Someone do it.. :D

[mark_airey]

just to continue this -

Electric superchargers vs. Belt Driven

In general, while electric superchargers are less expensive than belt-driven superchargers, the horsepower boost that they provide is also significantly less.[citation needed] However, belt driven mechanical superchargers consume some of the power produced by engine in particular at low revolutions (see Supercharging versus turbocharging supercharger), while electric superchargers are decoupled from an engine via an oversized energy storage (e.g. several electric accumulators in series)[dubious â?? discuss]. This results in different "somewhat raw" boost supplied during low revolution regime of the engine.

Power supply for electric superchargers

An electric supercharger, if supplied by series of common stock electric accumulators, runs independent of the engine to which it provides its boost. However, electrical energy consumed is often higher (in the range of 100 A e.g. Power of 10 kW = 12V * 833 A) than what a production-line generator (e.g. alternator) of the engine can supply. Larger alternators are therefore fitted to recharge accumulators (often reconnected from serial to parallel circuit) during the engine run without the boost.

Efficiency

The efficiency of electric supercharges is curbed by several energy conversion losses (alternator for charging), damp energy while charging the accumulators and compressor providing boost. The losses are in general higher than direct kinematic linkage of intake air compressor to engine crankshaft.

So in summary - electric is less efficient than using a belt! it will require a lot of work to make it better than the current 'norm' or a belt run SC.