Yes the chatter went away and now there is the normal slight clicking when cold at idle because i have the smaller pulley which in turm makes the charger spin faster at idle so it builds up a little more pressure to bypass and the coupler sometimes cycles when cold. Very happy with the engine acoustics now

 

Very interesting as I was planning on the solid coupler swap myself. BUT I got lucky and found a complete brand new Jaguar snout on EBay for around $200. From Jaguar it's over $500! Have not swapped it out yet and still running the factory one at 50K miles and have had the shut down clunk apparently since I got the car with less than 20K miles on it. I did not know what to listen for so until I was educated (By this forum again!) I just never listened to the car on shut down. Plus with playing the radio and how quiet my XJ is unless you have the front door open when you shut the engine down I can't hear anything!

I wonder if the spring loaded coupler acts as fuse or weakest link in the system? As an Engineer I have worked on systems that were setup so the least costly item failed first and protected more complicated and costly components from damage.
.
.
.

 

Yes i believe the spring couplers main purpose is to cushion the sudden stop of motion on shutdown as not to shear gear teeth. Straight cuts gears can be prone to this. On hard acceleration cushioning helps again. I think that is why i found wear spots after only a month of solid coupler. No cushion either way

 

eaton has flip flopped multiple times on the tvs, it was troublesome on day 1. cts-v guys were crying about supercharger knock from broken couplers just weeks into their ownership.

most people preferred the marbles in a can noise (or can’t hear it at all) to the spring coupler knock

 

DeviLSh did you read the CTS-V link? I saw where you used a clamp to install the solid coupler but there are a number of comments on that CTS forum where that is a big no-no? It has to slide on with no slop or problems will occur.
.
.
.

 

Careful. There are a lot of these floating around at that price point and they're all chinese copies, with non-OEM bearings that probably won't last as long as you want. Apparently the easiest way to tell copy from genuine is the genuine snouts have numbers in the casting on the bottom and the copies don't.

I bought one, but with this knowledge, and replaced both bearings (which were some unidentifiable brand) with genuine ones from the rebuild kit I was using on the rest of the supercharger, because I figured I was OK with non-OEM casting. Interestingly, the casting of these copies does not need to be modified to fit the smaller SC pulleys like my original OEM did, so I guess that's a bonus?

 

Yeah I am getting caught up here now. Mine was pretty tough to get on, so I am thinking about taking it all back apart (ugh) and drilling out the holes a bit. But I am really torn on this one, run the solid or get a stock replacement. Its one of those things were there could be literally 100's of people running the solid isolators with no failures. How does ZZP sell so many if these cause things to break? Really wrestling with this. But I always seem to be that exception in life, so I am now pretty nervous about turning my car over. I definitely had the knock noise on shutdown, and the shaft wear proved my stock isolator was doing some rubbing, seems weird to put the same stock part back on and hearing that noise down the road. Unless its only harmful to the ears

Lost and confused

 

I think datsports has had a solid for a while and he has no troubles. Maybe he while post in or search his supercharger thread

 

i have a zzp on my m112. no noise no complaints

installation error seems to be a big problem

 

Install is straight forward, it just goes on the 3 stubs, but I guess I feel like the difference between "too tight" and "too loose" seems subjective when it comes to citing install error. Allow me, the idiot to ask all the dumb questions

Where are all the 5.0 tvs1900 guys who installed this and had a failure? Can we accurately compare the M112 to the TVS1900 for sake of this argument?
How are those who installed it incorrectly attributing install error to the failure vs changing to a solid coupler, and likely after a worn stock coupler at that!
It sounds like the coupler needs to glide on easy, but can someone explain why? Does the slight play once installed allow for some clocking to mimic the spring design?
ZZP states its oil filled nylon and doesn't mention drilling this out for installation, how come?

I am about to order a new snout and make this part of my 3yr maint schedule, along with plastic cooling parts!

 

I now believe that this is what the manufacturer intended.

The cheapest and easiest to maintain components are subject to wear and tear. Now I have opened the supercharger and I can see it. (3.0 SC) The spring coupler is designed in such a way that all the shock load that it could not damp is transferred to the needle bearing, which is easy to replace. This is achieved by springs that apply a force at an angle to the axis of rotation. The main load is taken by the snout. Thus, the rotor bearings and gears are maximally protected.

At full throttle, the clutch is fully engaged on all three pins and the force is strictly on the axis of rotation. At this point, the spring coupler is equal to the solid coupler. However, torsional vibrations at high revs are much less.

The rest of the time the coupling dampens torsional vibrations. And at partial throttle or idling, the car works most often.

This may be why the solid coupler is quite useful in racing, where full throttle, and supercharger life do not matter so much.

 

Thank you davetibbs! I will check for those numbers as you suggest.
It came in a Jaguar box with what looks like all the correct markings. But I have not installed it yet and will inspect the box and part again for further information.

It was quite a surprise when I found it because I had the solid coupler already in my shopping basket as just about everyone recommended going to that. But the price was too good to pass it up (I hope!!)

Yes we can't compare the old M112/M90 units with the newer 1350 and 1900 TVS units. My old 2005 S Type R had the M112 blower. I replaced the entire blower at 132K miles but never had any coupler noise and we just did not have complaints of knocking from the older Eaton blowers on the S Type forum at all?
.
.
.

 

@Vincent_V what brand coupler is this?

 

Are the early vacuum chargers and electronic actuated chargers' couplers interchangeable? SCOL says this coupler is only for Vac

If they are different, anyone have a source for just the oem coupler for the later electric actuated 5.0L unit? If not, I am assuming there is a part# for the snout kit (also for electric)

 

This is a coupler from our local service (LR-WEST). They set up production and make it on a programmed machine.

It seems to me that all solid couplings are about the same. And the oil-filled nylon works the same way as the PEEK. PEEK appears to be harder. Only the precision of manufacturing is important. Unfortunately, none of the solid couplings completely dampens torsional vibrations.

 

The 5.0 electric shutter blowers use the same coupler as the 3.0 electric shutter. On 5.0 motors with a mechanical vacuum damper, a different coupler is used.

 

Here is the thread i was referring to. www.jaguarforums.com/forum/s-type-s-type-r-supercharged-v8-x200-15/supercharger-solid-coupler-heads-up-176686/

 

I'm intrigued by this - I have a 5.0 with the mechanical vacuum bypass, but why would it use a different coupler? The one I fitted looks the same as all the others. The coupler is just joining the hubs on the end of each shaft in the snout, it's not really got anything to do with the bypass valve, which (AFAIK) just opens a flap to allow air to bypass the slow-spinning rotors at idle.

 

The only thing i can figure is the vac one is snappier and goes into boost or bypass instantly needing a little cushion, whereas the electric is smoother and not such a blunt force. I would be curious as what gear set is in the tvs

 

The only difference is in size:


The picture from the Internet is for comparison only.