twin chargeing a FC?
09-12-07, 11:49 PM
#1
twin chargeing a FC?
not that im ready, or even thinking about this as a possiability right now,
but yesturday night i saw a twin charged mini, smoke the **** outta a ws6, not just once, but about 4 times.
it had 2 be the fastest mini ive ever seen, and looking under that cars hood was like looking at my first naked woman. it was that good!
has this ever been done 2 an FC b4?
if so does ne body have any pics or specs?
but yesturday night i saw a twin charged mini, smoke the **** outta a ws6, not just once, but about 4 times.
it had 2 be the fastest mini ive ever seen, and looking under that cars hood was like looking at my first naked woman. it was that good!
has this ever been done 2 an FC b4?
if so does ne body have any pics or specs?
09-13-07, 12:16 AM
#4
o im well aware that a mini is not an FC,
im just wondering if its ever been done b4 and if so how fast was it?
cuz no joke the ws6 that ran with him, his best pass was a 12.031, his worst that day at the track way 12.5(due 2 a bad 12 shift and launch wiggle)
and the mini put about a bus legnth on him,
no joke thats a 10sec or less mini ******* cooper,
i mean **** if thats not impressive on a baby *** motor like that,
than what is?
09-13-07, 01:05 AM
#7
I hate drum brakes
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
09-13-07, 01:39 AM
#8
i think it was an attempt 2 be sarcastic.
im really curious if twin charging would produce one bad *** rotary engine?
useing a twin screw type sc for a more efficient design, (air actually compressed inside the sc caseing, lower output temps then csc and roots), and perhaps placing the sc after the turbo, to force the intake into the turbo, to boast spool time as well as the exhaust feed pressure of 15+ psi being produced as soon as the pedel goes down depending on pully size, but inter cooling both would be a bitch, air 2 air has been more effective than water 2 air as far as turbo goes(with my experiance) at least at high boost,
and as for as the sc goes you cant beat a nice cool water filled ic core, with non metallic ic plates 2 reduce heat transfer between the block and core, as far as weight and the ammount of work placed on the sc pulling all that air through a turbo, and the ic with pipeing,(mabey v mount wold cause less issuses?)
it would have 2 be a very fine balencing act. and expensive.
and i havent reserched water 2 air ic's for the 13b.
i donno, just thoughts 2 turn the hampster wheel?
it would be cool 2 see someone whos done it though.
im really curious if twin charging would produce one bad *** rotary engine?
useing a twin screw type sc for a more efficient design, (air actually compressed inside the sc caseing, lower output temps then csc and roots), and perhaps placing the sc after the turbo, to force the intake into the turbo, to boast spool time as well as the exhaust feed pressure of 15+ psi being produced as soon as the pedel goes down depending on pully size, but inter cooling both would be a bitch, air 2 air has been more effective than water 2 air as far as turbo goes(with my experiance) at least at high boost,
and as for as the sc goes you cant beat a nice cool water filled ic core, with non metallic ic plates 2 reduce heat transfer between the block and core, as far as weight and the ammount of work placed on the sc pulling all that air through a turbo, and the ic with pipeing,(mabey v mount wold cause less issuses?)
it would have 2 be a very fine balencing act. and expensive.
and i havent reserched water 2 air ic's for the 13b.
i donno, just thoughts 2 turn the hampster wheel?
it would be cool 2 see someone whos done it though.
09-13-07, 06:26 AM
#11
mmmmmmmmm twin turbos..
I love that it still has the P/S on it.
do a search for Superchargers on here, you aren't going to find a lot of people that have made it work on a rotory. Now combine that with finding room for that AND a turbo and I would say forget it. For alot less money and time there are many ways to do a 10sec FC
I love that it still has the P/S on it.
do a search for Superchargers on here, you aren't going to find a lot of people that have made it work on a rotory. Now combine that with finding room for that AND a turbo and I would say forget it. For alot less money and time there are many ways to do a 10sec FC
09-13-07, 12:38 PM
#14
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Freeport, Maine
Posts: 1,225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those twins are mine now! ahahaha I'll have to get some updated pictures of my engine bay. I have them with a 31x12x3 v-mount intercooler setup ect. But i've seen a bi-charged mini and it was f-ing badass. My setup is doing well, i'm running 8psi right now and soon will put the 15psi spring in there. It's a good time.
09-13-07, 01:06 PM
#15
NO!
Why?:
Because supercharging is in no way advantageous on a rotary. Too little torque to drive a torque-robbing device like a supercharger. No matter how you rig it, the gains from a super charger will never be as efficient as those from a turbo.
NO, I just couldn't believe you were talking about a turbo AND a supercharger. My bad
...and perhaps placing the sc after the turbo, to force the intake into the turbo, to boast spool time as well as the exhaust feed pressure of 15+ psi being produced as soon as the pedel goes down depending on pully size...
But perhaps what you really meant by "place the SC after the TURBO to force the intake into the TURBO.." was this.... (see diagram)
In which case I salute you, because this looks like a beastly setup!
...air 2 air has been more effective than water 2 air as far as turbo goes...
it would have 2 be a very fine balencing act. and expensive.
09-13-07, 01:11 PM
#16
This is getting added to my rotary engine quote hall of shame. The first half of it is just downright laughable and the second part is too generalized to have any meaning. It implies that every turbo is more efficient that every supercharger. Not true.
09-13-07, 02:23 PM
#19
You're right
You're right though,
Supercharging is advantageous on a rotary......compared to N/A.
The second part is too generalized. It should read:
"The gains from a supercharger will never be as efficient as the gains from any reasonably sized turbo charger..."
I mean honestly, you'd have to have something smaller than a T-28 or larger than a GT-47 for a turbo to be less efficient than a SC on a rotary.
Crazy Driver: thanks, I practice my mspaint skills daily, can't you tell.
09-13-07, 04:36 PM
#22
OK "turbo rookie", if you're going to call me out, first kindly hand over proof to verify your statement.
Um, duh? Isn't that the point?
From "a supercharger"? What supercharger? A tiny M45 or M60 Eaton? A Vortec? A Paxton? A Camden? How about a badboy W305AX series Whipple twinscrew? "Reasonable sized turbocharger"? How about a reasonable sized supercharger? I have yet to see anyone here install a properly sized or modern supercharger on a rotary so you can't tell me you've seen a nice one do badly. There are a couple that we do see here though.
First we have the Camden. The Camden units are 2 lobe nontwisted units. These are the single least efficient superchargers you can get with technology that is 60+ years old. Throw 60 year old turbo technology with straight cut blades on your car to see how fast it is compared to modern units. Not even close. Therefore EVERY dyno you see of these will not be impressive. Install a TD-05H turbo off of a 1st gen Eclipse on a rotary and see how much power it makes. It'll be crap too!
We've seen Paxton units in the past. These too weren't very well designed. The superchargers were too large for the rotary. These kits ran in surge most of the time. Take a look at a turbo map sometime and tell me where a nice efficiency line is on the left side of the surge line. There aren't any! That's why those kits were crap.
We've seen people install M60 Eaton superchargers on their cars. One old thread had one installed before the throttlebody. That alone killed the project so that's a bad comparison of potential. The others we've seen have been less than spectacular but when you consider you are still dealing with a roots blower, efficiency still isn't that impressive. On top of that the M60 is way too small for a rotary. You really need a minimum of an M112 but it's still a roots blower. These are better designed units than the Camden though as they are 3 lobed and twisted 60 degrees as opposed to straight 2 lobe designs. While more efficient than a 2 lode of the same size, we are still off the efficiency of a twin screw, a centrifugal, or a turbo that flows an equivalent amount of air.
Last we have the holy grail of superchargers and that is the twin screw. There are 2 types, the Lysholm and the Autorotor. Autorotor actually owns Lysholm though so there's really only one. However like the roots, there is more than one style. The standard Lysholm (which is what the standard Whipple is) has 3 lobes on the "screw" and 5 lobes on the opposing rotor. The higher end Lysholm (and top of the line Whipple) has 4 lobes on the "screw" and 6 on the opposing rotor making it more efficient than the other twin screw. Then you also get into differences between the oinlet and outlet shapes due to one body being cast and the other machined from a solid forging. You also run into different outlet sizes as the smaller ones make more pressure and are more efficient at higher boost levels compared to the standard ones. If you really want to go head to head with a supercharger vs a turbocharger, you need to compare this one to a turbo of the same airflow abilities. We have one basic turbocharger design. Just different combinations of sizes within them. We have a few different supercharger designs though. To be fair we need to compare the modern turbocharger to the modern supercharger and that is the Lysholm twinscrew. If you are going to reference wrongly sized or decades old supercharger technology as a comparison, you must also level the playing field and use either an ancient turbo or one that is far too small for the job. I suspect I won't see anyone volunteer that comparison.
Now keep in mind that I'm not saying that in a truly fair comparison that a turbo won't make more power. It should but it isn't as large of a margin as everyone thinks it is and even then the supercharger still has some advantages and vice versa. That's because while a turbo does in fact use wasted energy in the exhaust, it does this at the expense of exhaust backpressure and as everyone should know, backpressure is NEVER a good thing. No it doesn't make low end torque. The biggest reason I can think of to use a turbo is a very powerful reason and that is price. Everyone and their dog makes a turbo now and they've gotten cheap. If you want a twin screw, you're going to pay for it. From a dollar standpoint it's hard to beat a turbo. From a powerband standpoint (I already know who's going to argue this one!) a good twin screw would be very hard to beat on the street. Again, this doesn't mean a turbo has a bad powerband. I'm not saying that.
You stated that the rotary is too small to spin a torque robbing device like a supercharger. It can spin an exhaust restriction like a turbo! It's all about sizing. A top fuel dragster has a mammoth (and archaic) roots supercharger on it that is so large that an LS1 couldn't spin it. Your info is plain wrong. A rotary can spin a supercharger. When cruising they don't take much effort to spin. Usually less than an a/c compressor. Tell me how much power you are losing to a turbo when not under boost compared to a car with a proper header on it as opposed to one with a cork on the tailpipe! You'd be surprised! Under boost, they give back more power than they take (no that doesn't mean it's perpetual motion!). That's why boost works the way it does. Turbos are no different in this regards. If a Civic engine can spin a supercharger, so can a rotary. Everything needs to be properly sized for the job.
Please do some more homework before giving advice next time.
The second part is too generalized. It should read:
"The gains from a supercharger will never be as efficient as the gains from any reasonably sized turbo charger..."
I mean honestly, you'd have to have something smaller than a T-28 or larger than a GT-47 for a turbo to be less efficient than a SC on a rotary.
"The gains from a supercharger will never be as efficient as the gains from any reasonably sized turbo charger..."
I mean honestly, you'd have to have something smaller than a T-28 or larger than a GT-47 for a turbo to be less efficient than a SC on a rotary.
First we have the Camden. The Camden units are 2 lobe nontwisted units. These are the single least efficient superchargers you can get with technology that is 60+ years old. Throw 60 year old turbo technology with straight cut blades on your car to see how fast it is compared to modern units. Not even close. Therefore EVERY dyno you see of these will not be impressive. Install a TD-05H turbo off of a 1st gen Eclipse on a rotary and see how much power it makes. It'll be crap too!
We've seen Paxton units in the past. These too weren't very well designed. The superchargers were too large for the rotary. These kits ran in surge most of the time. Take a look at a turbo map sometime and tell me where a nice efficiency line is on the left side of the surge line. There aren't any! That's why those kits were crap.
We've seen people install M60 Eaton superchargers on their cars. One old thread had one installed before the throttlebody. That alone killed the project so that's a bad comparison of potential. The others we've seen have been less than spectacular but when you consider you are still dealing with a roots blower, efficiency still isn't that impressive. On top of that the M60 is way too small for a rotary. You really need a minimum of an M112 but it's still a roots blower. These are better designed units than the Camden though as they are 3 lobed and twisted 60 degrees as opposed to straight 2 lobe designs. While more efficient than a 2 lode of the same size, we are still off the efficiency of a twin screw, a centrifugal, or a turbo that flows an equivalent amount of air.
Last we have the holy grail of superchargers and that is the twin screw. There are 2 types, the Lysholm and the Autorotor. Autorotor actually owns Lysholm though so there's really only one. However like the roots, there is more than one style. The standard Lysholm (which is what the standard Whipple is) has 3 lobes on the "screw" and 5 lobes on the opposing rotor. The higher end Lysholm (and top of the line Whipple) has 4 lobes on the "screw" and 6 on the opposing rotor making it more efficient than the other twin screw. Then you also get into differences between the oinlet and outlet shapes due to one body being cast and the other machined from a solid forging. You also run into different outlet sizes as the smaller ones make more pressure and are more efficient at higher boost levels compared to the standard ones. If you really want to go head to head with a supercharger vs a turbocharger, you need to compare this one to a turbo of the same airflow abilities. We have one basic turbocharger design. Just different combinations of sizes within them. We have a few different supercharger designs though. To be fair we need to compare the modern turbocharger to the modern supercharger and that is the Lysholm twinscrew. If you are going to reference wrongly sized or decades old supercharger technology as a comparison, you must also level the playing field and use either an ancient turbo or one that is far too small for the job. I suspect I won't see anyone volunteer that comparison.
Now keep in mind that I'm not saying that in a truly fair comparison that a turbo won't make more power. It should but it isn't as large of a margin as everyone thinks it is and even then the supercharger still has some advantages and vice versa. That's because while a turbo does in fact use wasted energy in the exhaust, it does this at the expense of exhaust backpressure and as everyone should know, backpressure is NEVER a good thing. No it doesn't make low end torque. The biggest reason I can think of to use a turbo is a very powerful reason and that is price. Everyone and their dog makes a turbo now and they've gotten cheap. If you want a twin screw, you're going to pay for it. From a dollar standpoint it's hard to beat a turbo. From a powerband standpoint (I already know who's going to argue this one!) a good twin screw would be very hard to beat on the street. Again, this doesn't mean a turbo has a bad powerband. I'm not saying that.
You stated that the rotary is too small to spin a torque robbing device like a supercharger. It can spin an exhaust restriction like a turbo! It's all about sizing. A top fuel dragster has a mammoth (and archaic) roots supercharger on it that is so large that an LS1 couldn't spin it. Your info is plain wrong. A rotary can spin a supercharger. When cruising they don't take much effort to spin. Usually less than an a/c compressor. Tell me how much power you are losing to a turbo when not under boost compared to a car with a proper header on it as opposed to one with a cork on the tailpipe! You'd be surprised! Under boost, they give back more power than they take (no that doesn't mean it's perpetual motion!). That's why boost works the way it does. Turbos are no different in this regards. If a Civic engine can spin a supercharger, so can a rotary. Everything needs to be properly sized for the job.
Please do some more homework before giving advice next time.
Last edited by rotarygod; 09-13-07 at 04:41 PM.
09-13-07, 07:57 PM
#24
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
OMG! Fact!!! I love it....
So I'm working with an ECU guru who has tuned everything from 380 BHP N/A P-Ports to P-Port 13b's with a T-98 making silly power. We got into the conversation about blowers on a rotary. We both had the stance that exhaust velocity on the rotary seems to be very important. Such to the fact that the huge T-98 - the cork in the exhuast, is just that, the engine wouldn't idle with the wastegate closed. Made for some interesting tuning I'm sure. Anyways, he & I always wondered what a properly sized and build blower would do vs a turbo cork in the exhaust. Then we both realized that to do it right requires an enormous cost for R&D and neither one of us wanted to go there.
The question is still posed though
Is the parasitic loss from a supercharger more or less than the torque lost spining the turbo?
So I'm working with an ECU guru who has tuned everything from 380 BHP N/A P-Ports to P-Port 13b's with a T-98 making silly power. We got into the conversation about blowers on a rotary. We both had the stance that exhaust velocity on the rotary seems to be very important. Such to the fact that the huge T-98 - the cork in the exhuast, is just that, the engine wouldn't idle with the wastegate closed. Made for some interesting tuning I'm sure. Anyways, he & I always wondered what a properly sized and build blower would do vs a turbo cork in the exhaust. Then we both realized that to do it right requires an enormous cost for R&D and neither one of us wanted to go there.
The question is still posed though
Is the parasitic loss from a supercharger more or less than the torque lost spining the turbo?