PDA

View Full Version : Blower + Turbo?????



xThunderbirdSCx
01-28-2006, 08:16 PM
Ok i was just reading the thread below on the m112 and i got to thinking...

What would happen if i were to run a turbo off the output of the supercharger, then pipe the turbo's output back through our IC and back into the engine, even using the stock lower IC tube and intercooler.

It would save $$ on exhauts manifolds and such.

What would be the problems involved with this kind of set up? Is the 14psi from the supercharger the same as the exhausts psi?

Would this get rid of turbo lag?

How much would it cost and what would i need to do it?

Brad Klein
01-28-2006, 08:28 PM
Do you know how turbos work??? What would drive the turbo??? What would you do with the SC air once it went through the turbo???

You wouldnt be doing any good like that

Duffy Floyd
01-28-2006, 08:29 PM
Huh? How is that going to be any advantage? The output of the SC is TOO low to "power" the turbo. The ONLY way a turbo "works" is to be driven with exhaust gases which are much hotter and less dense that what you would get from the SC alone. Now in the member's forum there is a post I made about using a turbo and SC on the same engine. VW is using this tandem system on the 2006 Golf (in Europe at least). The SC is declutched at higher RPM's where the turbo can effectively supply air to the engine. There is a bypass valve in the system that shunts intake air normally supplied by the SC at lower RPM's over to the turbo at high RPM's for supply to the engine.

xThunderbirdSCx
01-28-2006, 09:20 PM
i was just wondering...instead of using the real exhaust gasses to power the turbo, use the air being driven out of the supercharger as a "pseudo exhaust". The ouput of turbo would go through an intercooler and into the intake manifold, and the exhaust of the turbo into back into the engine bay, or piped below the chassis.

I was wondering if the supercharger would provide more "drive" than the exhaust. Use the 15lbs of boost coming from the supercharger to drive the turbo, and let the turbo make the boosted air for the engine.

With this setup, the only thing the supercharger is acting as is an exhaust basically.

Think of it this way. Is the 15 lbs of boost coming out of my supercharger more than the "boost" coming out of my exhaust that would turn the turbo?

Here is a picture i drew, to kind of represent what i mean...
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8629/superturbo8yd.png

Inherently, my idea is to add a turbo onto the car, but drive it using the gas coming from the supercharger. Im going on the assumption (correct me if im wrong) that the superchargers output PSI is more than the exhausts output PSI. This could allow me to keep the engine semi-stock, only replacing the IC and Tubes for custom tubes, a new FMIC and a turbo)
and not require new exhaust manifolds. Also, i could revert it back to a solo supercharger ordeal if i wanted to.

Plus, it would be more efficient (turbo air is cooler and such)

Inherently, i want to turn the supercharger into a "fake" exhaust to drive the turbo. Turn 10PSI from the supercharger into 25 from the turbo.

So i guess my only question would be, what is the PSI of pressure coming out of the exhaust.

David Neibert
01-28-2006, 09:56 PM
I'm correcting you..No No No .....the supercharger output isn't providing nearly enough flow to spool the turbo, it must use the hot exhaust gas. Using something other than exhaust gas to power the turbo would be less efficent. Your design wouldn't work at all.


David

JimmyDean
01-28-2006, 10:38 PM
We get the parasitic drag of a supercharger, and the lag of a turbocharger, ALL IN ONE PACKAGE! What could be better?

Stephen Beltz
01-29-2006, 04:49 AM
You cant power the turbo off the supercharger becase its powered off the exhaust, but if you powered the blower with the turbo would you get any more boost? If you run the intake to the turbo and the boost off the turbo through the intercooler to the blower like stock, would it work?

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 09:34 AM
Well apparently Dave N. is the only intelligent one whos posted so far. Thanks Dave.

Question though...how is the hot compressed dense air coming out of the supercharger have less flow than the exhaust? Isnt the same amount of air going in as it is coming out (remember the "Conservation of Mass" from chemistry class?" just in a different compound.

This has been buggin me all day and i really wish someone could find out some air flow properties of the exhaust so i can compare it to the superchargers. I really think i could somehow make it work.

Make a custom bracket to fit on the end of the top IC tube, bolt the turbo's exhaust port to that. Add an intake to the turbo, and then route the lower IC tube to the turbos outtake.

For some reason i believe this is possible because i think the supercharger is able to punch more air more powerfully through the turbocharger than the exhaust, and it would do it sooner too, helping eliminate turbo lag. The turbo would then become the forced induction to the engine.

I dont know why but im compelled to try it.... :o

It would help alot if someone could give me some Exhaust CFM numbers and Supercharger outlet CFM numbers to compare.

XR7 Dave
01-29-2006, 09:55 AM
You've forgotten the additional energy and volume given to the exhaust by combustion. The same amount of air does go out the tailpipe as goes in the intake but at 1200-1500 deg it has a little more energy than it does at 200-300deg.

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 09:58 AM
aha....now i see.

So your telling me i would just fall flat on my face with this setup?

Are ANY gains possible?

It would be cool to go the turbo route, but i really dont want to have to change the engine/exhaust system much.

And since turbo setups arnt even produced for the SC, it would get pretty expensive.

David Neibert
01-29-2006, 10:19 AM
aha....now i see.

So your telling me i would just fall flat on my face with this setup?

Are ANY gains possible?

It would be cool to go the turbo route, but i really dont want to have to change the engine/exhaust system much.

And since turbo setups arnt even produced for the SC, it would get pretty expensive.

Yes flat on your face...no gains only more losses. The reason a turbo makes more power than a supercharger, is because it uses heat energy from the exhaust to spin the turbine and compress the intake air instead of using a belt that takes power off the crankshaft.

David

PS: Visit turbomustang.com for some excellent reading material about turbocharging.

Duffy Floyd
01-29-2006, 10:25 AM
"Well apparently Dave N. is the only intelligent one whos posted so far. Thanks Dave. "


Is there an echo in here???? I believe Dave made the exact same point I made in the third post in this thread. Geez.....I wonder why I even try to respond sometimes.:rolleyes:

Brad Klein
01-29-2006, 10:41 AM
"Well apparently Dave N. is the only intelligent one whos posted so far. Thanks Dave. "


Is there an echo in here???? I believe Dave made the exact same point I made in the third post in this thread. Geez.....I wonder why I even try to respond sometimes.:rolleyes:
It seems there is a big echo Duffy everyone has told him NO but yet he keeps asking :rolleyes:

David Neibert
01-29-2006, 11:28 AM
"Well apparently Dave N. is the only intelligent one whos posted so far. Thanks Dave. "


Is there an echo in here???? I believe Dave made the exact same point I made in the third post in this thread. Geez.....I wonder why I even try to respond sometimes.:rolleyes:

Duffy,

Yes you did, but your post count is so low that many of the noobs don't know you were digging into these cars while they were still in 2nd grade. Or maybe it's like when I ask/tell one of my kids to do something.....they don't really listen until about the 3rd time.

David

Duffy Floyd
01-29-2006, 12:30 PM
David,

Perhaps you're right. Remember our mantra over on the TBSCEC though? Quality over quantity?????? Oh well.....a man's got to know his limitations...right?

It really IS a question of thermodynamics though which I do have some background in.:)

mannysc
01-29-2006, 01:03 PM
dont get all hurt Duffster some of us still love ya.

hell I remember being a noobe we all learn as we go after all this is not your everyday car.

have you guys noticed all the new names the old timers are few now adays, hell Im like a grandpa half the guys here could be my kids.

remember when going 13s was pushing the envelope?

dave just gave a quik clean explaination of it so he was thanked .

some of us forget that not all of the peoples here have the understanding of the real workings of turbo/blower designs.

to tell the truth a blower turbo design is not needed with todays turbos the turbos boost comes on pretty quik and little turbo lag is seen.

a turbo with a good stall converter and intercooler will out do any blower any day. sad but true .

but hey we are still kings of the street. i mean better all around streetable setup with a blower but for all out comp a turbo is the way .

I give this one credit for thinking of a new way to blend the two but alas it wont work but it had me thinking hmmm.

a venturi creating hi volocity aimed at turbo vanes and a ......:eek:

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 01:19 PM
Whoops, sorry Duffy, i was talking about the people who had no idea what i was even asking.

Youre right. Thanks for all the help guys.

Brad Klein
01-29-2006, 06:30 PM
Hey Manny remember when we had a Judge? Anyone here from Dick and Judy anymore??

ThunderCoupe
01-29-2006, 07:39 PM
wow how quickly a thread can get off track when someone gets their toes stepped on a little bit...

What i'd like to say is has anyone who said no ever actually tried it? Have any of them calculated the exact numbers? I doubt that they have. Yes, exhaust gas has much more energy stored in it and slightly more mass from combusted fuel, not to mention it's even more pressurized by the compression of engine, but can a supercharger produce as much flow as a normal engine's compression? I really dont know, but i believe it's possible. You're not going to want to use as thick of tube as we currently have coming off the supercharger, and you wouldn't want a raised top on it, you would want to reduce the volume of space between the supercharger and turbo as much as you could with maybe even as small as 3/4 inch tubing as smaller would be better, but your also goign to have to worrry about adapters to fit the inlet of the exhaust side of the turbo and the outlet of the supercharger.

i dont know exactly what part of ohio you live in, but i'm on the east side in the youngstown area and would love to get my hands in on a part of this if you are seriously concidering it. PM if your interested. Also, I have a long post on the m112 thread that goes into a lot of different scenario options.

besides, if your planning on turboing it anyways, your still going to need the turbo, why not give something different a try?

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 07:51 PM
Have any of them calculated the exact numbers?

Thats exactly what im asking for! I believe with some intake tubing, some aluminum block, and a little fabrication by someone with welding experience we could fab something up in no time. Its really actually pretty cheap to make. The only thing that is changing is the IC tubes. If someone wants to actually try this, we should get together sometime this spring and plan accordingly.

I mean, what if, WHAT IF, it turns out this setup could create great leaps and bounds over normal numbers. It may not be as efficient as a normal turbo setup but would sure be cheaper and easier to set up. If it works the way i think it will, it would be a great alternative to a more expensive supercharger, and dare i say it, might even match or surpass that of the mighty autorotor and MPIII, and for a fraction of the cost too!

One question though....would the MAF have to be reloacted to the lower IC tube since the new airflow will be coming from the turbo? Any air being sucked in through the supercharger WILL NOT be used for combustion, it is merely wasted gas to spin the turbo. So a filter wouldnt even be necessary on the supercharger end.

What kind of problems can be run into with this setup?

ThunderCoupe
01-29-2006, 08:13 PM
supercharger wouldn't need a filter or even an intake really, pulling in the hot air of the engine bay may not be ideal, but also may not hurt

and yes, the MAF will definately need to be relocated somewhere

... unless of course you then run the waste from the supercharger into the intake of the turbo, in which case you would then need the filter and intake on the supercharger and would want to once again start there with as cool of air as possible...

David Neibert
01-29-2006, 08:15 PM
Thats exactly what im asking for! I believe with some intake tubing, some aluminum block, and a little fabrication by someone with welding experience we could fab something up in no time. Its really actually pretty cheap to make. The only thing that is changing is the IC tubes. If someone wants to actually try this, we should get together sometime this spring and plan accordingly.

I mean, what if, WHAT IF, it turns out this setup could create great leaps and bounds over normal numbers. It may not be as efficient as a normal turbo setup but would sure be cheaper and easier to set up. If it works the way i think it will, it would be a great alternative to a more expensive supercharger, and dare i say it, might even match or surpass that of the mighty autorotor and MPIII, and for a fraction of the cost too!

One question though....would the MAF have to be reloacted to the lower IC tube since the new airflow will be coming from the turbo? Any air being sucked in through the supercharger WILL NOT be used for combustion, it is merely wasted gas to spin the turbo. So a filter wouldnt even be necessary on the supercharger end.

What kind of problems can be run into with this setup?

Please don't take this personal, but it obvious you don't have a clue how turbocharging works.

Here's the basic problem with what your proposing...the HP required to spin the supercharger (off the crank via the belt) will be greater than the additional HP gained from the turbo's compressor. The net result would be a loss of power...not a gain. Choking down the supercharger's outlet to get higher velocity will only generate more heat and require more HP to turn the supercharger.

David

Mike8675309
01-29-2006, 08:17 PM
No offense but it's obvious when folks consider doing something like this that they ABSOLUTELY have no clue about the physics or mechanics involved in how either a supercharger function, and their limitations, nor those of a turbocharger.

It's been described by multiple people that KNOW these things as being a task of zero value. It's not like folks are trying to popo someone's idea because they don't understand it. Strictly based on physics and mechanics of the two systems, it won't benefit you anything...zero... nada.

With that said, if you wanna give it a go, knock your self out. Nothing like learning the long way around.

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 08:29 PM
What i dont realize is, if the turbo is not hot from exhaust gasses, and is drawing in only cold air, it would be alot more efficient than a usual turbo setup.

Im having an AIM convo about this, and jeremy brought up a good point,

"(19:25:12) Jeremy: and the way i see it, by just dumping the supercharger, you end up with it giving the same drag on the engine as an alternator
(19:25:39) Jeremy: because all it's doing is spinning, there's a lot less resistance than trying to force the air into the engine


And no, i have no effing clue how a turbo works, but for some reason i think that this can work.

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 08:35 PM
It may not provide the gains of a conventional turbo system
BUT
what im trying to acheive is something MORE efficient than an SC,
but cheaper than a turbo set up


you could do this mod in 4 hours

If i could get some cooperation, mabye someone can help me punch some numbers.

Even a minimal gain is still a gain, as long as its more efficient than the supercharger alone.

Thats what im aiming for

ThunderCoupe
01-29-2006, 09:25 PM
what we are hoping for here Dave is that we will have lower temps coming out of the supercharger than there is now, or at least relatively the same, meaning that the pasitic loss shouldn't change much, if not in the right direction.

In all honesty, i'm just hoping that we can come close to having a scenario where we end up with at least the same amount of power as we had before we added the turbo, because i'm sure our first attempt will be flawed, and i'm also certain that there will be room for improvement.

and at the very least, even if everything goes miserably wrong, we'll be the guys who tried, and our failure can get some person who might come up with this idea in the future a good nights sleep knowing that it was just a crazy idea.

David Neibert
01-29-2006, 09:28 PM
What i dont realize is, if the turbo is not hot from exhaust gasses, and is drawing in only cold air, it would be alot more efficient than a usual turbo setup.

Im having an AIM convo about this, and jeremy brought up a good point,

"(19:25:12) Jeremy: and the way i see it, by just dumping the supercharger, you end up with it giving the same drag on the engine as an alternator
(19:25:39) Jeremy: because all it's doing is spinning, there's a lot less resistance than trying to force the air into the engine


And no, i have no effing clue how a turbo works, but for some reason i think that this can work.

Your not just dumping the supercharger...your actually going to be asking it to work harder than it does now. There is no free lunch.

What you are preposing is similar to operating an electric motor using only the power of a generator that is driven off the same electric motor. It doesn't work, because more power is required to operate the generator than it produces.

David

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 09:30 PM
im just wishing i could get some support here. Sure, critisism is ok, but how about giving some ideas of your own rather than shooting down all of ours.

Pssh......an AWD SC? THATS CRAZY! IT WOULD NEVER WORK!

Psshhh an SC into the 11's!!?!??!? THATS UNHEARD OF!

Edison discovered 2000 ways how NOT to make a light bulb before he found out how to.

Sure we may end up with worse results, but improve the design and i think this could go somewhere.

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 09:33 PM
What you are preposing is similar to operating an electric motor using only the power of a generator that is driven off the same electric motor. It doesn't work, because more power is required to operate the generator than it produces.


What were hoping for is that the benefits of lower outlet temperatures of the turbo, combined with a higher compression and more flow will outweight the parasitic loss from the SC.

Say we use 10 PSI from the SC to turn the turbo 24 PSI
Thats 14 PSI that has a colder air charge temp, more dense, and higher flow.

The 14 PSI from the turbo will be more productive than the 14 from the SC,
hopefully gaining a positive net result.

David Neibert
01-29-2006, 09:37 PM
im just wishing i could get some support here. Sure, critisism is ok, but how about giving some ideas of your own rather than shooting down all of ours.

Pssh......an AWD SC? THATS CRAZY! IT WOULD NEVER WORK!

Psshhh an SC into the 11's!!?!??!? THATS UNHEARD OF!

Edison discovered 2000 ways how NOT to make a light bulb before he found out how to.

Sure we may end up with worse results, but improve the design and i think this could go somewhere.

Do you want people to lie to you ?

If you want support do something that makes sense...like a rear mounted turbo that gets it power from the exhaust (wasted energy) and plumb the outlet side of the turbo to where the air filter attaches to the MAF. Make the turbo large enough to provide about 5 pounds of positive pressure for the inlet side of the supercharger. You will gain another 5 pounds of boost without spinning the blower faster or using additional power off the crankshaft.

This is basicly what the guy from Austrailia did.

David

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 09:40 PM
because a rear mounted turbo would be very expensive to fabricate

that is a really good idea though, i just dont think i have the resources available to do such a mod

ThunderCoupe
01-29-2006, 09:41 PM
perpetual motion machines cause a sparkle in every engineers eye... it's the what if...

I agree with you electric motor analogy, but what i'm hoping for is that with the right turbine ratio, we might start to see a limited gain.

i realize what makes a turbo more efficient than a supercharger is the fact that it doesn't have a parasitic drag related to it, and by doing things this way, we're taking away that advantage, but all i'm looking for is having an advantage of cooler, denser intake air charge over both a supercharger and/or turbocharger, and hopefully have less psi with the same mass flow rate which might lead to more reliability and fewer blown head gaskets.

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 09:44 PM
what sort of gains could be had from a rear mounted turbo feeding the intake?

Would 5psi be enough?

where would all the extra piping be routed through?

how expensive would it be to fabricate something like that?

David Neibert
01-29-2006, 09:45 PM
What were hoping for is that the benefits of lower outlet temperatures of the turbo, combined with a higher compression and more flow will outweight the parasitic loss from the SC.

Say we use 10 PSI from the SC to turn the turbo 24 PSI
Thats 14 PSI that has a colder air charge temp, more dense, and higher flow.

The 14 PSI from the turbo will be more productive than the 14 from the SC,
hopefully gaining a positive net result.

It normally takes about 48 pounds of exhaust backpressure to produce 24 pounds of boost with a turbo.

David

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 09:46 PM
THANK YOU

thats what ive been asking for all along.

just some numbers

David Neibert
01-29-2006, 09:57 PM
what sort of gains could be had from a rear mounted turbo feeding the intake?

Would 5psi be enough?

where would all the extra piping be routed through?

how expensive would it be to fabricate something like that?

I would estimate an additional 100 HP. It's not free power...there is some power loses caused by restricting the exhaust to spin the turbo, but you won't have to spin it very hard to make 5 pounds, so a large portion of the exhaust would bypass the turbo thru the wastegate.

Look up STS if you want to see what it looks like, or better yet go over to TCCoA and look for the pictures of Bill Wheelers rear mount turbo system.

It would be fairly expensive at nearly the same cost as a traditional turbo system.

David

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 10:02 PM
Ive seen the F-Bodies use the rear mounted.

How can it cost just about the same.

If i were to buy a used turbo, or get one out of a junk yard, what else will i need, except for custom tubing to run from the turbo in the rear, back to the intake?

David Neibert
01-29-2006, 10:09 PM
Ive seen the F-Bodies use the rear mounted.

How can it cost just about the same.

If i were to buy a used turbo, or get one out of a junk yard, what else will i need, except for custom tubing to run from the turbo in the rear, back to the intake?

Wastegate and BOV and you would need to do some research to determine what size the turbo will need to be. Both the compressor and turbine side have to be matched to the motor and how much air you need to flow at a given pressure.

You can't just grab a turbo from the junkyard and expect it to work.

David

bloodybobber
01-29-2006, 10:12 PM
Can you say Vortec or Paxton or Procharger! If you want centrifical boost just use a centrifical blower or pipe up a turbo. The last thing you need is another hunderd pounds under the hood with more piping loses. Turbos make use of wasted exhaust heat energy from the chemical reaction of gasoline and air and that's what makes them special. Catch you later, Bob.

xThunderbirdSCx
01-29-2006, 10:12 PM
Hey...if someone offers to do the labor, and turbo calculations, and ill provide the cash for parts, and my car as a donor, would anyone be interested in helping me fab up a remote mount turbo? We can then post gains about it up here on the boards. This would be an interesting summer project.

91supacoop
01-29-2006, 10:20 PM
THANK YOU

thats what ive been asking for all along.

just some numbers
if YOU remember from your chemistry class the ideal law of gases PV = nRT.
R is a magical # in chemistry and it = 8.314
P is pressure, V is volume, n is the # of moles of gas, and T is temperature in Kelvin.

Lets compare a normal turbo setup Vs your idea.
For ease of math, lets say exaust inlet pressure for a normal turbo setup and supercharger outlet pressure into your turbo are the same, although they are probably different, although i am not really sure.

We can say the # of moles of gas are the same, R is obviously the same for both....so you can move all these similar values to one side of the equal sign, and your variables V and T to the other side.

Now you are left with
V1/T1 = nR/P for the supercharger setup...
and
V2/T2 = nR/P for the strictly turbo setup...

since the n,R and P are the same for both equations we can set V1/T1 equal to V2/T2
V1/T1 = V2/T2
and manipulate the equation like so...
V1/V2 = T1/T2
using the temps that dalke provided for supercharger oulet, and exaust temps, we can see the ratio of the volume of air being supplied to the turbo.
But we do need to convert to Kelvin first....
200F = 366K
300F = 422K
1200F = 922K
1500F = 1089K

so at the very best...
V1/V2 = 422K/922K
V1/V2 = .497
Alright, so at the very best using these #'s you will get 1/2 the volume of air through the turbo because of temperature differences.
At the worst...
V1/V2 = 366K/1089K
V1/V2 = .336
And at the worst, you will get about 1/3 of the volume of air going through the turbo.

Of course this assumes that the # of moles are the same, which they are prolly higher through the SC, until the turbo on the turbo motor spools up that is...and it assumes that the pressures are the same, and i don't know what the differences would be there. In any case i don't think the # of moles, or the pressure difference can overcome a 50% or 66% volume deficit.

Mike8675309
01-29-2006, 10:35 PM
We all recall that our blowers don't compress air correct? They just give it a shove, it's the intake system, through it's restriction (i.e. closed valves) that provides the method of compression.

At 12,000 RPM (according to Eaton Charts) the M90 generates around 530cfm of airflow at the inlet. Assuming some loss in the system you'll see close to 530 at the outlet. With the current theory, the blowers output would be waste and sent out as exhaust used to spin the exhaust impeller of the turbo charger.

This article may have enough calculations you could use to work it up.
http://www.grapeaperacing.com/GrapeApeRacing/tech/turbochargers.pdf

You'll need to probably do a mix and match of compressor vs turbine to work with the difference in air flow coming out of the supercharger vs the exhaust.

http://www.automotive.eaton.com/product/engine_controls/superchargers/M90.asp

Note that if this made any kind of sense, someone would have already done it. The output of the M90 isn't free, the output of the exhaust isn't free. The output of the M90 is significantly more expensive.

91supacoop
01-29-2006, 11:03 PM
Note that if this made any kind of sense, someone would have already done it.

Now now.....in all fairness, new idea's come up ALL the time, just because no one has ever done somethign doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea, or that it can't be done. It just means either no one ever thought of it before, or no one ever bother to take the time to actually do it.

mannysc
01-30-2006, 02:40 AM
now being a person who likes to do stuff they say wont work even I have to say it wont work . sorry but facts are facts no matter what color you paint a orange its still a orange.

we can tell you it will work add 5k hp and zero smog repair the ozone and feed the homeless but in reality it just wont work .

hey want more hp than this setup install a tornado inlet vortec air ram thingy. its like a supercharger in a inlet tube for $69.

or stick two magnets on the fuel lines to increase magnetic bonding of air molicules to fuel molicules,

sorry guy it just dont work its like the 12v blow dryer turbo.

I think this post should just be ignored its going nowhere.
whats next ?

do you want everyone to lie to you so you can feel like you changedthe world .
sorry no matter how you word it mount it funnel it the setup wont work

the turbo would never make any boostand would only be a restriction costing more hp used to turn the blower more heat due to back pressure at blower.

remember that a exh driven turbo has lets say 80 cubic inches go into cyl what comes out is and expanded amount way more than 80 cubic inches of heated expanded gasses .

the blower could never pass this much air thru it .

an n/a engine sucks in lets say 232 cubic inches or air fuel. thus the cid.

now it burns expands now its heated and expanded and the expanded air now measures more than the 232 original cubic inches+ heat generated
convectional flowspins a turbo at emense speeds that 232 cubic inches of cold air could never do.

anyway if you build it and it works Ill personally come over to your house and lick your toes.

ThunderCoupe
01-30-2006, 06:40 PM
Thank you mike for your page, it looks quite helpful. According to it, a 350 cubic inch engine is flowing around 516 CFM at 6000 rpms

Now if at 12,000 rpm we have about 530 CFM, then this could and should give some grounds to this possibly working.

And then when you read the part on the pressure ratio, if we then routed the supercharger "exhaust" back into the intake, then we could have a much lower ratio there, with a much lower temperature increase.

The problem i see as being most detrimental on our engines is backpressure. The exhaust is too restrictive, and we see higher boost levels because of it. Adding a turbo, is only going to add even more backpressure, and yea you may get some phenomonal amount of boost pressure, but how long will it hold, and how little more power will it produce? we're already seeing the autorotor becoming less efficient at higher boost levels, boost isn't our problem, flow is. If we could find some way to flow more, i'm sure there's plenty of power on tap. Sure your right the head's can only flow so much and their design is going to hold us back, but i dont see any/much solution to that anytime soon, and sure we could hold higher psi's without blowing head gaskets if we could find some better way to clamp down the heads and keep them from lifting, but this doesn't look to be much in the near future either.

I sound crazy to myself when i think through what i'm proposing and suggesting sometimes, but i seriously think that increase the primaries by 1/8 or 1/2 of an inch might yield gains especially if carry this larger cross sectional area all the way through. As of now we have 1 3/4 inch primaries, so that's 1.75 squared times pi, times 3 for each manifold and this is how big the collector should be. and then you multiply that by two and tha'ts how big the final exhaust should be.

now i get 9.62 for the cross sectional area of each at 1.75, multiply this by 3 to get 28.86. currently we have 2 inch collectors, so that's 4pi. that's only equal to 12.57, that's less than half the optimal. I could be way off base with this theory, and i realize that you do not have a constant flow of exhaust through each primary, and that's why the collector is smaller than what would be what i call "ideal", but i think that it has some validity. now even if we assume that this is the proper ratio and that our collector sizes are right on, we have 2 two inch collectors, so that should be about 25 inches squared cross section, with three inch exhaust we have 28.27 as the area. This should be greater than ideal right? why do we still see power gains from 3.5 inch exhaust then?, from here we get 38.48 as the cross sectional area, which is still way less than the 57.72 that we would get from having 1.75 inch primaries.

I dont really know where i'm going with this, i guess i got myself side tracked, but the main point i was trying to make was that we already have enough back pressure, we dont need to add a turbo in the exhaust to create more. Yes a turbo would be great if we used it alone, but if your looking at keeping the supercharger too, then it becomes more detrimental than beneficial unless drastic measures were taken.

ThunderCoupe
01-30-2006, 07:12 PM
and since i already side tracked myself, even if this does become a reality and end up working, i wouldn't want you to lick my toes manny.

xThunderbirdSCx
01-30-2006, 07:27 PM
eh...well...if this doesnt work, ill just use the turbo and make a rear mount turbo system with all the extra parts.

CMac89
01-30-2006, 08:05 PM
eh...well...if this doesnt work, ill just use the turbo and make a rear mount turbo system with all the extra parts.
The STS turbo kit for the ls1 cars consists of a rear mounted unintercooled kit. I think they do make intercoolers for them too. Unorthodox, but unique.

http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=7A0F058F-69F5-4C96-80E8-B58D79B016B3&term=sts&p=0

pony281
01-30-2006, 10:09 PM
How to set up a turbo & supercharger the turbo is exhaust driven. The turbo blows into the supercharger. It will work great the turbo puts out some psi & blows through the TB into the supercharger & it puts out some psi. Some over the road trucks are set up this way it also eliminates turbo lag. The super charger can draw air through the turbo until it spools up. You will still need a waste gate on the turbo. How much HP could you make lets say you used a 80mm turbo which would handle 700HP. Boost would be feeding the supercharge it would be good over 700HP. Keep in mind you pushing air into the supercharger so you can make a lot even with a little M90.

David Neibert
01-30-2006, 11:31 PM
I dont really know where i'm going with this, i guess i got myself side tracked, but the main point i was trying to make was that we already have enough back pressure, we dont need to add a turbo in the exhaust to create more. Yes a turbo would be great if we used it alone, but if your looking at keeping the supercharger too, then it becomes more detrimental than beneficial unless drastic measures were taken.


Wrong wrong wrong.


How to set up a turbo & supercharger the turbo is exhaust driven. The turbo blows into the supercharger. It will work great the turbo puts out some psi & blows through the TB into the supercharger & it puts out some psi. Some over the road trucks are set up this way it also eliminates turbo lag. The super charger can draw air through the turbo until it spools up. You will still need a waste gate on the turbo. How much HP could you make lets say you used a 80mm turbo which would handle 700HP. Boost would be feeding the supercharge it would be good over 700HP. Keep in mind you pushing air into the supercharger so you can make a lot even with a little M90.


Right, right, right

David

91supacoop
01-31-2006, 12:08 AM
Thank you mike for your page, it looks quite helpful. According to it, a 350 cubic inch engine is flowing around 516 CFM at 6000 rpms

Now if at 12,000 rpm we have about 530 CFM, then this could and should give some grounds to this possibly working.


Alright, i'll try again, however now i can give you an actual # so you can see just how much more volume of air is going to be exiting the motor. If the inlet temp on a 350 is 80F that makes it 300K. and the outlet temps are between
1200F = 922K
1500F = 1089K

OK...
Ti = temp in
To = temp out
Vi = volume in
Vo = volume out

The simplified formula that i used earlier was Vi/Vo = Ti/To.
Alright, now we have a Vi, so we can move it over to the other side and solve for Vo.
Vo = Vi(To)/Ti
Vo = 516CFM(922K)/300K
Vo = 1585.4CFM
Thats using an exaust exit temp of 1200, now lets see 1500
Vo = 516CFM(1089K)/300K
Vo = 1873.08CFM
Spin the M90 fast enough to put out those CFM's and you have a viable idea....

ThunderCoupe
01-31-2006, 12:49 AM
those calculations would be great, but CFM is a flow rate, and that equation your using is looking for a set volume, they're not one in the same, and they can't be switch. i dont know what the conversion would be, and i'm getting the point your trying to make, and i understand conventional thought, and i see the way things have been done before, and i understand that they work and why they work, i'm just wondering if there are alternatives that haven't been tried that may work similarly, better, worse, easier, harder, or something.

Thank you david, i understand where you are pointing, and i follow you, but we look at the same starting point and see two different directions. We're having difficulty because we are both basing our argument on the same point, but believe in the exact opposite concepts.

Keep showing me flaws, because without the naysayers, we dont see the problems, and if we can't find the problems, we can't find solutions. Isn't this what we keep damon around for? speaking of which, i'm suprised he hasn't said anything yet...

Besides, i'd rather have all the flaws come out while it's in the theory stage, and hopefully if it is completely bunk to think that this is possible, i will be convinced before wasting my time attempting it.

91supacoop
01-31-2006, 01:10 AM
those calculations would be great, but CFM is a flow rate, and that equation your using is looking for a set volume, they're not one in the same, and they can't be switch. i dont know what the conversion would be, and i'm getting the point your trying to make, and i understand conventional thought, and i see the way things have been done before, and i understand that they work and why they work, i'm just wondering if there are alternatives that haven't been tried that may work similarly, better, worse, easier, harder, or something.

Thank you david, i understand where you are pointing, and i follow you, but we look at the same starting point and see two different directions. We're having difficulty because we are both basing our argument on the same point, but believe in the exact opposite concepts.

Keep showing me flaws, because without the naysayers, we dont see the problems, and if we can't find the problems, we can't find solutions. Isn't this what we keep damon around for? speaking of which, i'm suprised he hasn't said anything yet...

Besides, i'd rather have all the flaws come out while it's in the theory stage, and hopefully if it is completely bunk to think that this is possible, i will be convinced before wasting my time attempting it.
True CFM is a flow rate, but look at the whole unit expression CUBIC FEET/MIN. Thats 516 cubic feet in one minute, when you take 516 cubic feet of a gas, and heat it up.....it gets bigger, whether you are dealing with that 516CF in an instant, or spread it out over time. The math is perfectly legitimate. if you have 516CFM coming in you will get 1500-1900 CFM out assuming the pressures in the intake and exaust are about the same.
.

Duffy Floyd
01-31-2006, 08:12 AM
Actually CFM expressed in a "true" way is SCFM which is standard Cubic Feet per Minute. That is measure of air flow at a standard temperature and a standard pressure of 1 atmosphere.

Standard Temperature of 273.15 Degrees Kelvin and a
Standard Pressure of 760 torr.
At STP, one mole of any gas should have a volume of 22.4 liters.

Here is a site with a calculator

http://www.1728.com/stp.htm

I would estimate 1350 degrees F for exhaust temp. I have no idea what the pressure would be though

David Neibert
01-31-2006, 12:03 PM
those calculations would be great, but CFM is a flow rate, and that equation your using is looking for a set volume, they're not one in the same, and they can't be switch. i dont know what the conversion would be, and i'm getting the point your trying to make, and i understand conventional thought, and i see the way things have been done before, and i understand that they work and why they work, i'm just wondering if there are alternatives that haven't been tried that may work similarly, better, worse, easier, harder, or something.

Thank you david, i understand where you are pointing, and i follow you, but we look at the same starting point and see two different directions. We're having difficulty because we are both basing our argument on the same point, but believe in the exact opposite concepts.

Keep showing me flaws, because without the naysayers, we dont see the problems, and if we can't find the problems, we can't find solutions. Isn't this what we keep damon around for? speaking of which, i'm suprised he hasn't said anything yet...

Besides, i'd rather have all the flaws come out while it's in the theory stage, and hopefully if it is completely bunk to think that this is possible, i will be convinced before wasting my time attempting it.

Please spend some time reading about turbocharging and afterwards we can continue the discussion. Here is a link with all the info you need.

http://www.turbomustangs.com/turbotech/main.htm

David

xThunderbirdSCx
01-31-2006, 01:24 PM
So, someone give me a ballpark price on what it would cost to fab up a rear mount turbo that runs into the intake of our superchargers.

If you build it and help me install it, ill pay for materials and use my car as a donor. We can post results and gains on the board.

Brad Klein
01-31-2006, 01:55 PM
because a rear mounted turbo would be very expensive to fabricate

that is a really good idea though, i just dont think i have the resources available to do such a mod
And now your saying you will pay for everything???????

do some research listen to what the people are telling you. If you dont you will be buying stuff you dont need for a project that will never be finished.

Scott Long
01-31-2006, 02:06 PM
Weren't you just saying the other day you wanted to sell your car because you can't work on it and you can't afford to have a car that you can't drive every day. Do you know how much down time you're gonna have to work on this thing? Hope you got a platinum bus pass.

Also I suppose a rear mount turbo would feed the supercharger and create a tad more boost but..... The SC will become a restriction at some point. A turbo can produce more boost and it doesn't take power from the crank to spin. If you were smart and wanted gains, you'd remove the supercharger, port and polish a 3.8L N/A upper and lower manifold and then do a y-pipe off your exhaust manifolds that comes up in the front near where your intercooler is now. Mount a turbo up there, then run a 3" downpipe from the turbo and run it back under the car to the rear, install mufflers. You could do a front mount IC and only have a few short tubes to make from the turbo to the ic, and from the ic outlet on the passenger side up into the throttle body. You'd have a bend up an inlet tube from the turbo and mount a MAF and a filter on it before it enters the turbo. Could be done, and quite frankly I'm surprised no one here has done it yet. The mustang V6 guys have had turbos for years. 14 psi from a turbo vs. 14 psi from your blower. You'd be making over 100 more hp at the same boost level. Probably 150 hp more. Just from not having to turn the blower. Get what I'm saying.

I'm glad guys like Kevin and Chris and Coy have ran 11's and even 10's with the M90 on the car. Very impressive. The Autorotor will be impressive once someone gets a car setup for it since most people who have them only have mild bolt ons or were stock. Dave N's car will be a good test bed for the Auto Rotor. But I think if we really want to see some gains of astronomical proportions we need to go turbo. I'm talking 550-600 rwhp. Could be done easily.

Or why not swap to the 3.8L NA manifolds and put a P1SC Procharger on it? You could do away with the jackshaft all together. Get the brackets off the 3.8L NA and just use the one belt to run everything.

sizemoremk
01-31-2006, 02:07 PM
Where do ya'll reckon a remote trubo would fit in our car?

I've wondered this myself...

It would be pretty cool if it could be stealthy, but I just don't see where a decent sized turbo would fit. Any ideas? When they say remote mount, how far do they really mean?

Anyways, this all sounds well and good, but if we were to crank up the boost much, would our heads not just raise up?

It seems to me at best, we would just spin the blower a little slower, and turbo a little more, just to reduce the parasitic loss from spinning the blower.

BUT the blower is still just a pump, so would the blower not still be working just as hard to move against the pressurized intake manifold? Or would the pressure between the blower and the turbo kinda help the blower push the air more effeciently through the blower?

Scott Long
01-31-2006, 02:10 PM
Besides the head flow cannot be that bad. Stegemeier ported and welded big valve heads outflowed CMRE S2 heads. The clamping force I'd say would become a problem at excessive boost levels.

Look at what the GN guys do with stock style heads. Low 11's. Just from a turbo and IC upgrade, fuel mods, and tuning.

Our heads flow better to begin with than the GN heads do. So I'm sure they aren't the greatest heads in the world, but there are other performance cars that don't fair as well as us from the factory.

There you have it. I'm done.

Scott Long
01-31-2006, 02:11 PM
ditch one of the rear mufflers and tuck it up behind the bumper. stealth.

xThunderbirdSCx
01-31-2006, 02:26 PM
i was in the market for an MPiii anyways.

Im asking the experts to help me make a design, and estimate costs using the lowest costs possible (ebay turbos, shortest piping allowable, etc..)

I think i really want to do this remote turbo project, and have it ready for the shootout.

Turbo people chime in here, what will i need in addition to these things?:

A turbocharger (T3/T4 mabye?)
A Wastegate (necessary?)
Blow off valve(necessary?)
Custom piping (cheapest as possible)
Custom exhaust "turbo bracket" (can be home made)
Oil pump and braded steel lines (what kind of pump??)


It would be nice to work with both Dave Neibert and Dalke on this project. You seem to have an extensive knowledge on this kind of stuff, it would be nice to get some sort of cost estimate for at least the custom piping, and i can deal with the other parts.

I drew a pic of how i would want to set it up. I want to retain the BORLA dual exhaust pipes, and just replace the resonator with the turbo setup. This way, ill have room for all the components, and can still retain the sleeper look.

Heres a few pictures:
The grey is the tubes already on the car, those i want to keep.
The green are ths custom tubes which will need fabricated.
The red is the turbocharger, or its accessories.

The engine bay:
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3113/top8yv.png

The Chassis:
http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/2341/undercar7wn.png

xThunderbirdSCx
01-31-2006, 03:45 PM
Do you all think that set up will work? Plus the TC acts as a muffler, which is why the resonator isnt needed anymore.

Either Dave- what do you think it would cost to fabricate the "green" tubes, including the mounting bracket for the TC?

ThunderCoupe
01-31-2006, 03:59 PM
well i see this thread has now taken a different direction, so i think my involvement is done.

sizemoremk
01-31-2006, 04:00 PM
You reckon a turbo would be OK right there bare to the bottom of the car?

Also, how much clearance should the turbo have from other objects?

Wouldn't that generate alot of heat right there below yer seat:eek:

xThunderbirdSCx
01-31-2006, 04:04 PM
Actually STS has prooven that there is a cooling effect from the longer distance of the pipes from the manifolds. The turbo actually stays very cool. My placement is actually probably better. It will spool faster, and its tucked away keeping it safe, and maintaining that sleeper effect.

I really want to test this rear mount setup if someone wants to work with me on it. Like i said, i can pay for the cost of the items.

MySCRocket1203
01-31-2006, 06:13 PM
:D so to date whats the total money wasted on trying to turbo charge our cars. i say if you want a turbo 3.8 v6 get a buick problem solved. other wise spend your money getting a bigger badder blower and youll be just as happy. (ideas are great and im not knocking thinkers, but how about something original for a change. maybe throw some r&d into into a lighter engine or rods or redesigned piston heads or a new way of porting the heads. i think between the AR and the MP3 weve got all the air we can use. hey maybe a new hood that uses a top mount intercooler.):D

ThunderCoupe
01-31-2006, 06:31 PM
Something original for a change? how much more original do you want us to get? we're not just talking about slapping on a turbo in a conventional way, we're talking about remote mounting it, which is still a very new idea, and we're not talking about just turbocharging, we're talking about having both a supercharger and a turbo charger, if this is old and unoriginal, then why can't i find much if any information on it?

We already have advanced ways of porting with D-shapes and what not, what more do you expect, and longer rods are used because they are lighter, and they reduce the size needed for the piston making the whole assembly lighter.

The only interesting new idea you have there is a top mount intercooler, which just sparked an idea, if you added a hood scoop above the supercharger top, and added fins to the top of a raised top, would this not work as an extra heat extractor?

XR7inWI
01-31-2006, 08:42 PM
The only interesting new idea you have there is a top mount intercooler, which just sparked an idea, if you added a hood scoop above the supercharger top, and added fins to the top of a raised top, would this not work as an extra heat extractor?

It probably wouldn't hurt, but I doubt you would see much, if any, gains from that. The air is simply moving too fast through that very small are to be affected much at all. If you built a much larger top designed to reduce the velocity of the air moving through it and increase the surface area that the moving air has contact with, you would likely see more benefit from the cooling effect you are proposing. OH, WAIT.... that's what an intercooler is. :D

David Neibert
02-01-2006, 02:11 PM
i was in the market for an MPiii anyways.

Im asking the experts to help me make a design, and estimate costs using the lowest costs possible (ebay turbos, shortest piping allowable, etc..)

I think i really want to do this remote turbo project, and have it ready for the shootout.

Turbo people chime in here, what will i need in addition to these things?:

A turbocharger (T3/T4 mabye?)
A Wastegate (necessary?)
Blow off valve(necessary?)
Custom piping (cheapest as possible)
Custom exhaust "turbo bracket" (can be home made)
Oil pump and braded steel lines (what kind of pump??)


It would be nice to work with both Dave Neibert and Dalke on this project. You seem to have an extensive knowledge on this kind of stuff, it would be nice to get some sort of cost estimate for at least the custom piping, and i can deal with the other parts.

I drew a pic of how i would want to set it up. I want to retain the BORLA dual exhaust pipes, and just replace the resonator with the turbo setup. This way, ill have room for all the components, and can still retain the sleeper look.

Heres a few pictures:
The grey is the tubes already on the car, those i want to keep.
The green are ths custom tubes which will need fabricated.
The red is the turbocharger, or its accessories.

The engine bay:
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3113/top8yv.png

The Chassis:
http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/2341/undercar7wn.png

Bill,

You are seriously underestimating the scope of the project. After the exhaust manifolds the entire exhaust will need to be redone. There isn't enough room to mount the turbo where you have it drawn. It will need to be mounted near the rear end. In addition to the turbo, you will need a wastegate, a BOV, oil scavenging pump, boost controller and a blow thru MAF. You will also need to do several supporting mods like the fuel system, intercooler and cooling system...then there is the experimenting with various boost levels and blower drive ratios and the custom tuning.

It will also be necessary to fabricate a charge air pipe about 2.5 diameter going all the way from the turbo to the stock MAF location. This is not a small job that's going to be completed in one weekend. It a major job that I don't honestly think you are in a position to take on. Here is a link with pictures of Bill Wheeler's STS prototype rear mount turbo system.

http://www.turbothunderbird.com/pics.php

I suggest that instead of doing experimental stuff like this, you stick to the proven performance stuff and spend your money on something similar to what Dave Dalke did for Marc Petellio's car. I appreciate that you want to do something differnt, but being a pioneer often leads to a bunch of arrows stuck in your azz.

David

Scott Long
02-01-2006, 02:51 PM
If you put the turbo near where your resonator is now, you have a transmission and a driveshaft to look out for. Plus how are you going to run an intake pipe sideways? Once you hit a speed bump your whole project will be laying in a parking lot.

Dave brought up another important point. The oil line. You will have to drill and tap your pan for the fitting and line and run it to the back for the turbo, it can be done, but it isn't just gonna be whip zip.

I'd probably either do like Dave said and use a blow through MAF or put one on your intake pipe from your turbo which means extending your wiring harness to fit to the rear of the car.

One guy I saw is fabbing up a turbo to work with the stock return pluenum and did away with the supercharger. He mounted the tb on a pipe going into the return that comes up from the intercooler. Personally I'd just swap to a different manifold altogether.

I still think the turbo should go under the hood with a 3" downpipe and a cut out on the exhaust before going into the rest of your system. You'd probably want a 3" or 3.5" center section and dual 2.5" outlets.

CMac89
02-02-2006, 02:50 PM
I'm sorry for this, but I had to do it.