta hurt the wallet.
 
RonA said:
So basicly you are using the blower as a secondary stage and feeding it with a large primary turbo . That's gotta hurt the wallet.
Click to expand...

Negative. totally the opposite. I use the SC as one of the ATM chargers. It feeds my 480 which feeds my 64. BUT I use a bypass to allow the turbo(s) to pull more than the SC is providing as needed. That way, I dont have to use a huge SC and OD the piss out of it to keep it ahead of the turbo(s).
...although I can if I want to... :evil
 
TURBOLVR said:
Negative. totally the opposite. I use the SC as one of the ATM chargers. It feeds my 480 which feeds my 64. BUT I use a bypass to allow the turbo(s) to pull more than the SC is providing as needed. That way, I dont have to use a huge SC and OD the piss out of it to keep it ahead of the turbo(s).
...although I can if I want to... :evil
Click to expand...

Holy compound complexity batman! That's a lot of plumbing. I'd love to see it in person sometime.

RonA
 
Paralleling the primary stage.
I challenge you to build a planetery gear/ pulley that it electronically clutched. Selectable drive ratio.

From my Not-So-Smart phone
 
Last edited:
biggy238 said:
Paralleling the primary stage.
I challenge you to build a planetery gear/ pulley that it electronically clutched. Selectable drive ratio.

From my Not-So-Smart phone
Click to expand...

already done. procharger came out with a electronically controlled clutch and tranny setup for their procharger. you can program your own boost maps and gear selection.


i-1 Supercharger
 
It seems to use the variable trans tech from snowmobiles. doesnt say how much hp it can handle in regards to boost, just *up to 900hp from the engine, which doesnt really say squat since there are plenty of 900hp NA engines.
I'm glad someone finally did this though!! :)

They claim the a/a intercoolers are more efficient than the a/w intercoolers.
 
JQmile said:
This truck made over 800rwhp, but with a procharger. Had an 80mm single turbo that it was blowing into. Comes up on the turbo like yesterday! :rockwoot:

8000lb Outlaw smokin 2010 - YouTube

Banks also made 800hp at 4,000rpm and 808lb-ft at 1,200rpm with an Eaton setup on a Dmax, so the theory is sound.
Click to expand...

I helped build that truck, it was a monster, wish we were able to work the bugs out but the owner got discouraged and gave up...
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvs5jYCMSD8"]Banks Super-Turbo Freightliner RACE FOOTAGE - YouTube[/ame]
 
It really sucks so much of the course was wet. Would have been cool to see how the super-turbo stacked up against the previous compound setup on a dry vs dry course. Cool vid!
 
My understanding is Mike is/was so dominant most all his competitors dropped out so he is basically racing to beat his own record.
 
Given this years truck was within 10sec of last years record set on a completely dry track/road its pretty clear the Banks mods have made it notably faster.
 
torqueofthetown said:
Given this years truck was within 10sec of last years record set on a completely dry track/road its pretty clear the Banks mods have made it notably faster.
Click to expand...

I run an SC/twin turbo. I know exactly why its faster.
Also noticed that when gale sets a record, its in a class that doesnt have any competition.
I totally understand why he does it, but its kinda the big fish/small pond scenario, like hiring hulk hogan to win your neighborhood wrestling title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top