WoodsWagon Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Why couldn't a turbo for a 900 cc engine be used on each header pipe before the y to make the piping flow better and improve turbo response? you could pipe the pressure pipes together before the TB and have a nice setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 There is no reason why it couldn't be done, in fact if it were to be done, that is probably the best way to do it. So let us know when you have it finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushbasher Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondasucks Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Just one question: What's a turbp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorganM Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Just one question: What's a turbp? dude... if you have to ask, youll NEVER know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill90Loyale Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Just one question: What's a turbp? A turbp is just a turbo that has had one too many beers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Just one question: What's a turbp? Look at the keyboard, what letter is to the left of the letter 'P'????? See what happens when you have fat fingers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roxtar Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Just one question: What's a turbp?turbP is just as good as turbO, in fact it's better, it's one more than turbO. i can't wait for the turbQ's to be released:banana: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodsWagon Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Sorry, I should proofread my posts more. I haven't been near a computer for a month, so my typing skills are sketchy right now. But yes, turbp's are a big step up from average, run o' the mill turbo's. They also cost much more, which automatically makes them much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s'ko Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 turbP is just as good as turbO, in fact it's better, it's one more than turbO. i can't wait for the turbQ's to be released:banana: That's GREAT.. ROFL..... ah... back to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattyg41383 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 When I read this, it made me think of putting 2 turbos that fit a Yamaha R1 snowmobile (their 1000cc 4 stroke sled)... Other than that I cant think of other small turbos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJM Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer-x Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Why couldn't a turbo for a 900 cc engine be used on each header pipe before the y to make the piping flow better and improve turbo response? you could pipe the pressure pipes together before the TB and have a nice setup. There is only one problem with twin turboing a 4 cyl. If they are not sequential (one after another) the exhaust pulsations will wreak havocc on the turbo. As far as I know you have to have 3 cyl for each turbo. I will see if I can find the documentation on this. (I have read it before) but a twin sequential turbo would rock. no lag and lots of boost. or maybe a turbo and a super charger. There is a Toyota MR2 that I have seen that is set up that way. hmmmmm ;use a charger off of a tbird with a t3 from a Saab now that would be a unique setup. Or a T4 fed off of the IHI that is stock for the AE-82 turbo..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calebz Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 There is only one problem with twin turboing a 4 cyl. If they are not sequential (one after another) the exhaust pulsations will wreak havocc on the turbo. As far as I know you have to have 3 cyl for each turbo. I will see if I can find the documentation on this. So how does that work on the legacy twin Turbo? IIRC, they aren't sequential Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 There is only one problem with twin turboing a 4 cyl. If they are not sequential (one after another) the exhaust pulsations will wreak havocc on the turbo. As far as I know you have to have 3 cyl for each turbo. I will see if I can find the documentation on this. (I have read it before) but a twin sequential turbo would rock. no lag and lots of boost. or maybe a turbo and a super charger. There is a Toyota MR2 that I have seen that is set up that way. hmmmmm ;use a charger off of a tbird with a t3 from a Saab now that would be a unique setup. Or a T4 fed off of the IHI that is stock for the AE-82 turbo..... Gee, that's news to me, in my more then 40 years working with turbos, I have never heard that. As for needing 3 cylinder, there are quite a few 2 cylinder turbocharged engines out there to prove that wrong. I believe the idea here is not to have sequential turbos, but to have the turbos working together, one turbocharging one bank and the othe other one the other bank. The twin turbo setup on JDM Legacys is sequential, one for lower range and one for higher range power, giving a broader power range. Superchargers rob power from the engine, and I don't consider them effecient. Using the turbos off the Yamaha motor would work, or if you could find two from the Honda turbo bike, those would work. Will, it's hard to take pictures of a concept. If it were possible, you would have shown us pictures of your proposed 300hp EA82T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer-x Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Gee, that's news to me, in my more then 40 years working with turbos, I have never heard that. As for needing 3 cylinder, there are quite a few 2 cylinder turbocharged engines out there to prove that wrong. I believe the idea here is not to have sequential turbos, but to have the turbos working together, one turbocharging one bank and the othe other one the other bank. The twin turbo setup on JDM Legacys is sequential, one for lower range and one for higher range power, giving a broader power range. Superchargers rob power from the engine, and I don't consider them effecient. Using the turbos off the Yamaha motor would work, or if you could find two from the Honda turbo bike, those would work. Will, it's hard to take pictures of a concept. If it were possible, you would have shown us pictures of your proposed 300hp EA82T. Ok I might be wrong, but one of the people that told me that is a mechanical engineer (works at boeing), and another does compressor maps at Garret (my spelling sucks today) they said that the exhaust pulsations would wreak havoc on the turbine wheel and it would not last long. (I was looking at twin turboing my 1980 rabbit with a 2.0 16v that I had built to run pikes peak) Granted I do not have the years of experiance but I do trust my sourses. Oh and with the supercharger I agree about the robing power from the engine but they make more than they take and the boost is instantanious. When you couple them both you get the best of both worlds. In the article in Import Car they said that the trubo picked up where the supercharger left off. The turbo also started to "push" the supercharger internaly and that lessened the drag on the engine at higher speeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushbasher Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 They did the supercharger/turbo combo on some of the crazy group b rally cars of the 80s. The supercharger had a clutch pulley that disengaged when turbo boost hit a certain level to and then reingaged when the boost went down. Thre result was almost no lag like a supercharger, but the power continued right into the 8000rpm range. These motors were making in excess of 700hp on motors under 2.5l! The 0-60 time of the ford RS200 was under 3 sec IN THE GRAVEL!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. RX Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Ok I might be wrong, but one of the people that told me that is a mechanical engineer (works at boeing), and another does compressor maps at Garret (my spelling sucks today) they said that the exhaust pulsations would wreak havoc on the turbine wheel and it would not last long. (I was looking at twin turboing my 1980 rabbit with a 2.0 16v that I had built to run pikes peak) Granted I do not have the years of experiance but I do trust my sourses. Oh and with the supercharger I agree about the robing power from the engine but they make more than they take and the boost is instantanious. When you couple them both you get the best of both worlds. In the article in Import Car they said that the trubo picked up where the supercharger left off. The turbo also started to "push" the supercharger internaly and that lessened the drag on the engine at higher speeds. Gee that's funny, I'm an engineer at Boeing also. There is a difference between an inline 4 and an opposing 4. An inline 4 would split the pulse, but an opposing 4 is like two 2 cylinder engines, each with their own spearate pulse. I was probably one of the first people to twin turbo a small block Chevy (1969), the idea was to use each bank as a 4 cylinder engine. The performance wasn't quite what we expected, but then we didn't know that much about mapping and sizing turbochargers to engines based upon displacement. Heck the first engine we turbo'd used a turbo off of a big diesel CAT engine, as you can imagine, it did little for performance, but we knew we were on to something so we kept looking for smaller turbos. Subaru has been running twin turbocharged 4 cylinders for almost 14 years with no problems, that alone should be enough testimony of the possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racer-x Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Gee that's funny, I'm an engineer at Boeing also. There is a difference between an inline 4 and an opposing 4. An inline 4 would split the pulse, but an opposing 4 is like two 2 cylinder engines, each with their own spearate pulse. I was probably one of the first people to twin turbo a small block Chevy (1969), the idea was to use each bank as a 4 cylinder engine. The performance wasn't quite what we expected, but then we didn't know that much about mapping and sizing turbochargers to engines based upon displacement. Heck the first engine we turbo'd used a turbo off of a big diesel CAT engine, as you can imagine, it did little for performance, but we knew we were on to something so we kept looking for smaller turbos. Subaru has been running twin turbocharged 4 cylinders for almost 14 years with no problems, that alone should be enough testimony of the possibility. Ok I stand corrected. (you might know my dad at Boeing his name is George) Like I have said my experiances is with watercooled vw's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJM Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Will, it's hard to take pictures of a concept. If it were possible, you would have shown us pictures of your proposed 300hp EA82T. here you go. ROFL LOL LOL LOL LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushbasher Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 Aha I get it now! You can do it!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roxtar Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 whoa, that things gotta at least have a turbQ in it. where did you get an advance version? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJM Posted August 26, 2004 Share Posted August 26, 2004 whoa, that things gotta at least have a turbQ in it. where did you get an advance version? Didnt you know that I was the one who is building the Q's??? I have to test it threr-roly before i mass produce them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.