Been thinking about FI options...

[exciv2000]

Thought of some things.

What about running a turbo manifold into a turbine, and have the shaft run out to a pulley on the belt side to turn an SC pulley via a belt... then there would be no parasitic drag, just slow spool up times eh.?

So what if you take the above and also run the belt off the crank... then You'd be spooling the SC and the turbine at the same time, speeding out exhaust gasses and getting instant off idle accelleration... with the exhaust gasses turning the turbine as well helping the SC and crank, you'd think the engine would rev faster and there would be less parasitic drag.

Comments??

[exciv2000]

You could also do this for turbo setups to decrease spool up time, have your regular turbo but also have a shaft out to a pulley that is attached via belt to the crank pulley. You'd be pushing the motors two ways then...granted I know the turbine will spin faster than a crank pulley ever will, but maybe there is a way to make it slip somehow.

[Maverick]

Turbines are easier to trun than a blower is. Having the turbine shaft attached to a SC wouldn't give you any benefits. It would take more effort to get the heavy rotors of a supercharger to spin than it takes to get the small blades of a turbine to spin. Plus a turbo spins at some incredibly high number like 30,000+ rpm's I think its a highr rpm but I don't know how high.

[exciv2000]

we could gear it somehow.

[jojo]

A supercharger already has a very steep step up gearing. That's the reason why the torque requirements are too high for the exhaust gas heat to drive it.

[stu]

I've seen a first generation MR2 with both a supercharger and a turbo, once the turbo spools, it takes over so you get the best of both worlds. It was in a Sport Compact Car issue where they did a supercar challenge. I think cooling it was a nightmare though.

[jojo]

You guys don't want to hear this but there is a very simple and effective solution to the whole lag/low end response problem: increase your displacement.

[exciv2000]

no, otherwise highly displaced engines wouldn't be looking for more power via juice, SC, or turbo, and all three have been done on vipers, vettes, camaros, mustangs, etc.

[jojo]

You miss my point. Larger engines still benefit from power adders but suffer far less from the driveablility problems that go with extracting large power from a small displacement motor (ie turbo lag, high boost threshold, high octane requirements, etc)

[exciv2000]

you miss my point... I'm just throwing out ideas for people to comment on... we don't need to bring up the large displacement vs. small displacement argument AGAIN do we?

[Maverick]

Yes we do..............I want more displacement.

[jojo]

Originally posted by exciv2000
you miss my point... I'm just throwing out ideas for people to comment on... we don't need to bring up the large displacement vs. small displacement argument AGAIN do we?

Sorry, I didn't realize that was a sensitive point.

[Brian]

mmmm 2.4 liter stroked 1.8t engines are pretty mean. There really is no replacement for displacement.

But yeah as a couple others pointed out it requires too much torque to drive a SC off a turbine. While an eaton m62 only requires ,6 hp to drive while the bypass valve is closed, it requires 30-60 hp to drive once under full boost. Depending on boost level, overdrive percent ect. Hell top fuel cars require up to 1000 hp to drive the SC. Just think what would happen if NHRA dropped the ban on turbo's.