Triple turbo 3 rotor?
 

I tried searching... but didnt even know where to start.... lol
Does anyone have info on this car??

http://kierf.net/images/3rotor_3turbo.jpg

http://huntngtest_mo21.tripod.com/modify/st-18.html

whoa.. does the hood even close ?

I think.... yeup.. my mind was just blown., hope I dont have a lotta money in the rebuld....

It's really a pointless set-up but, if you have small turbos available and have the time to DIY the manifolds, then you can have something that's unique like this one. ;)

Yeah, I mean its cool for how unique it is, but the combined weight of the exhaust manifold, all the turbos and downpipes must just be stupid

Yep, but if sized correctly, I belive that it will have a pretty good torque range. Broad mid range.

What makes you think it is pointless? So is a 2 turbo 2 rotor pointless too?

It is pointless, considering that you can size one single turbo to provide the same airflow and compression of two smaller turbos. There's no difference if you size them correctly, other than the weight and complexity, both of which will be lower with a single turbo setup.

man where is ReTed when you need him! that's like his favorite car.

i think the shop that built it is axia tuning or something, its from the 90's and look, stock ignitors, stock ignitors = stock ecu!

I have a dream to own a mini car.

Racing beats salt flats car used a 20b tri-turbo setup in it when it set the land speed record. Though, technology has come a long way since...


-J

So you are saying 1 80mm turbo moves the same volume as 2 62mm turbo? Would you agree more volume =more hp?

Oh boy:blush:
Last time I checked, volume is dictated by engine. Cooling fan also moves a lot of volumetric air:lol:

Its same as ridiculous discussions about boost and saying that given boost on stock twins is different to same boost on larger single. It doesn´t. Boost is consequence of flow, so as long as temperatures are in check - and after intercooling they can be very same, and boost is same, then flow is same. In reality it isn´t, but answer doesn´t lies in compressor but in turbine and VE% of whole combination.

In regards of discussion about single vs. twin vs. triple etc... Single turbo supporting given flow at given pressure ratio with reasonable efficiency will be most efficient and practical approach. Why? Larger frame turbochargers are inherently more efficient than smaller units. Aerodynamic reasons, percentage of clearances, air gaps heat loss etc...

Not at all. It's mass flow rate that equates to power, because at 14.7 psi, you're running DOUBLE the air at the SAME volume. Ever seen a compressor map?

The only way that boost on stock twins and boost on a larger single would be the "same" at the same psi is if they both have the same efficiency at that boost and airflow. Looking at just the compressor maps of aftermarket turbos, you can clearly see that different compressors will flow different amounts of air or be more or less efficient at a given pressure ratio. They'll also do this at various different shaft speeds.

That doesn't even begin to take into account the turbine blade and housing design, which will again affect what the efficiency of the turbo will be, as will the piping downstream of the turbo.

Now answer one question: how many of you internet scientist warrior on this forum make over 900hp? It is easy to pretend how smart you on the internet? In afew week we are having Gabby fly over here to tune my cousin twinturbo 2 rotor.

Don´t worry, I´m fully aware of this. And I hope you read whole my post. Honestly I assumed condition when neither turbo is in choke and both are operating inside of map. Different efficiency numbers will change mass flow, but not that much as some people think. Much more impact is on other side - less efficient compressor needs higher shaft torque - higher turbine expansion ratio and vica versa. And this is main reason why big turbo with big hotside, but even hybrid with stock hotside will operate with higher VE% of whole system and this is where majority of increased power at given boost lies.

As above, I hope we are on the same boat:lol:

All bullshit aside, the real benefit I can see to this kind of setup is isolating the exhaust pulses to minimize interference between them before the turbine. This can show gains in spool on a fully divided manifold/turbo on a 2-rotor, as Mazda did going from the S4 to S5 design turbos, so I don't see why it wouldn't be significant with a third exhaust pulse. Being as though there aren't any mass produced triple-inlet manifolds, this would be the only logical way to isolate the pulses. That's my logic anyways... Where's Arghx with his SAE papers...

A single sized to make the same identical power of 3 small turbo's at the same boost level would have more lag and wouldn't spool as early.. That is the reason for doing it. It's complicated, adds weight, but there is a reason for it.

thewird

don't forget that it looks cool, nobody's seen the car run in a decade, or even at all, but we're still talking about it.

I've got to be honest here - there is a bit too much bench racing.


On race set ups twins work better (in this respect) because you are in the power band much faster and there is less lag with two smaller twins flowing the same amount of air as opposed to one big one. As far as turbos go, you want airflow instead of boost. Pressure is resistance to flow nothing more. You can put down major power with either twins or a single it just depends on what you are trying to build and how much horsepower you want to make.

In regards to the weight - i highly doubt its enough to affect on the car.
Chances are, the sub-optimal tune will hurt the car's power output more so than some extra piping. The exhaust manifolds are overly simple on these too. no collector needed.


If you disagree with me - bring something other than your Smokey Yunick ideas and let's hash it out.

It is the Axia show car from the 1990s.

It is, but the design of the turbo can also affect the VE of the system a little bit. However, you are basically correct, and the person you were correcting is well-known for his lack of education in physics. Don't even bother trying to explain it to him.

Well, Arghx SAE paper regarding this tells, that fully divided manifold and turbine housing is benefical at low speeds and transient response. On the other hand, turbine at full load and high RPMs works better with steady flow of collected setup on single entry turbine.

Yes, I´m aware of change in VE%. Variation can be pretty wild on high overlap setups, but it very same applies to stock engine. Turbine inlet pressures are something rare in rotary comunity:) Unfortunatelly, most people don´t bother to think from where comes that huge increase in power with single setups at same boost as stock or generaly smaller units. Some people say efficiency, some are sure about volume:lol:

Would you share your thoughts on this topic?

Let's keep the topic on track - the OP wanted a little more info on the car not the communities thoughts on twin .vs single turbo setups.

What are the chances at getting the Hyper Rev article copied to the internet?

I actually have some documentation somewhere (Mazda documentation if im not mistaken) that says quite clearly that parallel turbo setup will produce more lower end torque versus the higher RPM torque of a large single turbo and spool substantially faster. So to summarize. Single turbo's will spool slower than an equivalent and properly engineered parallel setup. Parallels add some weight, and complication to a turbo build but not so much so that it can't be done or that the performance enhancements are negated. Yes your turbo efficiency can be effected by your choice of turbo chargers, and generally speaking a large single is the way to go. However! in a driving situation where fast response and large amounts of low end torque are necessary a twin system would be ideal.

Case in point. RE- Amemiya designed parallel twin turbo manifold. and Howard Coleman designed Parallel twin turbo setup.

I think you have a good handle on it. Obviously the "flow" thing is bogus, lol.

If you are asking what I think about 3 turbos on a 3-rotor engine, I think it would be a great idea for a show car. However, I have my doubts that it would work well at lower engine rpms if each turbo were fed by only one runner, and it doesn't seem very practical to build a manifold log that would feed all three turbines equally.

V
V
V

Main page:

multi turbo setups work great,apart from my higher boost race car I just finished a customers 13b(s6,stock intake,water to air) street car with twin turbo(.63 o trim,56mm comp) setup,one exhaust per turbo with twin gate setup. 11psi it makes 410whp at the treads on a dyno dynamics with an awesome broad power curve,best 13b Ive ever driven on the street as far as power delivery goes,looks and sounds awesome to which for a lot of people is very important,these are our hot rods after all
I dont care in the science of it all but seems to make a broader power with the twins,even in my twin turbo drag set up was alot nicer than the big single,hence why I put 3 on the 20b,oh and it looks and sounds the goods too:lol:

brent

Very nice results. Good to see that it works for you. Problem is that people here are comparing apples and oranges. They claim that twins spool faster but top end is better with single. So what will happen when we correctly size both setups to make same power? Spool up will be very same or better with single

Spool would still be faster with the twins . horsepower would be the same assuming ideal tuning but the twins would have higher torque at lower RPM's while the Single would have the same or similar torque figures as the twins although higher in the RPM band.
So a bigger hit down low compared to the same hit higher in the revs. Pretty much apples to apples comparison there.

Rule! Thank you very much!

thanks man....

I was thinking the same about coleman's set up....

thanks for the pics.... I tried searching but wasnt sure what to look for...
I think putting all the technical crap aside. Its a pretty badass looking setup. The same reason people 2jz....or LS... Its something different.

Where not on the subject of 13b's. For one, you have less room in the engine bay for all the expensive fabrication that would need to be done to make it work with the longer engine. I like that my car still has ABS. Plus you now have three potential turbos to replace if you blow the engine $$$. Also more components, more chances of failure. Do I need to keep going? Like I said before, if you have all this stuff lying around and the fabrication skills to build it, then do as you please. It's still not practical. Some people think if somethings not practical, then it's poinless.

Know one needs to be a scientist when you have references like these to help make a point. Single turbo 20b 1st gen.


https://www.rx7club.com/showthread.p...hlight=1st+gen



FWIW, I could care less about MAX hp. ;)

Ha, he did do that as a matter of fact. I've seen it first hand - could have kept the ABS but thats WAY out of of the scope for his car. Go easy mate, your definition of "practical" might no be the same as mine or anyone else's.

You mention "$$$" when replacing turbos should the engine go, if the 3rotor took a dive - 3 small-framed turbos aren't at the top of the list from a monetary respect. I'll admit something semi embarrassing - I spent over $3k on a monster GT47r for a 3rotor project. a 48lb turbo! I was too nervous/scared/whatever to finish the build with turbo. I took it off and sent it back. My thought was "If I broke this turbo, damn, I wouldn't want to shell out the cash to rebuild it and be $X into just one turbo".

3 TD06 / 20G (or a GT28r sized turbo) is a little cheaper than one big one - on that same note, these are so old and cheap nowadays it wouldn't even matter. A TD05 / TD06 is easier to swallow than a single GT47r from P/T.

My whole point to typing all this crap is - you might not agree with his quality of work or how he gets things done or his setup, etc etc but you have to hand it to him - he's actually trying this and is successful!! not bench racing his 6 second 1/4 mile armchair fueled by bullshit.

What I completely hate about this "community of car guys" (not specific to this forum - I'm encompassing all haters worldwide) is speed in which it takes for someone to say "thats a load of crap and is a stupid idea and probably wont work - you n00b". Well, sure w/e. Might be true to an extent but where is the support for someone wanting to build a stupid 3rotor/3turbo car? ..no where.. I've not read one single positive remark supporting anyone building / running a 3rotor engine with 3 turbos. These people are too quick to point out flaws and spout smokey yunick / corky bell (read: antiquated) remarks.

Sometimes you guys are too damn quick to bash without knowing half the story.

I can tell you this - once he finishes up with that car ... you would have to be a pure hater to not congratulate him on the goals reached and achievements.

Hey all,
Damn this has been interesting to read! Now if only I could read Chinese =) Have to admit the car looks great, which I personally think was the primary reason for doing it. Would have cost a bomb and been a logistical nightmare to get everything to fit! So the builder gets my nob for being out there and making a dream a reality, even if I'd never consider it. But hey, someone took pleasure in doing it, and as an engineer I appreciate the huge effort they went to. As for the practicality of the three turbo setup, noting comments re pulses and porting etc, I just want to make a few quick observations and comments...

Um, where's the cold air/ clear air intake for the three turbos? And where are the air filters for that matter? This engine, for all its beauty, isn't going to breath well or cleanly. There is now extra radiant heat under the bonnet from the extra turbos and DP's, and immediate reduced efficiency simply because the air to the intakes is by no means balanced. So seriously said, it may look cool, but how long is it practically going to last - and how efficient "can" it really be?

So turbo's are are great things. They get exhaust gases rush up to them, make friends, and spin like crazy. Then suck air like a sonofabitch stuck on a chicks lips on a first date, jam it into the engine and the cycle continues. But look at the bends this poor bastard has hard to use just to make it all fit. Bends cause resistance, resistance slows the air down, slower air means less power. But not just that, now you have a situation where all three turbo's are spinning at different rates as each has different levels of friction to overcome (assuming, which I don't think we can, that the manifold distributes the exhaust evenly and in a thermally efficient manner) - so you have created a problem you need to fix (or ignore) which is each turbo is generating different boost amounts - not to mention that their bearings will wear at different rates, again changing boost and further reduces efficiency.

Sure, on paper, three small turbo's can deliver comparable torque and power to a single spinner - if in both cases they are correctly size mated to the engine, expected gas flow and are correctly regulated. But don't think that if you have three small turbos that you are going to generate amazing torque early when compared to a single spinner. You have a third as much exhaust to start with per turbo, so it will take a comparable amount of time to boost up as a 3 rotor single turbo build would - assuming both builds are designed for the same overall torque and power. What I mean by that is simple: If you have a smaller turbo being fed by X cfm of gases, it will spin up quickly (ergo early torque), then peak out at its max efficiency (determined by its physical size), delivering Y power. The same engine with the same cfm of gases, now with a larger turbo, will take longer to spin up (aka turbo lag), delivering less power and torque early in the rev range, but because a larger turbo has a greater boost potential (and an efficiency range that is higher than a physically smaller unit), the ultimate power achieved will now be considerably greater. If you want early boost from sfa revs, then you need to shunt ALL the available exhaust gas to a small turbo first, before passing the gas to a second larger turbo when the revs/ load builds up. Mazda did it with valves and clever computers and bits and pieces that worked pretty well - for a while. But we normally chuck all that in place of a single spinner because, a) the Mazda stuff was bloody hard to get right and keep working properly, and b) because we can make much more power without sacrificing much (if any) torque by making the engines breath, spin, and flow better.

So does this car look great? Yes! Looks super cool. But would it stand up to a well balanced and mated single turbo 20B? Very unlikely, as from a design perspective it's already fighting its own design inefficiency.

Still, it looks great, which I think was the whole point it was done :)

^ very well said.

+1

+1
Theoretically, it could lead even to surge condition. Single wastegate would help, but then, point about separating pulses is moot:lol:

If people would use properly sized singles in the first place, this discussion wouldn´t even happen:lol:

Very nicely said. And in polite way:nod:
In loaded situation, spool up would be probably comparable, yet single will most likely perform better. In transient responsiveness, moment of inertia has big influence but so does pulsed exhaust flow. But with 1/3 worth of energy, moment of inertia of one turbo would have to be 1/9 of singles moment of inertia to accelerate at same rate. Exhaust pulses of RE can spin up things pretty sharply, but divided housings make this point also moot in case of 2-rotor.

I would be really glad if someone could post up some relevant info about superiority of multiple turbochargers in parallel, of course considering they can produce as much power as comparable single. Since I don´t see any reason they could:scratch:

actually if you use internal wastegated turbos, then the manifold is actually very simple. i do agree it would take more time to find a place for everything to FIT.

yeah, and this forum is pretty good!

many many years ago, my friends built a twin single turbo FD setup. since they just used the car we have here to mock it up, and make sure it ran, it didn't get many miles, but yes the turbos will fight each other!

I just can't stand the typical know-nothing statement "twin turbos spool faster because they're smaller." I hear people say this a lot. No shit, they also have half the exhaust driving them.

I don't doubt that in an optimized setup, the overall lag of the individual setup could be less (then again, it could also be more) but I doubt that the real-world implications of it would be significant. Furthermore, fabricating the setup and getting it running right is going to be much easier with a single-turbo setup. I have all the respect in the world for someone that can pull this off, but the reality of such a setup is that I personally wouldn't even attempt it. Glad not everyone shares my opinion, though. :)

?????? I haven't made any comments on the quality of anyone's work. The OP wanted info and I posted my opinions on the subject. Now jamespond24 however got a little bent out of shape with my comments. Why I have no idea! Were talking about 20b applications and he comes in with his thoughts on a twin turbo set up for 13b???? This is the 20b section and the orginal question was 20b related. Search my post history if you want but I have never made ANY negative comments on twin turbo 13b set-ups. I have plans to build my own in the future. Now I will say this, I really shouldn't have used the word "pointless" in my 1st post. That opened up the can of worms. ;) But I do fell it's still not practical.




I don't hate on rotorheads. I have a really special project going on myself. ;)

As would I. Though I doubt we ever will see it because imho (as Scotty would say) "ye cannot change the laws of physics." :D