So I came across a guy with a "twin charged" setup on his cavalier, its basically a roots supercharger and turbo mounted in line with eachother on his little 4 cyl. He claims it gives awesome low end because the supercharger provides instant boost, and he claims the turbo kicks in and steps up the boost drastically in the higher rpms. He says that the setup makes equal power to a straight FI setup with the same boost level, but his power and torque curves are very agressive. Wouldnt the fact that they are in line cause a huge restriction? Id think it would be really bad at high rpms, the supercharger might actually become a restriction. What do you guys think, is this thing all for show?

 

His explanation is actually right on.

The supercharger will not become a restriction. It is a compressor, but now it's ingesting air that's more dense, so it will flow a higher mass flow rate and continue to compress.

The whole point of twin-charging is to get the best of both worlds. You get the response of a PD blower, but the peak hp potential of the turbo. It works quite well in doing so, but is complicated. IT's NOT MEANT TO, NOR WILL IT make more peak power than either FI method by itself.

Mike

 

True, but say the turbo is spooling at much higher rpms than the supercharger, would a vaccuum not form between the output of the supercharger and the inlet of the turbo? Wouldnt the turbo then ingest more air than the supercharger would be able to put out? It seems like it would be a resonable concern when the rpms climb. I could see maybe fabbing a pipe with a one way valve around the supercharger, then when the vaccuum begins to form the turbo could draw extra air from in front of the supercharger. I dont know, sometimes I overthink things :blah:

 

There is no reason to twin charge a car. The right super or turbocharger is all you need.

 

Actually there is, and Mike just went into it.

If you would like to argue that it's not worthwhile to bother, that would be a different story.

 

Part of me wants to ague this out because I'm sure there are more efficient ways of making power but I dont feel like doing all the research to back my argument up with that said, if you truly believe in that method it's all good but at least let me say there must be a reason it's not done all that often. Wish I could see some pics of it.

 

I wouldn't go through the trouble personally. Just pick your poison (turbo or blower), then add a little juice to sweeten it a bit.

 

Now that's what I'm talkin about.

 

I never said that. For that matter, neither did Mike.


I think if you re-read the thread more carefully, you might better understand what people ARE saying.

I don't say that to hurt your feelings, I say it to point out that you seem to be arguing against statements that nobody is making.

 

Did I say either of you said that? re-read my post more carefully, you might better understand what I am saying. When the hell did feelings get involved? You really need to get over yourself and stop taking the internet so seriously. I was just sharing my opinion as many do. If that equates to a arguement oh well.

 

You may not have noticed this, but you're the only one flipping out.

 

Dude I'm not even close to flipping out. Let it go. ANYWAYS what does it take to get some pics of this setup? <--------People flipping out dont smile.

 

Let what go?

 

I'd venture to guess that the cost vs. need ratio has something to do with that.

Coolness factor is pretty high, though.

 

This setup is done quite often on big diesel engines. A buddy of mine owns a diesel shop and they rebuild alot of coal truck motors. I have seen one that had 4 blowers and each blower had 2 turbos feeding it. So they are applications where this is needed. But I dont think it is quite as easy as just picking a blower and picking a turbo and throwing them together. Alot of thought has to take place. It would be so much easier just to put one or the other on. Also probably alot cheaper.