when twin charging does the order of power adders make a difference? does having one feed the other matter?


"Kick azz is my boost hero!!! "

Typically the turbo will pull more air than a SC can push to it. If you do manage to rig up an SC that can give + pressure on the turbo inlet all the way thru the power band you'd be better off cutting the turbo loose and have the SC push the motor by itself or vise-versa. The biggest thing people have to remember is both the SC and the turbo is taking power away from the wheels. If it were the case that people couldn't buy larger SC's and turbo's to meet engine sizes then yes, you could use a twin charge setup to increase air delivery to a large engine or to a smaller engine that is made for higher MAP pressures. However, this is not the case and we can buy properly sized turbo's and SC's. So the need for two power adders is not needed and will only result in lost power.


"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous

i was under the impression that having a supercharger feed the lower rpm and then the turbo spooling for higher rpm assistance to the S/C was a very very effective way of boosting..... :\

Blackz24 wrote:i was under the impression that having a supercharger feed the lower rpm and then the turbo spooling for higher rpm assistance to the S/C was a very very effective way of boosting..... :

nope. It's great for people who have more money than good sense and aren't good at shifting I guess?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:39 PM

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous

now wait a minute. I understand that the best option is for a properly sized turbo, but to say "So the need for two power adders is not needed and will only result in lost power." is not true. im not going to go into the math, but twin charged engines have proven there place and although not always the most fesible option, a twin charged engine can take a power band places that a turbo only car cant.

I think you might want to stroll over to wikipedia or some other information site and check out group b rally cars. you might like what you find.



"Kick azz is my boost hero!!! "

A twin charge engine will modify the power band...yes your right. It will also have a lower "top end" power than the car with the proper sized turbo since it doesn't have the power drain of the SC.

So, all your doing is dropping top end and giving to the bottom....that's all it does. Why do you need lower end power if you can shift gears and your gearing matches your power band? There is no use...it's is a waste. If you would like I WILL get into the math.....this is simple physics, you never get something for nothing. Even the little MP45 can soak up 40hp pretty easily which can only come from the top end....and dont give me the crap saying it's "adding power"...yea, it is compounding boost, but by the time your in the top end and if you sized the turbo properly you will already have the WG open trying to limit the boost on the intake...it's a waste.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, December 17, 2009 6:13 AM

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous

if have a turbo that is very large and spools very late in the power band having a twin charge is not a waste. Perhaps your gearing causes you to fall out of boost of a large turbo, well if you have a twin charged setup you can make more power and get into the area of the rpm range where the turbo will spool.

It serves a purpose, it may not serve everyone's purpose but it serves one.

It's good for small engines that would like a decent amount of hp but don't want to suffer terrible turbo lag. You can run a small supercharger with low parasitic losses and have a turbo to have decent top end power.

If you disagree, inform Nissan or Volkswagen of why you know more than them. They may have a job opening for you.

Nissan March Superturbo
Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI
Volkswagen Touran 1.4 TSI

Top end power isn't everything... Area under the curve plays a big role as well. What if your car made 1000hp for 2rpm's and 50hp for the rest of the rpm's. Peak hp is nice but it isn't the only thing matters

Hugh Richard wrote:if have a turbo that is very large and spools very late in the power band having a twin charge is not a waste. Perhaps your gearing causes you to fall out of boost of a large turbo, well if you have a twin charged setup you can make more power and get into the area of the rpm range where the turbo will spool.

Ok, Please notice I mentioned "proper sized turbo" and yes, you can produce 450+ whp in the LD9's and eco's with a properly sized turbo which DOES match our gearing. On our platform, you will more likely blow motors with boost pressure using the "proper sized turbo" even before they run out of breath...so why do you need more?

Hugh RichardIt wrote: serves a purpose, it may not serve everyone's purpose but it serves one.

Yes I mentioned the purpose it serves, for those who can't shift....honestly, that's about it. EDIT: or as a band-aid to bad gearing which would be better fixed by changing gearing in the first place since you'd be left with more power by not having the losses from strapping on the SC.

Hugh Richard wrote:It's good for small engines that would like a decent amount of hp but don't want to suffer terrible turbo lag. You can run a small supercharger with low parasitic losses and have a turbo to have decent top end power.

If you disagree, inform Nissan or Volkswagen of why you know more than them. They may have a job opening for you.

Terrible turbo lag won't happen if the turbo is sized properly.......
It doesn't matter what SC you run....MY POINT IS IT STILL TAKES POWER...god damn why can't people understand this?

Those manufacturers understand the same thing I do...they put a clutch and bypass on the SC to remove it from it's power robbing circuit after the turbo has kicked in....LOL
Read about it, it will be to your benefit!

Hugh Richard wrote:Top end power isn't everything... Area under the curve plays a big role as well. What if your car made 1000hp for 2rpm's and 50hp for the rest of the rpm's. Peak hp is nice but it isn't the only thing matters

Ok, this is the worse example I've ever heard. Peak is valuable when it peaks during your gearing...please re-read my posts in this thread and the last one which is hopefully on page 2 by now. TC can be beneficial, when it is properly implemented with a bypass, if not, it is useless unless your using it to band-aid bad gearing or something else. With the proper gearing(which our cars have) and the PROPER sized turbo, the TC w/o bypass implementation is as useless as this thread....and the last one for that matter.

EDIT: Ahhh...F it....

I promised myself I'd not bother to try helping the helpless. Yeah, dude, go put an MP45 on your car with a GT50...do it. It will be awesome!!! You will be the coolest on the interwebz with your uber twin charge knawledges.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edited Thursday, December 17, 2009 4:00 PM

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous

Joshua Dearman wrote:

Hugh Richard wrote:if have a turbo that is very large and spools very late in the power band having a twin charge is not a waste. Perhaps your gearing causes you to fall out of boost of a large turbo, well if you have a twin charged setup you can make more power and get into the area of the rpm range where the turbo will spool.

Ok, Please notice I mentioned "proper sized turbo" and yes, you can produce 450+ whp in the LD9's and eco's with a properly sized turbo which DOES match our gearing. On our platform, you will more likely blow motors with boost pressure using the "proper sized turbo" even before they run out of breath...so why do you need more?

Hugh RichardIt wrote: serves a purpose, it may not serve everyone's purpose but it serves one.

Yes I mentioned the purpose it serves, for those who can't shift....honestly, that's about it. EDIT: or as a band-aid to bad gearing which would be better fixed by changing gearing in the first place since you'd be left with more power by not having the losses from strapping on the SC.

Hugh Richard wrote:It's good for small engines that would like a decent amount of hp but don't want to suffer terrible turbo lag. You can run a small supercharger with low parasitic losses and have a turbo to have decent top end power.

If you disagree, inform Nissan or Volkswagen of why you know more than them. They may have a job opening for you.

Terrible turbo lag won't happen if the turbo is sized properly.......
It doesn't matter what SC you run....MY POINT IS IT STILL TAKES POWER...god damn why can't people understand this?

Those manufacturers understand the same thing I do...they put a clutch and bypass on the SC to remove it from it's power robbing circuit after the turbo has kicked in....LOL
Read about it, it will be to your benefit!

Hugh Richard wrote:Top end power isn't everything... Area under the curve plays a big role as well. What if your car made 1000hp for 2rpm's and 50hp for the rest of the rpm's. Peak hp is nice but it isn't the only thing matters

Ok, this is the worse example I've ever heard. Peak is valuable when it peaks during your gearing...please re-read my posts in this thread and the last one which is hopefully on page 2 by now. TC can be beneficial, when it is properly implemented with a bypass, if not, it is useless unless your using it to band-aid bad gearing or something else. With the proper gearing(which our cars have) and the PROPER sized turbo, the TC w/o bypass implementation is as useless as this thread....and the last one for that matter.

EDIT: Ahhh...F it....

I promised myself I'd not bother to try helping the helpless. Yeah, dude, go put an MP45 on your car with a GT50...do it. It will be awesome!!! You will be the coolest on the interwebz with your uber twin charge knawledges.

Every problem has a solution...

Also the whole "just learn how to shift" arguement isn't very solid. Wider powerband = less shifting = more time accelerating. Is it the most cost effective thing you can do? No. Is is useless? No.

Daniel Simoes wrote:Every problem has a solution...

Your absolutely right. "IF" the highest power/fastest time is the goal...the solution is to dump the SC. If the goal is to have a car that looks cool at car shows, the TC is the solution. So yes, I agree with you.

I noticed your 'bolding' of my statement...if you would have read the other thread I have already mentioned I see the benefits of the TC setup, but only when properly implemented ie: clutch and bypass. However, nobody bothers to think about this, don't do it, and still thinks these setups show benefits in "total power output" without this being implemented. I'm pretty damn sure you didn't even know about the clutch and bypass on those cars you were trying to prove me wrong with until I told you....but now, your trying to basically say "see, there is a solution". While I can't say you would be wrong. However, once you think about the weight added because of the SC, bypass equipment, and losses you can't turn off; the turbo only setup will still have the upper hand in both power to the wheels and also pocket book.

Daniel Simoes wrote:Also the whole "just learn how to shift" arguement isn't very solid. Wider powerband = less shifting = more time accelerating.

Umm, you can't keep accelerating if you have run out of gears? I don't understand what your trying to say here. Whether you have 50hp or 5000hp, your first gear will only take you to X mph, you will still have to shift the EXACT same amounts of times if you had a TC setup or not...so....saying you will have less shifting cause you have a TC setup makes no sense at all. To that end I will further my point, a TC setup DOES allow you a wider power band which will allow you to be more slopy with your shifting. ie: In a turbo only setup you could have the situation where if you didn't shift right before your limiter you could fall just below your 'sweet spot' on the next gear. However in a TC setup, it is much more forgiving because the power band is lower but wider so you don't have to pay as close attention to the circumstances that you will be left with if you shifted too early. The stand I take on this is, learn how to shift. Meaning not only "how" but also "when". If you can learn when to shift with your "properly sized" turbo only setup, you will not only stay in the power band but also reap the benefits of the higher top end from not having the SC losses...see my point?

The obvious solution is learning how to shift, properly design the turbo setup, and not install the SC. I don't see any better argument.

Look, I'm sorry if I come across like a dick, please give me some patience since I'm still tired from trying to explain the concepts like seriously 10 different ways on the other thread. It all boils down to basic physics and allowing yourself to understand something absorbing power even tho it 'looks' like it is technically adding(the boost pressure being higher post SC). If you took a step back, and saw the added gasses leaving the wastegate on the back side of the turbo you'd then see where the losses are actually at(cause the wastegate will then be limiting the SC input pressure in efforts to limit SC output pressure)....they have just changed form, doesn't mean they still don't exist. Like water into stream, it's still water but in another form. Likewise, the losses are still present, but noticed in a different way than plan straight forward observations would make obvious. Meaning the additional gasses exiting thru the wastegate, bypassing the turbo, isn't obvious. If you think about this tho, this is lost opportunity of the gasses to turn the turbo(to limit post SC pressure) which then makes your turbo run with less power output than if the SC was gone. Now think about how we all know it takes energy to turn the SC rotors, AND add the lost opportunity at the turbo and you start to realize all the losses of the system.

Like I said in the other thread, a TC system does have it's advantages. Like autocross...the nice big power band would be absolutely great of exiting corners without shifting, ect. However, this thread isn't arguing "where is the best application for the TC setup" but rather these threads always focus on arguing "A TC system DOES make more power"....the short answer....no it does not.

If it is actually required of me to pencil push a few examples of a Turbo only vs. TC setup and break it down into cycle efficiencies and bring this down into a straight forward metric of efficiency between the two...I will...IF that means it will get sticky'd and these posts will stop.
The problem I see with that is two fold, 1st: it wont get sticky'd, and 2nd: It wont stop people from posting on this topic cause they will never look at the sticky's and also because they probly wont trust or understand the models I would have to use to get the efficiency's and then think it is just simply wrong.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, December 17, 2009 11:26 PM

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous

Joshua Dearman wrote:

Daniel Simoes wrote:Every problem has a solution...

Your absolutely right. "IF" the highest power/fastest time is the goal...the solution is to dump the SC. If the goal is to have a car that looks cool at car shows, the TC is the solution. So yes, I agree with you.

I noticed your 'bolding' of my statement...if you would have read the other thread I have already mentioned I see the benefits of the TC setup, but only when properly implemented ie: clutch and bypass. However, nobody bothers to think about this, don't do it, and still thinks these setups show benefits in "total power output" without this being implemented. I'm pretty damn sure you didn't even know about the clutch and bypass on those cars you were trying to prove me wrong with until I told you....but now, your trying to basically say "see, there is a solution". While I can't say you would be wrong. However, once you think about the weight added because of the SC, bypass equipment, and losses you can't turn off; the turbo only setup will still have the upper hand in both power to the wheels and also pocket book.

Daniel Simoes wrote:Also the whole "just learn how to shift" arguement isn't very solid. Wider powerband = less shifting = more time accelerating.

Umm, you can't keep accelerating if you have run out of gears? I don't understand what your trying to say here. Whether you have 50hp or 5000hp, your first gear will only take you to X mph, you will still have to shift the EXACT same amounts of times if you had a TC setup or not...so....saying you will have less shifting cause you have a TC setup makes no sense at all.
...
Like I said in the other thread, a TC system does have it's advantages. Like autocross...the nice big power band would be absolutely great of exiting corners without shifting, ect. .

Seems like you got upset about my post when we are both saying the same thing. The supercharger needs to be bypassed at higher rpms, and it would be usefull in autocross (sorry I didn't specify not racing in a straight line). Yes it is alot of money just so you would have to shift less, but I already said it isn't the most cost effective method. The only reason I commented in the first place was because you seemed to be ignoring any advantages of the setup. I was unaware that you had already spoken about the advantages in another thread.

Yeah, unfortunately I get frustrated when these posts show up. Because people always think they make more power, it would be different if people would argue what it is best used for....but no...they always argue that is makes more power. It does not.


"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous

i am going to twin charge just to piss you off, josh



Stand in the corner and SCREAM with me!!!!

z yaaaa wrote:i am going to twin charge just to piss you off, josh

lol.


"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous

Joshua Dearman wrote:

z yaaaa wrote:i am going to twin charge just to piss you off, josh

lol.

i'm w/ brad on this. haha. can't we just link back to the 2-3 page other thread?


my carDomain updated 10/31/09 Forged and Supercharged

My point is it does serve a purpose. I did not say twin charge will make more hp than a turbo only setup but you may create a more better power band. I am referring to cars in general, not specifically j-bodies.

You keep referring to the proper turbo. Proper is only relative to the application. This also applies to gearing as well. I am well aware of proper turbo sizing and gearing; I have my custom gear set in my car that I specifically picked to allow to me to top out in 4th at the end of the 1/4 mile with the trap speeds I should get. And my turbo should be almost tapped out for my current hp goals as well.

And area under the curve is a very important idea in regards to hp and performance. If you have studied calculus you will understand it's value. if not, look into to it in regards to dyno curves. My example was extreme I know but I was just providing an example to show opposite ends of the spectrum.

Have to go now... I'll add later

Im not sure why this got so out of hand. none of you even answered my question. josh you didn't even give my orignal concearn any thought. You just went off on the idea of TC and anyone that got in your way. And whats worse your getting but hurt man....? no one is taking swings here you just jumped in whiped out your cock and declared who wants some! is everything alright just a little stressed?

I'm simply asking a theory question Im trying to understand pressure efficiency's. an engine will taken in a certain amount of air typically based off of two main factors. Negative pressure on the power side ie (pistons, turbo, super charger). and the dimensions of the path leading up to the engin, your intake piping, manifolds, TB etc.... now assuming that you have a turbo, and supercharger installed on your car will placing the turbo before or after the supercharger will affect overall CFM rates. If im not mistaken, the issue will be with the intake tract. the type of supercharger you use is going dictate certain pressure spikes. the small inlet running to the blower will act as a bottle neck thus bumping pressures. however from a different angle this may not make a difference seeing as how the engine will need to breathe the same weather the bottle neck is before or after the large power maker.

any input?


P.S. and I know this is gonna spark fire and I shouldn't do it. But the immaturity in me is poking. Josh if you would like me to explain why you can achive all sorts of things with a twin charged engine that you cant achieve with just a turbo PM. I would love to have a conversation about it with you


"Kick azz is my boost hero!!! "

I would like to be involved in that conversation

Obviously it has advantages or VW would have just turboed their 1.4 TSI instead of twin charged. They would have picked the "proper" turbo, but perhaps for their goals a proper turbo didn't exist.... "you have to take from Peter to pay Paul"... they may have wanted 200hp with no lag on a 1.4. Maybe they said "Fu<K You Peter" and installed a small supercharger to get their desired 200hp with little to no turbo lag and low parasitic losses.

Twin charging is expensive and complicated but it works well in certain applications

Josh - You're getting all wound up over people just trying to express their opinions.

Quote:

P.S. and I know this is gonna spark fire and I shouldn't do it. But the immaturity in me is poking. Josh if you would like me to explain why you can achive all sorts of things with a twin charged engine that you cant achieve with just a turbo PM. I would love to have a conversation about it with you

I would like to hear this.



FU Tuning

Not a Expert per Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:

Quote:

P.S. and I know this is gonna spark fire and I shouldn't do it. But the immaturity in me is poking. Josh if you would like me to explain why you can achive all sorts of things with a twin charged engine that you cant achieve with just a turbo PM. I would love to have a conversation about it with you

I would like to hear this.

I would like to hear this too...lol.

A TC shows good benefits in a tight autocross track where gear shifts in each corner can add up to several second on each lap. Beyond that it is more of an opinionated driving style to where some people might like it better than others. ie: To aid in street driving a high HP turbo build.

Jason I thought I did answer your question about changing the order of the adders. To better answer your question it really doesn't change much in the system. I'm pretty confident it would act and show some differences but without more information on the exact specs of all the pieces it would be hard to say. If somebody asked me to develop a TC kit I'd start with an AC clutched centrifugal blower, reason being the centrifugal's heat up air alot less. The other nice thing about the centrifugal is that if behind the turbo it will be much less of a blockage, no more so than the turbo itself. At which point the order of the two adders matter much less. Again, without specific information, I really couldn't give any better advice for the order

Also Jason, if did bother to read the other TC posts, you'd understand why this is topic is just so old and worn out man. Like I just said, people bring these up as adding more power and then argue about it when all I've ever done was try to educate....then people start attacking me about it. Well this vicious cycle I guess has changed my approach and instead of passive education I've resorted to active attack to meet them on their level to better explain in a form they can understand? idk, I appologize for the rough posts, no harm meant.

To VW putting a factory TC system on, I doubt they did for much reason beyond the ability to say they did. VW has always tried to stay a step further than other manufacturers. At times this has been a step forward, sideways, and even behind. But they have always looked for that step as a sales feature. I'm not sure I'd give them any ground breaking credit on marketing a car like this. But it does perfectly find there sales feature they are looking for. But anyway, this thread isn't about them, sorry to ramble on.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:15 PM

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous

whoa VW sells a twin charged car?

id like to see that actually...



Stand in the corner and SCREAM with me!!!!

they only sell it in europe.

thats the josh I know and love. the real reason Im bringing this up is because Ive been driving a beater volvo for the past three years the car has been great but Im doing pretty well for my self these days, and im ready to purchase another car. I am a MINI copper tech, and can pretty much tear one apart with my eyes closed, not to mention my cost on parts are extremely. I'm debating buying one and just throwing a turbo on the back and running a boosted meth system to take care of heat. the engine from the factory is forged and can take abuse, however your limited with power due to the small blower. but again this was really all just theroy based. this whole thing is really just a question of how much of a blockage will the supercharger ad. you had mentioned that superchargers will cause a loss of efficeny up top, and this is true. However if the ability to run a larger turbo with minimal lag is availble what does it matter if your dealing with a parasite? youll end up covering up the loss with the huge turbo.



"Kick azz is my boost hero!!! "

Jcavi wrote:they only sell it in europe.

thats the josh I know and love. the real reason Im bringing this up is because Ive been driving a beater volvo for the past three years the car has been great but Im doing pretty well for my self these days, and im ready to purchase another car. I am a MINI copper tech, and can pretty much tear one apart with my eyes closed, not to mention my cost on parts are extremely. I'm debating buying one and just throwing a turbo on the back and running a boosted meth system to take care of heat. the engine from the factory is forged and can take abuse, however your limited with power due to the small blower. but again this was really all just theroy based. this whole thing is really just a question of how much of a blockage will the supercharger ad. you had mentioned that superchargers will cause a loss of efficeny up top, and this is true. However if the ability to run a larger turbo with minimal lag is availble what does it matter if your dealing with a parasite? youll end up covering up the loss with the huge turbo.

You 'can' cover up the loss if you find yourself in the area where the losses aren't realized...ie: lower rpm's then the 'sweet-spot' of the turbo would be alone. So, if you find you always running the car hard in the powerband where the system realizes the parasitic drag(ie top end) then perhaps it would suit your driving style to remove the SC. BUT if you find you like to lug the engine a bit and have nasty green light action(if you can keep the power to the ground) then perhaps the system will benefit form the SC since you will have more power in YOUR "powerband of interest" with the TC system in place. It basically all comes down to what YOU want to do. If you can honestly say I dont want to have to shift my gears to get into my powerband OR I want hard green light action...then you can justify this and by all means do it.

The way I look at it (coming from a FWD J standpoint)...it's easier for me to drop a gear than lug it, I like the most power I can get, and I can't keep crap down to the ground in first anyway, so not much point in low-end power. I will add the "from a FWD J" line in there, but in all honesty alot more cars fall into this category than what falls out...but to each his own.


"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous

There are people in my car community who don't have spool up until 5500 rpms and they street drive their car. Mind you they make big numbers, but that is mean turbo lag for street driven cars. It is people like this that could benefit from a twin charged setup.

Don't get me wrong, I am not banging on turbo cars, as I should have my car turbo'd now, but my street tuner bailed on me so I had no way to the dyno. But, a turbo is not the be-all end-all modification; modifications are more specific to what you plan on doing with you car. e.g. Auto-X, Drag, Road Course, Oval Track, DD, or any of these combined with DD. All of these require different approaches in many building aspects and some may benefit from a twin charge and some may not. For example, when racing oval track the car is basically near redline the entire race. A supercharger designed for increasing power in the low rpms of the powerband is going to do jack sh!t.

I would say VW did for more of a reason than they just could. The engine is a 1.4 with 200 hp and 221lb-ft. The cobalt SS supercharged only made 205hp and 200lb-ft. How can you sit here and not give credit where it is due. Find another 1.4 with warranty, coming in budget cars that can compare to these numbers. The torque curves is very flat and the hp curve is very linear, both very desired traits, especially for street cars.

It also won International Green Engine of the Year.

You have to give credit where it is due.