TWIN CHARGING, PIPEWORK
TWIN CHARGING, PIPEWORK
I have started a new project, its a om606 with a m112 eaton supercharger and a ???? turbo.
the question is: what is the best way to pipe the supercharger and turbo?
Do i feed the supercharger with the turbo and bolt the charger to the inlet manifold like our friend EDH Performance or do i feed the turbo with the supercharger.
Both ways seem to work but what way is best for spool up or top end power?
Blacksmokeracing used the first way, but have now changed to the second way, is anyone friendly with them that could ask, as they have the experience with both.
whats your thoughts?
Hi,
I have started a new project, its a om606 with a m112 eaton supercharger and a ???? turbo.
the question is: what is the best way to pipe the supercharger and turbo?
Do i feed the supercharger with the turbo and bolt the charger to the inlet manifold like our friend EDH Performance or do i feed the turbo with the supercharger.
Both ways seem to work but what way is best for spool up or top end power?
Blacksmokeracing used the first way, but have now changed to the second way, is anyone friendly with them that could ask, as they have the experience with both.
whats your thoughts?
![[Image: twinchargedoption1-1.jpg]](http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Chudsoncoupe/Twin%20Charger/twinchargedoption1-1.jpg)
![[Image: 102930d1210989629-8v-2l-twin-charged-my-...5_full.jpg]](http://http://www.alfabb.com/bb/forums/attachments/engine-conversions/102930d1210989629-8v-2l-twin-charged-my-little-project-329157_35_full.jpg)
![[Image: 102930d1210989629-8v-2l-twin-charged-my-...5_full.jpg]](http://www.alfabb.com/bb/forums/attachments/engine-conversions/102930d1210989629-8v-2l-twin-charged-my-little-project-329157_35_full.jpg)
Placing the SC downstream of the of the turbo would make a viable compound setup with the added complication of extra valves, parasitic belt load and the poor adiabatic efficiency of a roots supercharger when compared to a compound turbo setup. What benefit is there in using a turbocharger/supercharger over 2 turbos in a compound charging setup?
raysorenson
06-28-2012, 07:19 AM #4The supercharger makes sense in the twincharger diagram and is simpler with a single bypass (labelled "control valve") that does not have to be synchronized with any other valves. This is not a compound setup, the supercharger merely allows a larger turbo to be used by eliminating boost delay.
Placing the SC downstream of the of the turbo would make a viable compound setup with the added complication of extra valves, parasitic belt load and the poor adiabatic efficiency of a roots supercharger when compared to a compound turbo setup. What benefit is there in using a turbocharger/supercharger over 2 turbos in a compound charging setup?
(06-28-2012, 07:19 AM)raysorenson The supercharger makes sense in the twincharger diagram and is simpler with a single bypass (labelled "control valve") that does not have to be synchronized with any other valves. This is not a compound setup, the supercharger merely allows a larger turbo to be used by eliminating boost delay.
Placing the SC downstream of the of the turbo would make a viable compound setup with the added complication of extra valves, parasitic belt load and the poor adiabatic efficiency of a roots supercharger when compared to a compound turbo setup. What benefit is there in using a turbocharger/supercharger over 2 turbos in a compound charging setup?
I was hoping for a quicker spool up than using compound turbos and i can change the speed of the SC with pulley size. Dont want to buy two turbos and find they don't work well together(back pressure issues) and have to buy more. I don't have much experience with compound.
So, is there a lot more pressure on the belt with the SC being fed by the turbo?
(06-28-2012, 07:19 AM)raysorenson The supercharger makes sense in the twincharger diagram and is simpler with a single bypass (labelled "control valve") that does not have to be synchronized with any other valves. This is not a compound setup, the supercharger merely allows a larger turbo to be used by eliminating boost delay.
Placing the SC downstream of the of the turbo would make a viable compound setup with the added complication of extra valves, parasitic belt load and the poor adiabatic efficiency of a roots supercharger when compared to a compound turbo setup. What benefit is there in using a turbocharger/supercharger over 2 turbos in a compound charging setup?
I was hoping for a quicker spool up than using compound turbos and i can change the speed of the SC with pulley size. Dont want to buy two turbos and find they don't work well together(back pressure issues) and have to buy more. I don't have much experience with compound.
So, is there a lot more pressure on the belt with the SC being fed by the turbo?
If you don't mind a 1,500rpm lag to full boost, then going compound or using large VNT will be much easier.
Newbie-read this: Cheap Tricks
617.952-220k-Getting built up
larsalan I guess I need to look at this stupid ass drip shit. What you have to like mess with those elements on the pump? What a fucking hassle. then use some wire to hold the throttle open or some shit?
Simpler=Better
06-29-2012, 08:37 AM #6If you're looking for instant boost, the second diagram utilizing a SC will give it to you.
If you don't mind a 1,500rpm lag to full boost, then going compound or using large VNT will be much easier.
Newbie-read this: Cheap Tricks
617.952-220k-Getting built up
larsalan I guess I need to look at this stupid ass drip shit. What you have to like mess with those elements on the pump? What a fucking hassle. then use some wire to hold the throttle open or some shit?
(06-28-2012, 04:55 PM)mantahead I was hoping for a quicker spool up than using compound turbos and i can change the speed of the SC with pulley size. Dont want to buy two turbos and find they don't work well together(back pressure issues) and have to buy more. I don't have much experience with compound.
So, is there a lot more pressure on the belt with the SC being fed by the turbo?
A compound turbo setup can be made to boost nearly instantly and yes, as the pressure increases upstream of the SC, the more power required by the belt to drive the supercharger. I agree with your reservations of compound turbocharging. It sounds like a PITA.
I think VW's twincharger is better than a compound turbo + supercharger because:
1. It's simpler. Less valves and you don't have to synchronize their operation.
2. More efficient. Once the turbo starts making boost, the bypass valve can open up so that the supercharger is no longer compressing air and, if designed well, the upstream plumbing shouldn't pose a restriction to the inlet of the turbo. There is still some belt drag but nowhere near as much as when the SC is actually compressing air.
3. Less heat. This sort of goes under efficiency but it's still another topic. The adiabatic efficiency of a compressor is a measure of it's ability to compress air without adding any extra heat into the air. If compressor A has more adiabatic efficiency than compressor B and both are making 2bar of pressure, compressor A is pushing more mass of air through it at a lower temperature than compressor B. Roots superchargers have nasty low AB efficiency. When you compound charge, you stack up AB inefficiency rates. This gives the double whammy of having an inefficient roots compressor and adding it's inefficiency to the turbo. Assuming that you have an intercooler that can remove all of that heat, it's going to put a lot of that heat into the radiator. If your intercooler is marginal or heat-soaked, then the extra heat goes right into your combustion chamber.
The cool thing about VW's twincharger is that you could use a massive turbo to make as much boost as you wanted very efficiently in respect to exhaust back pressure, intake heat, and belt drag. This should translate to more power for a given rate of fuel consumption, which is what I consider free power.
raysorenson
06-29-2012, 08:55 AM #7(06-28-2012, 04:55 PM)mantahead I was hoping for a quicker spool up than using compound turbos and i can change the speed of the SC with pulley size. Dont want to buy two turbos and find they don't work well together(back pressure issues) and have to buy more. I don't have much experience with compound.
So, is there a lot more pressure on the belt with the SC being fed by the turbo?
A compound turbo setup can be made to boost nearly instantly and yes, as the pressure increases upstream of the SC, the more power required by the belt to drive the supercharger. I agree with your reservations of compound turbocharging. It sounds like a PITA.
I think VW's twincharger is better than a compound turbo + supercharger because:
1. It's simpler. Less valves and you don't have to synchronize their operation.
2. More efficient. Once the turbo starts making boost, the bypass valve can open up so that the supercharger is no longer compressing air and, if designed well, the upstream plumbing shouldn't pose a restriction to the inlet of the turbo. There is still some belt drag but nowhere near as much as when the SC is actually compressing air.
3. Less heat. This sort of goes under efficiency but it's still another topic. The adiabatic efficiency of a compressor is a measure of it's ability to compress air without adding any extra heat into the air. If compressor A has more adiabatic efficiency than compressor B and both are making 2bar of pressure, compressor A is pushing more mass of air through it at a lower temperature than compressor B. Roots superchargers have nasty low AB efficiency. When you compound charge, you stack up AB inefficiency rates. This gives the double whammy of having an inefficient roots compressor and adding it's inefficiency to the turbo. Assuming that you have an intercooler that can remove all of that heat, it's going to put a lot of that heat into the radiator. If your intercooler is marginal or heat-soaked, then the extra heat goes right into your combustion chamber.
The cool thing about VW's twincharger is that you could use a massive turbo to make as much boost as you wanted very efficiently in respect to exhaust back pressure, intake heat, and belt drag. This should translate to more power for a given rate of fuel consumption, which is what I consider free power.
![[Image: utf-8BSU1HMDA5NjctMjAxMjA2MTktMTAwNi5qcGc.jpg]](http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc461/mantahead1/utf-8BSU1HMDA5NjctMjAxMjA2MTktMTAwNi5qcGc.jpg)
Newbie-read this: Cheap Tricks
617.952-220k-Getting built up
larsalan I guess I need to look at this stupid ass drip shit. What you have to like mess with those elements on the pump? What a fucking hassle. then use some wire to hold the throttle open or some shit?
Simpler=Better
06-30-2012, 12:52 PM #9Rudolf did, I believe he ran a thicker headgasket giving him an 18:1 CR
Newbie-read this: Cheap Tricks
617.952-220k-Getting built up
larsalan I guess I need to look at this stupid ass drip shit. What you have to like mess with those elements on the pump? What a fucking hassle. then use some wire to hold the throttle open or some shit?
Air Filter -> Supercharger_Inlet -> Supercharger_Outlet -> Y-Pipe
One side is the feed from the Supercharger_Outlet.
One side is the by-pass valve with another air filter attached
One side goes to the Turbocharger_Inlet
Turbocharger_Outlet -> Intercooling -> Engine
Easiest hybrid compound setup/should provide decent boost off-idle & doesn't sound like a mess of tubing.
1983 300TD : 4 Speed : SLS Delete : More. Daily Deathcab
1987 190E/16v/OM603 : 5 Speed : SLS Delete : Lots More..W201 Project
Personally my setup would be:
Air Filter -> Supercharger_Inlet -> Supercharger_Outlet -> Y-Pipe
One side is the feed from the Supercharger_Outlet.
One side is the by-pass valve with another air filter attached
One side goes to the Turbocharger_Inlet
Turbocharger_Outlet -> Intercooling -> Engine
Easiest hybrid compound setup/should provide decent boost off-idle & doesn't sound like a mess of tubing.
1983 300TD : 4 Speed : SLS Delete : More. Daily Deathcab
1987 190E/16v/OM603 : 5 Speed : SLS Delete : Lots More..W201 Project
(06-30-2012, 02:28 PM)aaa Is using a valve to route exhaust between compound turbos a good idea? Should make sizing them easier, although you'd probably lose the second stage of air compression.
I only really see this as a delay for the HP turbo, trying to hold off the HP and spool the LP turbo to it's maximum efficiency and then using a wastegate actuation to allow the exhaust flow into the HP turbo at peak LP efficiency. Would probably be useful if your trying to hold back the low rpm torque or allow for the use of a very large HP for high rpm use. But the exhaust has got to go somewhere.
Did alittle gimping.
![[Image: kozukatwincharged.jpg]](http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3605/kozukatwincharged.jpg)
1983 300TD : 4 Speed : SLS Delete : More. Daily Deathcab
1987 190E/16v/OM603 : 5 Speed : SLS Delete : Lots More..W201 Project
(06-30-2012, 02:28 PM)aaa Is using a valve to route exhaust between compound turbos a good idea? Should make sizing them easier, although you'd probably lose the second stage of air compression.
I only really see this as a delay for the HP turbo, trying to hold off the HP and spool the LP turbo to it's maximum efficiency and then using a wastegate actuation to allow the exhaust flow into the HP turbo at peak LP efficiency. Would probably be useful if your trying to hold back the low rpm torque or allow for the use of a very large HP for high rpm use. But the exhaust has got to go somewhere.
Did alittle gimping.
1983 300TD : 4 Speed : SLS Delete : More. Daily Deathcab
1987 190E/16v/OM603 : 5 Speed : SLS Delete : Lots More..W201 Project
dieselmerc
07-01-2012, 04:26 PM #13If to supercharge and turbo charge do like kozuka says easiest and works best, do NOT charge turbo through supercharger will be massive loss of effience like blacksmoke expirienced them selves. I do recommend to compound turbos insted though due to running diesel engines. Which have low amount hp on low revs which desires alot of pressure to make power (HPxbar at absolute pressure) and a supercharger can maximum produce aboat 1BAR-ish before getting to inefficiente, for example 3000rpm n/a om606 has aboat 70hp, 70x1,5bar absolute is 105hp but with compound turbo you can have 70x3bar absulute =210hp and thats is a huge difference!
[/quote]yea, thats the diagram i wanted. Cheers.
Its some sort of 3 way valve of a volvo marine engine i need or is there another?
some pictures here include 3 way valve and throttle body on charger intake.
anyone identify what the 3 way valve is off? pictures 88 and 85.
http://teamlmd.1g.fi/kuvat/e30+330Cd/IMG...destart=58
Did alittle gimping.
[/quote]yea, thats the diagram i wanted. Cheers.
Its some sort of 3 way valve of a volvo marine engine i need or is there another?
some pictures here include 3 way valve and throttle body on charger intake.
anyone identify what the 3 way valve is off? pictures 88 and 85.
http://teamlmd.1g.fi/kuvat/e30+330Cd/IMG...destart=58
There are basically two options the way I see it.
1. Use a throttle-body/exhaust cutout modify it so that you use a waste gate actuator to open it at a specified psi
2. Use a electronic actuated valve in the same modified manner.
You don't need to vent the supercharger after it's been by-passed the air will flow from the shortest point and the flow from the supercharger will be minimal. Although there might be some heat that could be vented if a 3-way valve was used.
1983 300TD : 4 Speed : SLS Delete : More. Daily Deathcab
1987 190E/16v/OM603 : 5 Speed : SLS Delete : Lots More..W201 Project
I don't know about the three way valve..
There are basically two options the way I see it.
1. Use a throttle-body/exhaust cutout modify it so that you use a waste gate actuator to open it at a specified psi
2. Use a electronic actuated valve in the same modified manner.
You don't need to vent the supercharger after it's been by-passed the air will flow from the shortest point and the flow from the supercharger will be minimal. Although there might be some heat that could be vented if a 3-way valve was used.
1983 300TD : 4 Speed : SLS Delete : More. Daily Deathcab
1987 190E/16v/OM603 : 5 Speed : SLS Delete : Lots More..W201 Project
![[Image: Long_runner2.jpg]](http://www.myfordfocus.com/images/svt/Long_runner2.jpg)
![[Image: Short_runner2.jpg]](http://www.myfordfocus.com/images/svt/Short_runner2.jpg)
Newbie-read this: Cheap Tricks
617.952-220k-Getting built up
larsalan I guess I need to look at this stupid ass drip shit. What you have to like mess with those elements on the pump? What a fucking hassle. then use some wire to hold the throttle open or some shit?
Simpler=Better
07-02-2012, 08:24 AM #16Actually this makes sense, even if you will have to mess around with 2 air filters. Once the SC is turned off via the clutch you're feeding air mush faster to the turbo. Similar to what the Ford SVT engines run.
Newbie-read this: Cheap Tricks
617.952-220k-Getting built up
larsalan I guess I need to look at this stupid ass drip shit. What you have to like mess with those elements on the pump? What a fucking hassle. then use some wire to hold the throttle open or some shit?
Trying to keep the running of the engine, 100% mechanical without adding a whole mess of electronics that could potently ruin your day. For logging/display/722.6/VNT/VGT (yes, I've seen Forced's mechanical adaptation) its fine because there is really not much choice in the matter. But getting rpm signal, using it to manipulate electronic valves & clutches sounds like alot of time and bug testing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of electronics. 10+ Years In Information Technology seen it all go wrong and badly.
1983 300TD : 4 Speed : SLS Delete : More. Daily Deathcab
1987 190E/16v/OM603 : 5 Speed : SLS Delete : Lots More..W201 Project
Yeah, mostly people recommend not messing with electromagnetic clutch for a S/C. It works 'OK' in an oem setup (Experience: Eaton M42 + M111, C230k), but with this I want to keep to the proverb 'keep it simple, stupid'. It adds unnecessary complication that might add some HP to the top end but will limit your choices of pulley size for compatible clutches.
Trying to keep the running of the engine, 100% mechanical without adding a whole mess of electronics that could potently ruin your day. For logging/display/722.6/VNT/VGT (yes, I've seen Forced's mechanical adaptation) its fine because there is really not much choice in the matter. But getting rpm signal, using it to manipulate electronic valves & clutches sounds like alot of time and bug testing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not afraid of electronics. 10+ Years In Information Technology seen it all go wrong and badly.
1983 300TD : 4 Speed : SLS Delete : More. Daily Deathcab
1987 190E/16v/OM603 : 5 Speed : SLS Delete : Lots More..W201 Project
4 Guest(s)
4 Guest(s)