I searched so sorry if this is a repost but I just came accross this. As bad ass as the 2300 is can you imagine what this thing is like? It was on display this year at sema and its probobly about 1 year till you see it available.
Tvs 3100!!!!
- Thread starter redsap05
- Start date
it looks pretty cool. i wonder if they'll ever be able to make a roots-based blower that can hang with a twin screw in the upper realms of HP. eaton is really making some big strides in efficiency with these blowers though!
Thats cool but they're way behind. By the time that comes out 2.8H and 3.4s will be old. The 4.0 Whipples and 3.6KBs will be the poop.
Wow, I walked through the Eaton booth and didn't pay attention to his. I saw one TVS that looked like the standard model, so I kept going.
They need to sell these Blower Only for the 5.4s. :idea:
They need to sell these Blower Only for the 5.4s. :idea:
They should use it for the 2011 gt500.
i thought a TVS is considered a twin screw??
The TVS series blowers are still a roots type, just more efficient than the standard series.
this!
there are basically 3 types of roots blower:
GMC roots blowers(6-71 and the like, the 6 being the number of cylinders, the 71 being the cu-in of one cylinder. originally produced for 2 stroke detroit diesels, hence 71 cu-in cylinders)
previous gen eaton roots superchargers, used in nearly every factory supercharged application(excluding the twin screw M-Bs and newer TVS cars)
current gen eaton roots supercharger, known as the TVS(twin vortices series)
the differences all come down to the inlet/outlet ports and the rotors, namely the number of lobes on the rotors, whether the rotors are straight, twisted and, if so, the degree of twist, and the rotor spacing.
GMC roots superchargers have 2 lobe straight rotors(which is why cars that use these surge at idle), and 'looser' rotor tolerances. i believe some aftermarket companies may produce them with a small twist in the rotors, or possibly 3 lobed rotors, though i'm not sure.
previous eaton roots superchargers are a LOT more efficient, with 3 lobe rotors with some twist(i want to say 60*, though i'm not positive) and tighter tolerances between the rotors.
the eaton TVS, is even more efficient, with 4 lobe 160* helix rotors and much tighter rotor spacing.
one interesting thing to point out is that the GT500 features an eaton M122H supercharger, the "H" standing for 'hybrid'. what is special about this is that it is basically the previous gen supercharger case with a much more efficient rotor design, similar to the TVS.
the difference between the eaton TVS and twin screw superchargers is in the rotors. while the TVS uses 2 identical rotors that push the air around between the rotor and the case and compress the air by forcing a it into the intake manifold, twin screw superchargers have a male and a female rotor that squeeze and compress the air between each other. this is also the reason twin screws cost so much more than roots style, because the tolerances have to be MUCH tighter between the rotors to get as much of a seal as possible.
Last edited:
I prefer tvs over twin screw for the low and mid range
i dunno, that package looks awful stubby (read short and tall) to displace 3.1l.
If that's the only rotor profile then it probably aint fitting under the hood of mustangs.
you can tell it's short\tall due to the length of the snout as compared to what's required on a 5.4l.
Obviously this is just by looking at pics and just my guess.
If that's the only rotor profile then it probably aint fitting under the hood of mustangs.
you can tell it's short\tall due to the length of the snout as compared to what's required on a 5.4l.
Obviously this is just by looking at pics and just my guess.
pretty sure they surge because of lack of bypass; not rotor profile.
i'm certainly not an expert on this by any means, but everything i've heard has said that the rotor profile(being straight 2 lobe) is atleast part of the cause, because it causes air to 'pulse'(for lack of a better word) into the intake manifold rather than a steady flow of air like what an eaton roots or twin screw gives you(due to the 3-4 lobe twisted rotors).
i could very well be wrong though.
considering the cobra jets, and pauls high performance hit the 9's with the 2.3 tvs, this is very interesting...
+1 ...they also 'pulse' like crazy because they have little or not twist.
---
the 122H has 82* twist, the prior Eatons (including the '03/4 Cobras) were 60* twist and, as Ry_Trapp0 pointed out, the TVS is 160* twist.
However, roots types merely move air from above to below the rotors by grabbing air on top (via the rear inlet) and pushing it to the bottom outlet thereby creating pressure below the in the lower intake. All roots types have the same number of lobes on each rotor because there is no internal compression in the SC. Twinscrews create boost by having a dissimilar number of lobes on the male and femal rotors (Whipple typically 3 and 5 and KB typically 4 and 6). Is this dissimilarity that actually causes compression between the rotors and the case of SC. For this reason twinscrews incurr compression overhead even wen the bypass/recirc valve is open. Roots types do not incur this overhead and that's the major reason why OEMs use them almost exclusively (98% of all fixed-deisplacement OEM SCs are roots types) -- slightly better mileage/efficiency. This (case compresion) is why twinscrews tend to push thru a restrictive exhaust a bit better but, liter-for-liter and on a well optimized car (very low restriction intake and exhaust paths), the roots TVS is more efficient ...not a concern at the drags but for mileage cert it matters and also possibly on a road course where better mileage and pitting a few laps later has value.
Of course every manufacturer claims they have thebest supercharger and they're all correct (lol) in a specific context, but I'm a TVS bigot because I like efficiency. I'm aware of tests where, at identical modest boost (14-16#), a 2.3TVS consumes well over 35 less HP than a KB 2.8 (yeah, they deny it but the dyno doesn't lie). In fact, I've been in touch with Eaton engineering who makes over 95% of all SCs sold to OEMs (multiple twinscrew designs, low-helix roots and TVS-roots) and who also test all other manufacturers superchargers and they told me that, in their respective sweet spots, the 2.3 TVS ins unmatched in efficiency by any othter SC the make or anyone else's they have ever tested. Just passing along what I was told.
Yeah, that 3.1 TVS looks big! About a year ago Eaton would not deny that a 3.0L TVS was in development but would only say it would take an OEM program commitment to make it happen. So it would appear some OEM has stepped up and that seems to be Ford. It's like the SC wars have errupted! -lol.
WOW I hope this fits the shelby down the road. This will be a bad sc for OEM part. This will be plenty of power for me. Very interesting indeed.
WOW I hope this fits the shelby down the road. This will be a bad sc for OEM part. This will be plenty of power for me. Very interesting indeed.:dancenana:
I heard it will be harder to fit than a 3.4.
great info! the only thing i wonder about is the efficiency testing that you mentioned. of course eaton will test the TVS in its sweet spot, but what about the other blowers? i hear people talk about the 2.3l vs both the 2.8l KB and the 3.4l whipple, but the sweet spots of the 2 twin screws are certainly higher than the 2.3l, right? the fact that the 2.8/3.4 are more efficient at higher blower speeds levels than the TVS isn't proof that they are better, nor is it proof that the TVS is better because it's more efficient at lower blower speeds.
would a 2.1l twin screw be ~ equivalent to the 2.3l TVS? if so, i would like to see that test done(or any test between equivalent superchargers for that matter), so we could really get an idea of how the 2 different supercharger designs compare and not just how 2 different superchargers compare.
Might be a bit too big for pump gas efficiency... but could be a great blower for those who hit the track a lot. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Users who are viewing this thread
