Ford GT with both supercharger and twin turbo

[trev0006]

Ford GT with both supercharger and twin turbo

[Quibron]

Not too impressed, it didn't look or sound much faster than stock

[DBLDREW]

Thats the most retarded thing ever. Not only do you have the drag of the suppercharger but you add in the exhaust back pressure from the turbos! Talk about inefficient.

[Mstng2]

But then there are noobs who are uneducated and do not know anything about the concept of how gas/air mixtures and boosting compression work. It is anything but retarded, and when built correctly, ULTRA fast pushing into the 1200 + HP range. The turbos create boost which is then fed into the Supercharger which boosts the boost, in effect multiplying the boost. Not only that but the Supercharger gives low end power until the turbos can spool up. Far far from inefficient.

[mattlikespeople]

first run if you listen closely i believe the guy said 868hp

[DBLDREW]

Originally Posted by Mstng2

But then there are noobs who are uneducated and do not know anything about the concept of how gas/air mixtures and boosting compression work. It is anything but retarded, and when built correctly, ULTRA fast pushing into the 1200 + HP range. The turbos create boost which is then fed into the Supercharger which boosts the boost, in effect multiplying the boost. Not only that but the Supercharger gives low end power until the turbos can spool up. Far far from inefficient.

I'm assuming the uneducated noob is yourself?

All forms of forced induction robs HP to create HP. Both Positive displacement and centrifugal superchargers rob hp by direct drag on the engine, while a turbo robs hp by creating exhaust back pressure. Now obviously all forms of forced induction create way more HP then they rob. A turbo being the most efficient, but that efficiency comes at a price. The price is lag, it takes a little bit to spool up the turbo. Now a positive displacement SC on the other hand makes full boost at a very low RPM, so no lag, but the downside is that it robs the most HP at higher RPM. Then the centrifugal supercharger will be much more efficient then the positive displacement at higher RPM, but less efficient then a turbo, likewise you won't get the lag like the turbo at lower RPM, and because it builds boost on a linear line based on RPM you wont have as much low end power as the PD supercharger.

You make some arbitrary statement about air/fuel mixture and boosting compression, and you obviously don't really have a grasp of how it works. HP is created by how much pressure is created in your combustion chamber. That pressure is created by igniting the air/fuel mixture, the more air you can get in the chamber (mixed with the correct amount of fuel) the more power you can make.

So obviously forced induction is a good way to get more air(oxygen) into your combustion chamber. Having 15psi of manifold pressure will push more air past your intake valve(s) then 0psi manifold pressure. Simple concept..

So here is the thing, at 15psi the amount of power generated in your combustion chamber is identical all things being equal, (rpm, air charge temp, same a/f ratio etc) between the 2 superchargers and is LESS with the turbo. Because of the exhaust back pressure created with a turbo, you get less efficient exhaust stroke, leaving burned gasses still in your combustion chamber. So the next intake stroke when you get a blast of oxygen rich air it mixes with the left over exhaust and creates a less efficient burn.

Again even though you get a less efficient combustion chamber burn with a Turbo there is no drag on the engine due to spinning a supercharger so the end result is more power.

But we are talking about running both, so we have the drag of the supercharger AND the less efficient combustion chamber burn due to the turbo back pressure.

You would make more power if they just increased the boost on the SC, or WAY more power if they removed the SC and just went with the turbos.

The only way it would really make sense is if there was some clutch system on the supercharger, so once the turbos spooled up you can disengage the SC and then remove the drag. But that looked like the stock SC so...

[Mstng2]

You Assume too much... here we go... why didn't you post this in your first post? Why do you post such CRAP as in your first post? You are correct about Max HP, you are correct about ineffiencies of each system. But the post is not about air/fuel, because I mentioned it doesnt mean that was my point, my point was that you seemed uneducated by the way you posted and you may not know a dang thing about compound boost.

Ineffiencies are inherent with different types of boost, but thats not the point of a Supercharger Turbo combo. It's the best of both worlds, insane top end hp AND low end power. Your comparsion/reasoning fails because the ineffiencencies dont combine to be uber ineffiecient. You also dont mention at what cost to HP are the ineffiencies? I'll answer it, it's not enough to say this system is retarded. Way way far from it.

Supercharged turbos have been in use for the last 30 years. It's used a ton in Diesal applications. If you want to get all specific it's called compound boost. It helps generate serious low-end torque and still breathes easily upstairs. Another benefit is that it allows high boost pressures without high turbo speeds, keeping the compressors in a more efficient range.

It is NOT "retarded" and "inefficient" In fact Volkswagen is coming to market THIS YEAR with a 1.4-liter engine that will feature a turbo blowing into a supercharger induction system. Not only that but Hellion is also coming to market with a system for Ford Modulars... (wouldnt suprise me if this isn't a Hellion System)

They say... "For those brave enough and in need of the excess, check out the turbo/supercharger system. It will not disappoint your appetite for ridiculous power levels. We watched this setup throw out a certifiably insane 1,188 rwhp and an even more impressive 1,015 rwtq-through a stock engine including the factory cast-iron exhaust manifolds...."

It is certifiably ridiculouse to spout off about parasitic loss when your talking about over 1000 HP, parasitic loss may be 50 HP MAX at 6000 RPM woopee, that's not WAY more power... Joe's GTTT throws down 1000 + with HUGE turbo's, that's only good for roll racing. A twin turbo roots combo is fast out of the hole AND insane at speed.

[DBLDREW]

Originally Posted by Mstng2

You Assume too much... here we go... why didn't you post this in your first post? Why do you post such CRAP as in your first post?

I did say that in my fist post, it was a simpler statement that it's inefficient because of "Not only do you have the drag of the supercharger but you add in the exhaust back pressure from the turbos!"

That basically sums up my huge long post.

Ineffiencies are inherent with different types of boost, but thats not the point of a Supercharger Turbo combo. It's the best of both worlds, insane top end hp AND low end power.

No, it's the worst of both systems, you cant have insane top end hp unless you remove the drag from the supercharger.

Your comparsion/reasoning fails because the ineffiencencies dont combine to be uber ineffiecient. You also dont mention at what cost to HP are the ineffiencies? I'll answer it, it's not enough to say this system is retarded. Way way far from it.

They absolutely do combine, you still have the drag of the supercharger, and now you have exhaust back pressure. Both of those will rob HP.

It is NOT "retarded" and "inefficient" In fact Volkswagen is coming to market THIS YEAR with a 1.4-liter engine that will feature a turbo blowing into a supercharger induction system.

Yes VW is coming out with a turbo, supercharger combo that is a 4 banger that makes 168hp and 177 lb/ft, Or you could just go with their 4 banger turbo only motor that makes 200hp and 207 lb/ft...

They say... "For those brave enough and in need of the excess, check out the turbo/supercharger system. It will not disappoint your appetite for ridiculous power levels. We watched this setup throw out a certifiably insane 1,188 rwhp and an even more impressive 1,015 rwtq-through a stock engine including the factory cast-iron exhaust manifolds...."

Yes I've read that article as well, here are a few more quotes from it...

"The Roots-style supercharger is a constant-displacement device. It moves air against a restriction, which is the engine, and it creates pressure. The downside of the supercharger is that it's not as efficient and takes more power to drive than a turbocharger. So peak horsepower per pound of boost with our compounded setup will differ from turbocharger-only applications."

And..

"Simply removing the supercharger and adding a '99 Cobra intake will increase peak horsepower, but low-end power would be sacrificed. The reason behind the madness, though, was to create a combination that provides superior low-end and average horsepower."

Also that 1188 hp was made at 44psi !!! if that doesn't scream inefficient...

[mattlikespeople]

44psi? jesus! just go quad turbo. less lag

actually, screw that. just get 1/cyl

[Mesarina]

lol nice thread

both have good arguments, but i think dbldrew is talking about peak hp, not the overall curve and tq numbers...

[DBLDREW]

I was actually talking about peak and curve hp. The 1188 hp that Mstng2 was talking about was on a mustang cobra that Hellion has both turbo only kits and this new turbo and supercharger kit.

Here is the dyno chart that showes the turbo/SC system (in red) @44 psi vs their turbo only kit (in blue) at @24 psi. It's interesting to note that the turbo only kit makes more low end power then the turbo/sc combo. Now the peak power is lower on the turbo only kit but again the turbo only kit is almost 1/2 the psi of the turbo/sc combo. If you raise the turbo only kit up to 44 psi you would probably make enough power to split the block...

Twin Turbo Compound Boost 2003 Mustang Cobra Dyno Photo

[Mstng2]

Originally Posted by DBLDREW

It's interesting to note that the turbo only kit makes more low end power then the turbo/sc combo. Now the peak power is lower on the turbo only kit but again the turbo only kit is almost 1/2 the psi of the turbo/sc combo. If you raise the turbo only kit up to 44 psi you would probably make enough power to split the block...

Not so, your not reading what the Dyno sheet REALLY shows, realize the dyno is over time as well, a dyno begins around 3000 RPM, what this sheet really says is that the Compound setup was so prodigious it went to unreal HP immedialtly! The turbos alone took longer to realize the same HP.

You also took things from the article and twisted them to your needs... I think the engineers at Hellion know a bit more about it than you.

Just read the summary of the dyno sheet. Regardless of all your claims the final word is it's a better system...

"We compared the compounded twin-turbo setup to Hellion's standard '03-'04 Cobra kit, (03-04 Cobra kit is twin turbos only) which was run on the same dyno. The difference is quite apparent. Not to say the Hellion '03-'04 Cobra kit isn't a stout system-customers' cars have run in the nines. It's just not in the same ballpark as the twin-turbo/ supercharger deal."

Obviously you are twisting things to suite your argument.

[DBLDREW]

Originally Posted by Mstng2

Not so, your not reading what the Dyno sheet REALLY shows, realize the dyno is over time as well, a dyno begins around 3000 RPM, what this sheet really says is that the Compound setup was so prodigious it went to unreal HP immedialtly! The turbos alone took longer to realize the same HP.

You also took things from the article and twisted them to your needs... I think the engineers at Hellion know a bit more about it than you.

Just read the summary of the dyno sheet. Regardless of all your claims the final word is it's a better system...

"We compared the compounded twin-turbo setup to Hellion's standard '03-'04 Cobra kit, (03-04 Cobra kit is twin turbos only) which was run on the same dyno. The difference is quite apparent. Not to say the Hellion '03-'04 Cobra kit isn't a stout system-customers' cars have run in the nines. It's just not in the same ballpark as the twin-turbo/ supercharger deal."

Obviously you are twisting things to suite your argument.

I have no problem reading the dyno sheet, the turbo only car made more torque up until around 450 lb/ft then the turbo/sc tq curve surpassed it. But if you look at just the curves the turbo only car was mirroring the hp and tq curves of the turbo/sc but about 100 less at every rpm up until the turbo only car peaked at around 850 hp. But again that was at almost 1/2 the psi that the T/SC was running.

I'm not twisting anything to fit my argument. The simple fact is that it took 44psi ro reach a little over 1100 hp!! That is a FACT that you cant argue against. 1188hp @ 44psi = garbage. That is horrendously inefficient, just like I said it would be...

Just for comparison here are a few other turbo cars that have big hp with smaller boost...

1285 rwhp@ 20psi (now it is a larger displacement motor then the cobra motor but it does illustrate how pathetic 44 psi is)
1285 RWHP

910hp @10 psi (again bigger motor but you get the point)

Dyno results

1049rwhp @32psi (run rich and shut down after 5400rpm)
1049.1 RWHP and 1049.5 RWTQ at 32 psi of boost

1020rwhp @20 psi
1020rwhp 860rwtq @ 20psi Danimal twin turbo

[Quibron]

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but does anyone think that it would be a better idea to run the charger with the low end boost into the turbos instead of the other way around.

[Mstng2]

I see your point, but lets see a 4.6 @ 1188 HP and the equivelant boost needed from turbo only.

Then lets race both cars, and see who wins...