well... you could put the turbo in the rear of the car... down by the exhaust...

that would be alot of piping... but i dont see the need to twin charge a 4 cyl.

 

People aready twincharged Toyota MR2 and that's a 4 cyl

 

I've got some of the money part covered... as long as its not more then like 10 or 11 grand.

 

thats why i said remote mount the turbo. using the trd s/c with a remote mount turbo it would work instead fo a fmic... a tmic might be better.

 

ok, mercedes slk c class supercharger from Mercedes, electromagnetic clutch also. the previous engine was, you guessed it, a 4 cylinder.

ebay supercharger listing



eaton makes an extension for the drive pulley that could be added to make this fit on the tc, provided you had the custom manifold with supercharger bypass, and a notched strut tower to locate the pulley for the superchager. I think it could be done, but a lot of work to do it. i foresee 10k+ for the overall work with the turbo work as well.

 

No they didnt, the sequentially charged it unless they built some type of split manifold for it. There is no benefit in "twin" charging otherwise. Read my explanation of the two above.

 

Its not about the need to man. Its that you can say you've got it.

 

/\ seconded....

maybe...maybe...someday..

 

"there is something called compound supercharging. Turbo Magazine built a Toyota MR2 with this setup. A intercooled turbo system is plumbed into a supercharger; the supercharger is used as a intake manifold if you will. the exaust energy created from the boost from the supercharger and the intake energy from the supercharger helps a turbo spool more quickly. no switches or anything to switch between the sc or t. It is as if you are using a supercharger with great all-around powerband and efficiency"

 

i tihnk thats the same thing he was talking about...just a different name...and maybe slightly different set-up

 

the new superstreet has a guy who twin charged his tc
estimated 400hp, power: TRD supercharger, HKS GT3040turbo; GTII wastegate; Racing type II BOV; EVC boost controller; turbo timer; defi gauges; 1000cc injesctors and other stuff auto-tech interiors owns it

 

Do you have the link to it?

 

no i bought the magazine i can scan the thing 2moro and post it though

 

Again, that is not twin charging! But, I would expect the idiots at superstreet to mix up the terms... but oh well

That is a sequential setup. I know it sounds picky, but the terms do mean something. It is like discussing physics and using the fabled term "centrifugal" which does not exist. It horribly skews the meaning of what you are saying.

The setup cess talked about is also a form sequential charging.

Sequential = Running a smaller compressor for low end boost and a larger one for high end boost.

Twin charging = two matching compressors (hence the name) on separate banks.

I would be curious to see what gains they actually get out of it over a well planned turbo system on this car.

 

I would not spend more saliva on trying to explain. Already been stated and I think we see the logic behind the word.

 

VW has the 1.4 TSI "Twincharger" engine with a blower and a turbo on it in Europe.

http://www.autoblog.com/2005/10/24/a...s-twincharger/

I think this is why Superstreet/dude who made this thread and Enginfineer have different defintions on twincharging.

 

There really is only one correct definition. But again, it is semantics. Just like the intercooler. No one anywhere that I know of runs an intercooler on a tC (or most cars). An intercooler fits between the two compressors on a sequentially charged system. All cars with one compressor are actually running an aftercooler. But, people interchange the two all the time. The bad part is just like this conversation... when you start truly talking about one or the other all of it gets confused because the terms are so often used incorrectly. I guess I am just picky about using the correct terms in a technical discussion.

But back on topic... the only way I see this feasible and actually efficient would be to run a roots blower and a turbo. This would be tough to fit under the hood and I doubt would do much better than a well chosen turbo. Not to mention reliablity would be a big issue.

 

I am curious, what is this definitive source that says that the term "twin charging" can only refer to two matched compressors? Engineering text book, dictionary, etc? I have never heard anyone refer to a vehicle with two matched compressors as "twincharging". "Twin Turbo" maybe, but not twin charged. Mercury Marine does not use any special term for their twin non-sequential supercharged engines which are the only twin supercharged engines I have seen commercially available.

And on the subject of intercoolers the dictionary definition is "a device for cooling a fluid (as air) between successive heat-generating processes". I would say that combustion is a heat-generating process, so it seems correct to me. Plus the engine is a compressor anyway, so it would seem to satisfy your requirement for being between two compressors

 

Well, besides some tuner rags and younger tuners I have NEVER heard a sequentially charged engine called a twin charged engine. Every twin charged engine I have ever seen has two matching compressors on seperate banks of an engine. And "charging" and "turbo" relate to the same thing. The difference is that charging is not drive specific, it relates to a supercharger or turbo, so unless you are specifying one or the other, the term charging is used.

The term intercooler and aftercooler runs WAY back to older aircraft engines. An aftercooler is placed between the last stage (or only stage in single compressor system) and the intake. The intercooler was so named because it is placed between stages of a multi-stage sequentially charged system. These names are not randomly chosen, they were chosen to signify differences in design but were later blurred together. Just because people have started interchanging them does not make it correct. My example of the term "centrifugal" was meant as an example of this. There is no such thing as "Centrifugal" force. There is NO force pulling something outward in a circular moving system. The term was a mis-nomer for centripetal force (which is in the opposite direction) and stuck for some odd reason. So again, just because a term is used one way does not make it correct to those that understand the difference.

Again, just semantics.. and I am probably just picking on things, but the definitions still remain

 

I can provide you with someone that is neither a young tuner or a tuner rag that calls the sequentially charged motor they manufacture "Twin Charged". This is a brochure from Volkswagen UK for the motor that Wibblywobbly posted the article about.

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/assets/p...k_brochure.pdf

I am not sure that I agree that because some long dead aviation engineer decided to call an aircraft engine part something, that everyone else is required to use that term for comparable componenets from then on. This is not an aircraft engine we are talking about. There can be more than one definition for a word, especially in different fields. I would guess that the definition in the dictionary is a thermodynamic definition rather than an aircraft powerplant term. So if you look at it from a thermodynamic view point, it is perfectly correct. I would rather consider an automobile engine from a thermodynamic point of view than an aircraft powerplant one. Aviation people are so conservative, but then you can't just get out and hitch hike when the motor quits onyour plane.

Further more, what makes you think that a current automotive intercooler is more like an aircraft aftercooler than an aircraft intercooler? What would be the difference between the intercooler and the aftercooler? The thing that stands out to me would be the pressure. The first stage supercharger would probably not be outputing more than half the total boost. Lets say the motor gets a total of 50PSI, with the first stage making half of that, 25 PSI(keep in mind that kick ___ 130 octane av gas they used to have). This would be in the high end of what an automotive intercooler would see, and they would generally not get that high unless modified. The aftercooler would get the whole 50 PSI. You would have to have one hell of stout cooler of whatever sort to take that kind of pressure. It seems to me that the functional difference between aftercooler and intercooler would be that the aftercooler would have to be stronger to take the pressure, and therefore the aircraft intercooler would be more similar to an automotive intercooler. Try doing 50 PSI on a Saab plastic tank intercooler, I don't think that would work out to well.