Supercharging AND Turbocharging

The 1UZFE EGR Delete Kit is available for sale here.
Thats the Lancia s4 setup

Thats the lancia S4 Setup

at the end they had over 650hp out of 1.8ltr

Scary mumbo. I know a gu in christchurch thats been playing around with a twin charge fiat 124 and theres a guy in the states on the fiat board thats getting pretty big hp ou of a twin charged fiat 2 ltr in a morris 1000, minor.
 
volumex if I'm not mistaking.

nice stuff but would rather have seperate devices for upgrading ease.

grtz Thomas
 
Yeah, I've downloaded a couple of videos, it's an amazing sound with its own unique character.

I just never realised the first time it came up that it was twincharged..... The entire car and the boat that was made are just beautiful works of engineering art.
 
and very costly I might ad!

grtz Thomas

ps: Now if I can get them to do my 1uz SC...... for free!

 

Attachments

  • cd79re2.jpg
    cd79re2.jpg
    38.9 KB · Views: 29
  • 2d64re2.jpg
    2d64re2.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 32
  • 5b02re2.jpg
    5b02re2.jpg
    38.8 KB · Views: 28
  • 18b8re2.jpg
    18b8re2.jpg
    34.1 KB · Views: 24
  • 82e1re2.jpg
    82e1re2.jpg
    39.2 KB · Views: 18
Hi guys, Cribbj has just e-mailed me and invited me to join in this thread. As I am an old former member here I did not need to register, just log in again.

Two things, the supercharger can never be restricting flow if the discharge pressure is higher than the intake pressure. That is a basic truth. Think about it.

The second and much more important point that everyone here seems to have missed, is the significance of exhaust back pressure in all this.

Which will flow more and be less liable to detonate ? A turbo engine running 20psi boost with 30psi exhaust back pressure, or a twincharged engine running 20psi boost with 10psi exhaust back pressure ?

The supercharger can raise boost without imposing any additional exhaust back pressure. That is the key to real horsepower without lag.

If you can keep boost pressure much higher than exhaust back pressure, and run some decent cams, you will make vast top end power and also have low end torque and good response as well. The turbo guys simply do not understand how high exhaust back pressure is killing their engine.

There is probably not one turbo guy in fifty that has actually measured his exhaust back pressure. They all know what boost they are running, but exhaust back pressure, usually not a clue.

So before you turbo guys point the finger at a supercharger as being restrictive, I say your exhaust turbine is far more detrimental to top end performance than any supercharger ever would be.

I am the same Warpspeed as on the engineers Forum, and that twincharged Holden in Australia belongs to a friend. I have been a sort of twincharging mentor in that project over the last four years. The results he is getting from it, even though it is still very early in it's development is truly impressive.
 
No real argument, most modders in either camp wouldn't know the why's or half the physics involved. I have measured my back pressures in the past and to date my systems have made more boost than exhaust back pressure if i don't ask too much of the turbo but getting off track so I'll ask for the umpteenth time then...if the SC isn't a restriction why is the turbo there? ie the SC can deliver the flow
 
The answer to your question is tied up with volumetric efficiency and all the combined pressure drops distributed around the induction and exhaust systems. We all know that volumetric efficiency peaks at the torque peak, and above that, engine torque always falls off at an ever increasing rate as rpm rises further.

Positive displacement superchargers suffer pretty much the same fate as the engine itself, and for the same reasons. As rpm rises, the supercharger suffers a fall off in volumetric and flow efficiency.

But turbos are very different. The main reason being, that with turbos and centrifugal superchargers, the boost pressure created increases roughly square law with the increase of shaft drive rpm. Double the drive rpm, and boost pressure increases (approximately) four times. So these centrifugal compressors do not have the same fall off in top end performance suffered by all positive displacement engines and superchargers. The opposite is the case. A wastegate or some type of boost limiting system needs to be used to reduce the available pressure and flow at the extreme top end. So a centrifugal compressor can not only overcome all the other combined flow losses but exceed them by a spectacular, margin.

The down side of these centrifugal compressors is also well known. The square law pressure rise means that below certain (fairly high) threshold rpm, the boost created is negligible.

So the trick with twincharging is to combine all the definite advantages of positive displacement supercharging, but overcome the fall off in top end developed flow and pressure by using either a turbo or a centrifugal supercharger to raise the sagging top end performance. A turbo makes more sense than a centrifugal supercharger for many reasons, but either would work.

So the answer to your question is that a supercharger plus a turbo can have a much better combined performance over a very wide operating flow and engine rpm range than either just by itself.

The characteristics of a twincharge system can be altered by changing supercharger drive ratio, and turbine a/r. The result can be either more like a supercharged engine, or more like a high power peaky turbo engine, or some well adjusted compromise that utilizes the very best characteristics of each systems, without the disadvantages of either.
 
I recommend anyone (in this century still) thinking twincharging is a good solution to the (very) old supercharger/low and turbocharger/high conundrum should do very thorough research on Opcon Autorotor and Opcon Lysholm products.

Have a look at Autorotor spec charts. You will see volumetric eff. above 90% and adiabatic eff. between 60~70% across the full rpm operating range.

For some reason a lot of people really believe Eaton and Garret are the pinacle in their respective catagories. The only thing Eaton has going for it is low cost. With Garret it's just advertising/marketing blitz.
 
I was so hoping Warpspeed would turn up! :p

Welcome back dude, I love the thread on the Engineering Forum, incredibly interesting read.

So going with twincharging seems wonderful if you can manage it, what I totally havent thought about is twin charging with an SC AND an SC, using a roots/twin screw (probably twinscrew) SC and also a centrifugal SC instead of a TC.

But you mention that it makes more since to use a TC instead of the centrifugal SC? Why is this? Apart from the obvious drag on the crank what are the disadvantage and advantages of using either in this place?
 
Warpspeed, thanks for your input; it's good to have you back.

Greybeard, I take your point about the Opcon and I'm definitely one of the converted - I have a 422 going onto my 1UZ.

However, I think we'd all agree that twincharging is a very interesting concept, and it's worthwhile to let this thread run, not shoot it down.

This has evolved into a technical discussion to learn more about it (and to help our member Wayne who has sunk a ton of money into his setup, and would probably like it to work better than it does!)

BTW, what's your relationship with Opcon Autorotor?
 

Attachments

  • UZFE-Family.pdf
    64.9 KB · Views: 2,287
I certainly agree that an Opcon is a wonderful supercharger and would make an excellent choice for a road car. It has only two slight disadvantages, initial cost, and the internal compression that is so desirable for supercharger performance, is definitely detrimental to fuel economy. Why ? The supercharger is always internally compressing the air, even under very light throttle, zero boost conditions. And that takes shaft drive horsepower. Not much, but enough to significantly effect fuel mileage by placing a constant drag on the engine, especially in a very small light car. But hey ! Who really cares about that in a performance vehicle anyway.

Roots blowers are probably more suitable in a twincharge project because they usually cost significantly less (especially secondhand) and they can be completely mechanically unloaded by opening up an air bypass around the blower. That is a far better way to do it than using a clutch. At the sort of low supercharger differential pressures required for twincharging a screw blower is really a bit of a waste.

But I definitely agree with Greybeard on this, an Opcon Autorotor, or even the lower cost Whipple version, either type would be an excellent solution.

I like twincharging because it works so extremely well.

Try explaining how well a turbo car goes to someone that has never driven or even been a passenger in a turbo car. They will probably say something like "if turbos actually worked, every car would have one". Or "all that expense and complication is just completely unnecessary".

That is the problem I am having trying to promote the idea of twincharging. The turbo guys just cannot accept that there is something VASTLY better. They just cannot understand it.

Anyone that has ever driven a twincharged car would never again accept the laggy peaky difficult to drive characteristics of a high boost turbo engine. Twinchargiing is really that good.

Stocky McStock (Neill), the guy with the twincharged Holden is over the moon with joy the way it drives, just read his posts at the Commodore Forum, and watch his video clip.
 
Okay so you are saying roots instead of screw? I thought the two were essentially the same except one (the screw) does actually *compress* the air and the other only essentially passes it from one place to the other quicker then the engine can take it.

Surely you are still machanically loaded on the crank even if you are bypassing around the roots? And surely the screw would be the same anyway?

Or would I be correct in thinking that the screw would create extra load because it is trying to compress nothing (a vacuum/creating a vacuum?).

So what about using a centrifugal SC instead of the TC? Whats wrong with that?
 
But you mention that it makes more sense to use a TC instead of the centrifugal SC? Why is this?

Attempting to belt drive both a positive displacement supercharger and a centrifugal supercharger together off the crank would be a much bigger engineering challenge in the space usually available in a modern car than I would wish to tackle.

The other reason is controlling the final boost pressure of a centrifugal supercharger is nowhere nearly as easy as fitting a wastegate to a turbo.

So basically the turbo is far easier to install, and the final combined boost pressure of the twincharge installation much easier to set and control with a wastegate.
 
Ah yes of course because with the TC we can just wastegate the exhaust around it to limit it's input whereas with the SC you can't exactly do the same (I guess clutching it would be the only way but I guess not a good plan?).

Sorry for all the questions dude but now you are here..... :D

So the roots Vs. screw? Are my assumptions way out or is that pretty much the thinking?
 
O/k, now imagine you have a roots blower, and you completely removed the outer casing, so the two rotors are just spinning around completely open in the air.

Almost no power is required to turn those rotors. Opening up an direct air path between blower discharge, and blower intake effectively does the same thing. The blower runs with almost zero back pressure, the air freely circulates, and the supercharger takes almost no power to drive.

A screw blower crushes the air between the rotors while the exhaust port is still covered. As the rotors turn further around, the exhaust port becomes uncovered, and blasts already compressed air into the outlet port. Even when running with zero back pressure at the outlet, the compressed air that explodes out of the supercharger outlet port has already been compressed internally, and that consumes some drive torque to do.

While a screw supercharger is extremely efficient when fighting against serious back pressure, it is less efficient than a roots blower when just
coasting along under zero boost conditions.

A roots blower will run almost stone cold when not doing any actual work. But it hates back pressure.

A screw blower always runs hot, even when not producing boost, and that is trying to tell you something. Compressing that air internally generates heat and it consumes power to do so.

But under boost, and working very hard, the screw blower will have a lower discharge temperature, and consume significantly less drive power than a roots blower. The higher the boost, the greater the advantage the screw blower has.

I am just saying that for very low boost applications where light throttle fuel economy is an important factor, the roots blower may still be well worth considering.

For serious high performance applications that must run fairly high boost pressure, the screw supercharger is going to be far superior to anything else.

If I was planning a supercharged street engine I would use a screw supercharger.

If I was planning to build a twincharged street car, I would most likely use a roots blower. The difference in light throttle fuel economy might be as high as 10%, and when petrol eventually hits $2.00 per litre, that may be something worth thinking about if you cover a lot of miles.

Roots lowers are quite efficient in the 5psi to 8psi range, but that is not serious performances territory. Above maybe 12Psi a roots blower is just beating the crap out of the air and adding heat. But 7psi across the supercharger may be all you need for a pretty potent 14psi twincharge.
 
Okay I am being an idiot, I'm not looking for what I think is the simple answer you are giving which is simply that compressing a gas (air) is always going to take some work..... simple science, of course.

So this is why the screw will sap more power than a roots in light throttle applications. But if you weren't worried about light throttle fuel economy and/or were gunning around the 1000-2000bhp mark, you'd go with a screw right?

Also do you intercool after the SC in a twin charged setup? If not or if not possible should water injection be considered?
 


Top