Next Gen Turbos and Superchargers

Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
It works very well indeed, it has all the benefits of other forced induction methods, but without the downsides of each sort.

It gives max boost all across the rev range unlike a turbo, and it dispenses with the fixed mechanical link to the engine unlike a supercharger.

At part or no throttle there is no power loss, unlike with a fixed supercharger, it can spin up within milliseconds, therefore no "turbo" lag, and instant boost no matter what revs the engine is doing.

So it can give exactly the right amount of boost across the whole rev range depending upon driving style and what the engine requires.

It is basically so that manufacturers can downsize engines, to get better emissions and economy, without sacrificing the power and torque a large capacity engine can give.

EDIT Gives a 1.4L the power and torque of a 2.0L, but still with the economy and emission levels of a 1.4
 
Last edited:

Pug

Pug

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
5,184
Location
Over there...
what are its downsides tho Entai?

i mean they cant be perfect surely, else they'd be pretty common in racing (which my family do a lot of and i havent come across these yet)
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
Pug said:
what are its downsides tho Entai?

i mean they cant be perfect surely, else they'd be pretty common in racing (which my family do a lot of and i havent come across these yet)


IIRC at the moment they have only got it working on a 42V electrical system, but they are trying to get a 12V one to work.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,038
Location
Sandwich, Kent
Entai said:
At part or no throttle there is no power loss, unlike with a fixed supercharger, it can spin up within milliseconds, therefore no "turbo" lag, and instant boost no matter what revs the engine is doing.

So it can give exactly the right amount of boost across the whole rev range depending upon driving style and what the engine requires.
How does this spin up in milliseconds? The internals of it looks pretty heavy to me, so whats going to spin it up if its not belt driven and the clutch to the turbo side of it is disengaged?
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
Bug One said:
How does this spin up in milliseconds? The internals of it looks pretty heavy to me, so whats going to spin it up if its not belt driven and the clutch to the turbo side of it is disengaged?


An electric motor hence needing 42V.
Also when the vehicle does not need the boost then the motor turns into a generator thus recharging the batteries.

I think the idea is also that it will replace the starter motor, and alternator so that the weight will be offset by not having the other items.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,038
Location
Sandwich, Kent
I've downloaded acrobat to take a closer look. There's a guide to the parts on page 2 of the flyer so I understand it a bit better now.

So its belt driven, then has a big electric motor, then a ten to 1 gearbox, then another smaller motor ( why?) then a turbo style impeller.

So what are the electric motors for. If its belt driven, then it will only be able to run at the speed of the rest of the engine ie a supercharger? Also, why is there one electric motor before the ratio box and one after?
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
14,226
Location
Bucks and Edinburgh
Personally I like having a turbo with a boost threshold. I dont want a car with instant boost as I like to warm the car up before hitting maximum boost, also it would be potentially lethal to drive having to feather the throttle everywhere you drive especially around town.

I know the throttle isnt a switch, but with a car with resonable boost like 1 bar+ the throttle is very sensitive whilst above the boost threshold and could make for some very jerky driving
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
Bug One said:
I've downloaded acrobat to take a closer look. There's a guide to the parts on page 2 of the flyer so I understand it a bit better now.

So its belt driven, then has a big electric motor, then a ten to 1 gearbox, then another smaller motor ( why?) then a turbo style impeller.

So what are the electric motors for. If its belt driven, then it will only be able to run at the speed of the rest of the engine ie a supercharger? Also, why is there one electric motor before the ratio box and one after?

The belt is not really a direct drive, IIRC it is through a viscous coupling arrangement. The smaller control motor and the larger generator are linked through the gearbox so that they can share the load depending upon engine speed, and can run the compressor at anything up to 150 times crankshaft speed so maybe 200,000 rpm, which is more turbo charger teritory than supercharger.
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
Bear said:
Personally I like having a turbo with a boost threshold. I dont want a car with instant boost as I like to warm the car up before hitting maximum boost, also it would be potentially lethal to drive having to feather the throttle everywhere you drive especially around town.

I know the throttle isnt a switch, but with a car with resonable boost like 1 bar+ the throttle is very sensitive whilst above the boost threshold and could make for some very jerky driving


The electronic control unit would not allow fiull boost unless in full throttle situations, so wait untill your engine is warm before planting the throttle, a bit like you would anyway. Also you could link it to oil temp, so no, or little boost is produced, before the engine reaches certain temps, these parts of the system have still to be dealt with I believe.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jun 2004
Posts
2,672
Pug said:
what are its downsides tho Entai?

i mean they cant be perfect surely, else they'd be pretty common in racing (which my family do a lot of and i havent come across these yet)

Current downsides would be the usual complexity, cost and weight issues, though the way modern cars are going most manufacturers don't seem that concerned with the 1st and last points.
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
Alibaba99 said:
Current downsides would be the usual complexity, cost and weight issues, though the way modern cars are going most manufacturers don't seem that concerned with the 1st and last points.


Weight is definately not an issue as this unit will replace the starter motor and the alternator so the final wieght increase will be very minimal if not, in some circumstances on larger engines, a weight reduction, over the two original units.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
14,226
Location
Bucks and Edinburgh
Entai said:
The electronic control unit would not allow fiull boost unless in full throttle situations, so wait untill your engine is warm before planting the throttle, a bit like you would anyway. Also you could link it to oil temp, so no, or little boost is produced, before the engine reaches certain temps, these parts of the system have still to be dealt with I believe.


That would be good if they implemented such a system but Im not sure they are that bothered about things like warming up. I mean think about current turbo diesels, they literally run full boost when cold and is virtually impossible to avoid as it makes boost at such low RPM.
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Feb 2004
Posts
74,822
Bear said:
That would be good if they implemented such a system but Im not sure they are that bothered about things like warming up. I mean think about current turbo diesels, they literally run full boost when cold and is virtually impossible to avoid as it makes boost at such low RPM.


But the big difference here is that with current turbo chargers and superchargers, there is basically no way to turn them off.
A supercharger has a direct fixed link to the engine, it will spin up the moment the engine is switched on.
A turbo is plumbed in directly to the exhaust, again as soon as the engine is running the turbo is spinning.

With this new idea the electronics, control when boost is produced, there is no direct link to the compressor, if the electronics say no boost then the compressor does not spin and there is no boost, if the electronics says full boost then the compressor is spun up to 200,000 rpm, wether the engine is idling or doing 8,000 rpm, it is just a balance between the electric motors or the traction drive unit, that spins up the compressor.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Jun 2004
Posts
2,672
Hadn't realised that the starter/alternator could be ditched as well. Also you could argue that using a smaller lighter engine over a larger NA unit is giving significant advantages in terms of overall weight.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Oct 2002
Posts
14,226
Location
Bucks and Edinburgh
Entai said:
But the big difference here is that with current turbo chargers and superchargers, there is basically no way to turn them off.
A supercharger has a direct fixed link to the engine, it will spin up the moment the engine is switched on.
A turbo is plumbed in directly to the exhaust, again as soon as the engine is running the turbo is spinning.

With this new idea the electronics, control when boost is produced, there is no direct link to the compressor, if the electronics say no boost then the compressor does not spin and there is no boost, if the electronics says full boost then the compressor is spun up to 200,000 rpm, wether the engine is idling or doing 8,000 rpm, it is just a balance between the electric motors or the traction drive unit, that spins up the compressor.

Good point, I didnt thnk of that :o
 

Pug

Pug

Soldato
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
5,184
Location
Over there...
but if this is taking power in the form of electricity from the engine then surely it will inhibit performance.

Anything powered by the engine (be it mechanical or electronic) is going to steal power (like AC for eg)
 
Back
Top Bottom