compound turbo/super charger results from hotrod
#1
compound turbo/super charger results from hotrod
anyone read the new hotrod with the hellion kit results. i know a few of you guys have been talking about running a big turbo along with a radix. some think the raidix would be a restriction while other think it will help with the low end power till the turbos take over.
they have dyno charts from a twin turbo/stock super charger set up and then from just a twin turbo set up with no super charger.
both peeked out over 1000hp at around 21-22psi so the super charger is ot holding the peek power back.
at the lower rpms there was a dramatic increase in tq/hp with the super charged engine.
at 4000rpm there was an extra 300+ft/lbs, at 5000rpm an extra 250+ft/lbs, at 6000rpm still a 50ft/lbs extra. above 6500 the turbos only had a slight lead but they were both heading downhill quickly by then.
i thought they were very interesting results. i expected extra power down low but also thought the super charger would hurt things up top a fair amount but from this chart there is no significant drop off in power in the upper rpms.
they have dyno charts from a twin turbo/stock super charger set up and then from just a twin turbo set up with no super charger.
both peeked out over 1000hp at around 21-22psi so the super charger is ot holding the peek power back.
at the lower rpms there was a dramatic increase in tq/hp with the super charged engine.
at 4000rpm there was an extra 300+ft/lbs, at 5000rpm an extra 250+ft/lbs, at 6000rpm still a 50ft/lbs extra. above 6500 the turbos only had a slight lead but they were both heading downhill quickly by then.
i thought they were very interesting results. i expected extra power down low but also thought the super charger would hurt things up top a fair amount but from this chart there is no significant drop off in power in the upper rpms.
#3
grr, rob kinnan wrote the article and he should know better
there is a pic of some waste gates and the caption reads "the turbonetics waste gates are fun to listen to when you let off the throttle"
huh? oh well. there are also varing levels of boost listed in the article.
there is a pic of some waste gates and the caption reads "the turbonetics waste gates are fun to listen to when you let off the throttle"
huh? oh well. there are also varing levels of boost listed in the article.
#5
april. probably be a couple of weeks before it hits the stands.
yep, much more tq with the blower and turbo.
at 4000rpm it was 380 vs 720
at 5000rpm it was 660 vs 940
at 6000rpm it was 850 vs 900
at 6300 they were even
after 6300 the compound set up fell off like a cliff while the turbo only didn't fall off as fast so the turbo only did hang on a little longer.
#7
i would like to see the same tests on a load bearing dyno. seems like the turbo should be at full boost by 5000rpm and if it is then it seems like the power levels should be close to the same.
maybe they dynoed it in 1st or 2nd gear on a inertia dyno to help there stuff look better? didn't give the turbos time to boost.
either that or some really monster turbs on a small displacement motor wich means on a lower hp set up smaller turbos would narrow the gap. i guess this makes some sence. if you want BIG hp and no lag then a compound turbo/radix set up makes sence.
maybe they dynoed it in 1st or 2nd gear on a inertia dyno to help there stuff look better? didn't give the turbos time to boost.
either that or some really monster turbs on a small displacement motor wich means on a lower hp set up smaller turbos would narrow the gap. i guess this makes some sence. if you want BIG hp and no lag then a compound turbo/radix set up makes sence.
Trending Topics
#8
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Currently In suspense.
Posts: 1,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would seem like a good idea for small cubic inch motors so they could make a nice flat torque curve .
My personal opinion would be to run a turbo that is just alittle bigger than the supercharger.Like say t76 on top of a 2.3l whipple.
or a gt67 with the 112.That combo wit the right intercooling on a 4.8 or 5.3 would produce solid numbers at a fairly low rpm.
I my try this setup also we will see.
My personal opinion would be to run a turbo that is just alittle bigger than the supercharger.Like say t76 on top of a 2.3l whipple.
or a gt67 with the 112.That combo wit the right intercooling on a 4.8 or 5.3 would produce solid numbers at a fairly low rpm.
I my try this setup also we will see.
#9
Would seem like a good idea for small cubic inch motors so they could make a nice flat torque curve .
My personal opinion would be to run a turbo that is just alittle bigger than the supercharger.Like say t76 on top of a 2.3l whipple.
or a gt67 with the 112.That combo wit the right intercooling on a 4.8 or 5.3 would produce solid numbers at a fairly low rpm.
I my try this setup also we will see.
My personal opinion would be to run a turbo that is just alittle bigger than the supercharger.Like say t76 on top of a 2.3l whipple.
or a gt67 with the 112.That combo wit the right intercooling on a 4.8 or 5.3 would produce solid numbers at a fairly low rpm.
I my try this setup also we will see.
i think you will be limited by the turbos max airflow. wichever unit you put first needs to be large enough for your peek hp goals.
i may be dead wrong on that and can't really think of a way to explain it but thats the way it seems to me.
#10
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (5)
One thing about any of these high output tests is that they never emphasize that they are using race gas, or alcohol injection, or both, only casually mentioning it one time. I know everybody here knows that, but after I read these tests or posts on forums about them, I leave feeling inadequate. Then I remember that I'm not going to run race gas, meth, or lower my compression.
I just think that every other word in these articles should be "race fuel".
Rant over.
I just think that every other word in these articles should be "race fuel".
Rant over.