2.4L LE5 Performance Tech 16 valve 171 hp EcoTec with 163 lb-ft of torque

crazy idea.. boost + boost lol

Old Dec 15, 2010 | 01:44 PM
  #26  
elecblue06's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 03-19-07
Posts: 14,901
Likes: 1
From: newburgh,ny
Originally Posted by RoadconeTuning
expect to see some pretty amazing huge boost numbers in the manifold... 03 cobra guys were doing this with the hellion hell raiser kit... stock blower pulley waslike 9lbs and they had the turbos set for 8lbs... intake manifold showed like 21... one guy pullied down and forgot he had the boost on the turbos at like 12lbs and it made something like 56lbs of intake pressure lol
lol wtf thats crazy lol
Reply
Old Dec 15, 2010 | 03:06 PM
  #27  
Bleu's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: 11-15-10
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
From: Toledo OH
Sub'd!
Reply
Old Dec 25, 2010 | 08:10 PM
  #28  
HamblyN's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 12-01-09
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: charlottetown PE Canada
I know this is a bit late but another way to look at this is
The charge is going to be your constant. Spooling with the motor right. Where your turbo is you variable. Spooling off your exhaust.
So the question is do you want the charger to push or pull the air threw your turbo until the turbo is spooled.
Running a small turbo i think it would be logical to run the charger before the turbo in the air flow so the quick spooling turbo will help relieve the hp loss from the charger
But for a larger turbo set up like im looking at i think it would be better to run the pro charger after the turbo in the air flow so that the charger will spool with the motor pulling air threw the larger turbo spooling it quicker producing more boost if anyone has comments on this please correct me so i don't make as many mistakes on my car.
Reply
Old Dec 26, 2010 | 06:36 AM
  #29  
Sw4y1313's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-25-06
Posts: 1,860
Likes: 0
From: USAG Stuttgart, GER
Originally Posted by HamblyN
I know this is a bit late but another way to look at this is
The charge is going to be your constant. Spooling with the motor right. Where your turbo is you variable. Spooling off your exhaust.
So the question is do you want the charger to push or pull the air threw your turbo until the turbo is spooled.
Running a small turbo i think it would be logical to run the charger before the turbo in the air flow so the quick spooling turbo will help relieve the hp loss from the charger
But for a larger turbo set up like im looking at i think it would be better to run the pro charger after the turbo in the air flow so that the charger will spool with the motor pulling air threw the larger turbo spooling it quicker producing more boost if anyone has comments on this please correct me so i don't make as many mistakes on my car.
My question is, why would you put 2 units that are ment for high end together? The Centrifugal SC is not going to give you power under 4000rpms(at least on the rotrex units which i've been studying) and a large turbo that won't spool until 4500+rpms(depending on size). Whats the point of that? Might as well just stick with one large turbo.

Going onto your idea about the small turbo flowing through the SC, how is that going to eliminate hp loss when eventually that SC is going to outflow the small turbo halfway through the rpm range anyway and the SC is still causing drag on the motor. Plus the SC is not going to freespin forward while the small turbo flows through it to remove the drag it puts on the motor.

Thats why I think the larger unit(which should be the Centri Blower) should flow through the smaller unit(quick spooling turbo) to give the car a nice low end (2000-4000) then 4000-7500rpms would be the large centrifugal unit. With that you would essentially have a compound turbo setup but without the headache of mounting 2 turbo's.
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2010 | 09:24 AM
  #30  
ant0ny's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 12-20-10
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: Australia
TwinCharging was all done in the eighties in Group B rally cars etc. Most twincharge setups where Supercharger for low power and Turbo for top end, coming in I guess around 4 to 5000rpm. The plumbing usually had a bypass so the engine ran on the supercharger first then at a given point boost from the Turbo took over.

Google is your friend. Twincharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply
Old Dec 30, 2010 | 09:43 AM
  #31  
elecblue06's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: 03-19-07
Posts: 14,901
Likes: 1
From: newburgh,ny
Originally Posted by ant0ny
TwinCharging was all done in the eighties in Group B rally cars etc. Most twincharge setups where Supercharger for low power and Turbo for top end, coming in I guess around 4 to 5000rpm. The plumbing usually had a bypass so the engine ran on the supercharger first then at a given point boost from the Turbo took over.

Google is your friend. Twincharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
thats all well and good and all ... but that has no bearing on my setup.. i'm not using a roots style blower
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 03:45 PM
  #32  
ant0ny's Avatar
New Member
 
Joined: 12-20-10
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Originally Posted by elecblue06
thats all well and good and all ... but that has no bearing on my setup.. i'm not using a roots style blower
Wouldn't matter what you used... there maybe some ideas on how best to do your plumbing. I am sure the guys who ran Twin charge had the same issues you are thinking about.

twincharging - Google Search


Twin charging was done primarily to get a boosted charge into the engine through the whole rev range... it make sense that they used a supercharger for down low then a turbo up high. You have to remember in the early days to Turbo's there where always lag issues and most setups only worked in the high end and so twin charging fixed this problem.

Wouldn't matter what you used it's how it's connected and in what order you connected them. If you look at some setups you will notice they have a butter fly valve in a bypass at the first turbo/supercharger so when you require more than that can supply it's opened and the air in can bypass the first one... if you didn't all the air has to go through it to the second which would not be able to supply enough for the second.
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 04:08 PM
  #33  
1LowLS's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 02-16-10
Posts: 8,383
Likes: 1
From: Queen Creek,AZ
If it was mine,I would run the procharger to the intake side
of the turbo then to the intercooler into the intake manifold.My reasoning behind that is I believe the air flow from the procharger at idle and up will spool the turbo up faster even though the k04 is already a quick spooling turbo.Just my brainstorming idea.
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 04:18 PM
  #34  
Cobalt_Daddy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-19-09
Posts: 7,665
Likes: 7
From: Windsor NS
subd
Reply
Old Dec 31, 2010 | 07:00 PM
  #35  
riko540's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-02-08
Posts: 2,860
Likes: 1
From: South Jersey
Sounds kinda like a twin charge setup but using a procharger instead of the M60. The only issue I see is the turbo from the SS/TC is most likely too small.
Reply
Old Jan 1, 2011 | 03:56 PM
  #36  
Sw4y1313's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-25-06
Posts: 1,860
Likes: 0
From: USAG Stuttgart, GER
Originally Posted by riko540
Sounds kinda like a twin charge setup but using a procharger instead of the M60. The only issue I see is the turbo from the SS/TC is most likely too small.
Negative. Its the opposite. Using the K04 as the low end compressor, and the procharger as the high end compressor. Its called Compound boost. Its most commonly used with a small turbo and a large turbo.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
turbochargedss2012
2.0L LNF Performance Tech
11
Sep 20, 2023 12:17 PM
Sl0wbaltSS
2.0L LNF Performance Tech
18
Nov 21, 2018 11:11 PM
KMO43
Front Page News
33
Jan 12, 2016 12:01 AM
Jesse
Parts
15
Oct 13, 2015 09:32 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 AM.