Turbo into turbo set up?
11-20-09, 07:34 PM
#26
Rotary Enthusiast
i was lookin in an OLD turbo book(1978) and they called it Tandem turbocharging.
also an article on Water injection ,back then it was all Preturbo injection.
funny how things get messed up over time, remember its only words, what you actually do in real time that counts.
also an article on Water injection ,back then it was all Preturbo injection.
funny how things get messed up over time, remember its only words, what you actually do in real time that counts.
11-20-09, 08:20 PM
#27
Well post it then. I would love to see an SAE paper or technical article by a major manufacturer that uses redneck terminology. My co-workers will get a big laugh out of that when I send them the web links.
Oh great, now all the rednecks on the internet are going to tell me that I don't know how to pronounce "gyros", lol.
Oh great, now all the rednecks on the internet are going to tell me that I don't know how to pronounce "gyros", lol.
Now going back to the actual topic at hand, here's a pretty good article that uses twin turbos fed into a roots blower. They refer to it as compound boost and compare it to other compound boost setups using turbo into turbo.
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...bra/index.html
I think a setup like that, with 1 turbo and a roots blower would work really well. The complexity seems lower and the concept is the same, back pressure would be lower, though theres some drag on the engine. I'm also not sure how much the supercharger would heat the air. The supercharger would build boost immediately, and create stronger exhaust pulses for getting a large single spooling.
11-22-09, 01:11 PM
#29
That is exactly my point. If every major turbo manufacturer's website, engineering book, and SAE paper calls it staging, then you can search for "compound turbocharging" until you are blue in the face and come up with nothing but diesel turbo kit advertisements from mom and pop shops, misleading internet forum threads, or turbo-compound engines. Sure, a mechanic who works in some far-off shop somewhere may call it compounding, but that isn't going to help the OP or anybody else reading this thread search for useful technical information on the subject.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the majority call it compound turbocharging which is different entirely from turbo compounding. Me personally I could care less what supposed educated peoples (or rednecks as well) call it. I've spent time on the phone and through emails with various Garrett (and BW) tech's, some are very knowledgeable to the point it'll make your brain hurt, but then ask them to suggest what turbo to use for X app and three out of five times they give a answer completely different from what has been proven to work on the street or track, though they have gotten better over the past few years.
~S~
11-22-09, 02:49 PM
#30
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the majority call it compound turbocharging which is different entirely from turbo compounding. Me personally I could care less what supposed educated peoples (or rednecks as well) call it. I've spent time on the phone and through emails with various Garrett (and BW) tech's, some are very knowledgeable to the point it'll make your brain hurt, but then ask them to suggest what turbo to use for X app and three out of five times they give a answer completely different from what has been proven to work on the street or track, though they have gotten better over the past few years.
~S~
~S~
The reason its called compound boost is boost is compunded, or combined. 2 PR + 2PR = 4PR. Boost is compounded and final pressure is equal to 4 PR of the original pressure.
If you call it two stage turbocharging, its not specific enough. You could have sequential turbo, parallel turbo, and compound. Sequential are in sequence, first stage is a small turbo during low RPM and when needed, the second larger turbo comes online to deal with high RPM. A parallel system(commonly "twin") is for two turbos of equal size running at the same time, all the time. There are also multiple styles of compounding. The style Boost Logic uses comes from diesels. The other style uses a valve system to bypass both the turbine AND the compressor of the small turbo. The reason this is done is to not compress the air a second time, which prevents adding more heat.
What Aviator is talking about is a turbo-compound system. Similar name, different idea. What you call it comes down to semantics, but the name is still correct. A good example that almost everyone uses: Engine and Motor. Most people will think, engine means internal combustion, motor means electric. This is NOT correct. What we call an engine was originally called a motor. It was called a motor because engine really meant steam engine and there was a need to differentiate the two. The terms are used interchangeably today.
So when it comes down to semantics, LET IT GO.
11-22-09, 03:25 PM
#31
... and many of the outstanding mechanics who build winning race cars may call a centrifugal supercharger a "blower", call a Roots supercharger a "compressor" (or "Kompressor" if they are German, lol), call a strut a "shock", call wheels "rims", mistake centripetal force for centrifugal force, mistake 1 BAR for 14.7psi, quote torque in ft-lbs rather than lbs-ft, etc. They may also use words like "ain't" and "orientated", lol. Fortunately for them, I am not aware of any case in which non-standard terminology has caused a car to lose a race. Also, industry standards are not necessarily required in advertising (at least in the USA), so you can pretty much call your own product whatever you like.
"Shock" is a shock absorber, which is different from a strut. A strut has a shock absorber it in, but it also involves different components, most commonly a coil spring, spring seats, and ball joint. If a tech says your struts are bad, its likely he/she is generalizing.
"Kompressor" IS the German term for supercharger. Supercharger is an English word, and just because "compressor" directly translates to "kompressor" doesnt mean the Germans are incorrect using the word.
Its true bar isnt 14.7psi. 14.5 is close enough for almost everyone. Europe even recognizes it as a measurement for atmospheric pressure at sea level.
Ft-lbs and Lbs-ft are both correct. One is common in North America, the other in Europe.
Nicknames are everywhere, but that doesnt mean theyre all misnomers. You really shouldnt try and get too technical, there may be people on the board who are much smarter and will correct you.
Last edited by ScorpionT; 11-22-09 at 03:39 PM.
11-22-09, 03:59 PM
#32
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
Oh, and technically a system using two different types of superchargers could be called a compound supercharged system (the more popular misnomer is a "twincharged" system), so what I am looking for is a system that uses two of the same type of supercharger. Thanks.
Right, but unlike some people in this thread, I am not trying to argue that the slang is more proper than the industry standard just because my feelings are hurt due to not knowing everything in the world. I am also not bitching because somebody with way more education and experience in the industry gives me some free information that I can use or ignore as I wish. I would also like to point out that so far I am the only person to contribute any technical information from the major turbo manufacturers, and that was simply because I knew which term to search for.
However, like it or not, the engineers are the guys who write all of the technical papers about their theories and what the mechanics had to change in order to make them work. Therefore, you need to play on their terms (literally) in order to fully research a subject.
11-22-09, 04:01 PM
#33
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
For those of you who don't realize it, I do not sell automotive performance parts, nor do I work for anybody who does. Therefore, I am not a threat to your business.
11-22-09, 04:43 PM
#34
Oh, and technically a system using two different types of superchargers could be called a compound supercharged system (the more popular misnomer is a "twincharged" system), so what I am looking for is a system that uses two of the same type of supercharger. Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twincharger
"twincharger refers to a compound forced induction system used on some piston-type internal combustion engines. It is a combination of an exhaust-driven turbocharger and an engine-driven positive displacement supercharger"
"The term twincharger is a misnomer, as the two "chargers" of the system are of radically different designs."
My memory is odd, in the way that I remember nearly everything I see, and where Ive found it.
As I said before, nicknames are everywhere, doesnt mean theyre all misnomers. If you take your car into a shop and your tech says your struts are bad, does that tell you the whole story. He should tell you more specifically, your shocks are bad, right?
When speaking of the current topic, compound turbocharging is more specific than simply saying "staging". There are various styles, so its better to be clear on which you mean. I could tell you my car has a staged turbocharger system, but that could mean I have the stock twins, or it could mean its a compound setup.
11-22-09, 07:36 PM
#35
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
"Aircraft Powerplants" by Kroes, Wild, Bent, McKinley.
Chapter 5: Induction Systems, Superchargers, Turbochargers, and Exhaust Systems
Heading: Principles of Supercharging and Turbocharging
Subheading: Stages
"Airframe & Powerplant Mechanics; Powerplant Handbook" by DOT/FAA/Flight Standards Service
Chapter 2: Induction and Exhaust Systems
Heading: Internally Driven Superchargers
"Turbochargers" by Hugh MacInnes
Chapter 16: Tractor Pulling
Heading: Turbocharging Tractors
Subheading: Staging
An article on Wikipedia agrees with what I wrote, so therefore I am corrected? Interesting logic there.
V
V
V
Nice memory, lol.
11-22-09, 08:17 PM
#36
If you want to be more specific about staging, then you specify "series staging" or "parallel staging". If you guys find that difficult then I guess I am really out of touch with the end users. Sorry, but it doesn't seem very difficult to me, although I guess it is hard for me to tell after using those terms for 23 years. Then again, any of you with even a basic electrical theory class under your belt should understand parallel vs. series.
An article on Wikipedia agrees with what I wrote, so therefore I am corrected? Interesting logic there.
I used the "misnomer" term based on your post that you wrote a little over an hour before the above post. Therefore, I should certainly hope that the term looks familiar to you.
V
V
V
Nice memory, lol.
I used the "misnomer" term based on your post that you wrote a little over an hour before the above post. Therefore, I should certainly hope that the term looks familiar to you.
V
V
V
Nice memory, lol.
If English isnt your first language and you need me to explain in more detail what I meant, I will be more than happy to.
11-25-09, 08:24 PM
#39
Rotary Enthusiast
I think everyone knows what were talkin about!!!!!
NOW WHO IS GONNA STEP UP AND DO IT ?????
seem as tho on this site, guys dont have enough spare money to experiment.
were as Supra types got more disposable income. IMO
NOW WHO IS GONNA STEP UP AND DO IT ?????
seem as tho on this site, guys dont have enough spare money to experiment.
were as Supra types got more disposable income. IMO
11-26-09, 12:00 AM
#42
Rotorhead
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 0
Received 39 Likes
on
33 Posts
The problem is that in many cases, those who know what is correct or better are the only ones who realize that it is not worth their trouble. If you think about it, an aftermarket vendor would jump on this in a second if they thought that they could make money with it.
11-26-09, 12:40 AM
#43
The members of this site have less money but they are more practical. Maybe it is just me, but I don't see much value in spending the time and money on the engine and drivetrain upgrades required to support a 4.0 PR or higher system. There is a certain point at which the car is no longer fun to drive and no longer fits into any of the practical racing classes, and this exceeds that point IMO. Maybe one of the aftermarket parts vendors could build it just for advertising purposes?
The problem is that in many cases, those who know what is correct or better are the only ones who realize that it is not worth their trouble. If you think about it, an aftermarket vendor would jump on this in a second if they thought that they could make money with it.
The problem is that in many cases, those who know what is correct or better are the only ones who realize that it is not worth their trouble. If you think about it, an aftermarket vendor would jump on this in a second if they thought that they could make money with it.
) would be making an insane amount of power.Yes, these kits are used commonly for 50-100psi sled pulling, and they work great. On the street, the main benefit would be strong boost from low engine speeds. You get the benefits of a small quick spooling turbo and the power of a big single.
11-26-09, 02:24 PM
#44
Rotary Enthusiast
Question ,, what do you think a 13B would be like,or act like, if you could put 20psi into it at ,say, 2000-2500rpm????
very interesting, waitin for thoughts and such!!
very interesting, waitin for thoughts and such!!
11-26-09, 02:53 PM
#46
Gear changes would be less crucial, the engine would make much more torque. More responsive. The car would be more fun in general on the street. The power would probably be more manageable due to a flatter torque curve, although lag has a way of being a traction control so you might just spin everywhere you go, at least it would be more predictable though.
Personally driving a 500+ hp car with a fairly laggy turbo on a regular basis I can tell you you never quite know exactly what the car is going to do, I feel more in control with a car that spins in the first 2 gears then grabs rather then a car that breaks loose at the later half of 3rd and 4th. Still quite fun though.
Personally driving a 500+ hp car with a fairly laggy turbo on a regular basis I can tell you you never quite know exactly what the car is going to do, I feel more in control with a car that spins in the first 2 gears then grabs rather then a car that breaks loose at the later half of 3rd and 4th. Still quite fun though.
11-26-09, 05:02 PM
#47
Gear changes would be less crucial, the engine would make much more torque. More responsive. The car would be more fun in general on the street. The power would probably be more manageable due to a flatter torque curve, although lag has a way of being a traction control so you might just spin everywhere you go, at least it would be more predictable though.
Personally driving a 500+ hp car with a fairly laggy turbo on a regular basis I can tell you you never quite know exactly what the car is going to do, I feel more in control with a car that spins in the first 2 gears then grabs rather then a car that breaks loose at the later half of 3rd and 4th. Still quite fun though.
Personally driving a 500+ hp car with a fairly laggy turbo on a regular basis I can tell you you never quite know exactly what the car is going to do, I feel more in control with a car that spins in the first 2 gears then grabs rather then a car that breaks loose at the later half of 3rd and 4th. Still quite fun though.
Ive driven a few cars that have massive amounts of low end... they can be tough to control at lower speeds. But yes, if the power is fairly linear, its definitely easier to control then the near instant power than some boosted cars have.
11-27-09, 03:03 AM
#49
im was building a compound turbo set up for my "drag" FC. but decided to use different turbos, and am now re-doing it. i believe a compound set up can be good for street, but might be better off in a full race set up where 30+ psi will be seen. but properly sized turbos can be used for the street use with success.
it actually comes to around the same price when building a turbo set up to reach around 700+ whp. a turbo that will work efficiently in the 30+ psi area will cost around the same price as the 2 smaller turbos that are working as one. but you will get the huge advantage of earlier boost to reduce 60ft and 8th mile times. leaving tubbed V8s shitting themselfs at the line...
but you will spend just a little more on a second wastegate (wich i usually run 2 gates on my single turbo anyway) and a little more in material to make the manifold and intake set ups. but the cost isnt much more.
i'll be "stepping up" and doing this. but will be a little while before its finished. and yes, theres plenty of room.
it actually comes to around the same price when building a turbo set up to reach around 700+ whp. a turbo that will work efficiently in the 30+ psi area will cost around the same price as the 2 smaller turbos that are working as one. but you will get the huge advantage of earlier boost to reduce 60ft and 8th mile times. leaving tubbed V8s shitting themselfs at the line...
but you will spend just a little more on a second wastegate (wich i usually run 2 gates on my single turbo anyway) and a little more in material to make the manifold and intake set ups. but the cost isnt much more.
i'll be "stepping up" and doing this. but will be a little while before its finished. and yes, theres plenty of room.