.............twin Super Charger
Phat350z
05-11-2003, 10:19 PM
anyone seen that tiwn super charged lexus sc 400 (by blitz) or toyota soarer in japan what u guys think of that?? im just talking im bored post some shit come on :flipa:
iceiso
05-12-2003, 07:56 PM
i think that SOME corvette has dual superchargers. or, it was supposed to. or, a modded version did....i don't remember. turbo and supercharger, haha, thas tight
4bngr
06-22-2003, 07:12 PM
Yea, i've seen it, its pretty badass, the only problem i see is that they are roots type, so most of the power is made at low rpms, now, if it were dual centrifical superchargers, that would be bad
Neutrino
06-22-2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by 4bngr
Yea, i've seen it, its pretty badass, the only problem i see is that they are roots type, so most of the power is made at low rpms, now, if it were dual centrifical superchargers, that would be bad
welll if you're gonna go with twin superchargers make them sequential.....a roots and a cetrifugal...this way you have 0 lag....but plenty of top end....
although imo the best way to go in that direction is with twin turbo's......
Yea, i've seen it, its pretty badass, the only problem i see is that they are roots type, so most of the power is made at low rpms, now, if it were dual centrifical superchargers, that would be bad
welll if you're gonna go with twin superchargers make them sequential.....a roots and a cetrifugal...this way you have 0 lag....but plenty of top end....
although imo the best way to go in that direction is with twin turbo's......
Wiseguy
06-22-2003, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by iceiso
i think that SOME corvette has dual superchargers. or, it was supposed to. or, a modded version did....i don't remember. turbo and supercharger, haha, thas tight
wasnt that the lingenfelter (sp?) vette that had that or was it twin turbo
i think that SOME corvette has dual superchargers. or, it was supposed to. or, a modded version did....i don't remember. turbo and supercharger, haha, thas tight
wasnt that the lingenfelter (sp?) vette that had that or was it twin turbo
Drifter To Be
06-24-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Neutrino
welll if you're gonna go with twin superchargers make them sequential.....a roots and a cetrifugal...this way you have 0 lag....but plenty of top end....
although imo the best way to go in that direction is with twin turbo's......
Only problem with twin turbo is you need lots and lots of exhaust to spool up the turbos.
Where as a twin supercharger is run off the engine not the exhaust, they don't have to spool on a low displacement engine. So for lower displacement IMO twin supercharger is the way to go, where as higher displacement twin turbo is the way to go.
welll if you're gonna go with twin superchargers make them sequential.....a roots and a cetrifugal...this way you have 0 lag....but plenty of top end....
although imo the best way to go in that direction is with twin turbo's......
Only problem with twin turbo is you need lots and lots of exhaust to spool up the turbos.
Where as a twin supercharger is run off the engine not the exhaust, they don't have to spool on a low displacement engine. So for lower displacement IMO twin supercharger is the way to go, where as higher displacement twin turbo is the way to go.
Self
06-24-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Drifter To Be
Only problem with twin turbo is you need lots and lots of exhaust to spool up the turbos.
Where as a twin supercharger is run off the engine not the exhaust, they don't have to spool on a low displacement engine. So for lower displacement IMO twin supercharger is the way to go, where as higher displacement twin turbo is the way to go.
Well that's the point of a sequential setup, actually. Having a smaller turbo to handle low RPM boost, and a larger, more efficient turbo to take over when RPMs and exhaust gasses are at a more substantial level. Works well in all applications really. Just not necessary in many apps. A single large turbo will always be more efficient(i.e. not ALWAYS, but up to a certain HP, say 800 on an I4...So basically always:smile:)
Only problem with twin turbo is you need lots and lots of exhaust to spool up the turbos.
Where as a twin supercharger is run off the engine not the exhaust, they don't have to spool on a low displacement engine. So for lower displacement IMO twin supercharger is the way to go, where as higher displacement twin turbo is the way to go.
Well that's the point of a sequential setup, actually. Having a smaller turbo to handle low RPM boost, and a larger, more efficient turbo to take over when RPMs and exhaust gasses are at a more substantial level. Works well in all applications really. Just not necessary in many apps. A single large turbo will always be more efficient(i.e. not ALWAYS, but up to a certain HP, say 800 on an I4...So basically always:smile:)
Neutrino
06-24-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Self
Well that's the point of a sequential setup, actually. Having a smaller turbo to handle low RPM boost, and a larger, more efficient turbo to take over when RPMs and exhaust gasses are at a more substantial level. Works well in all applications really. Just not necessary in many apps. A single large turbo will always be more efficient(i.e. not ALWAYS, but up to a certain HP, say 800 on an I4...So basically always:smile:)
:iagree:
Well that's the point of a sequential setup, actually. Having a smaller turbo to handle low RPM boost, and a larger, more efficient turbo to take over when RPMs and exhaust gasses are at a more substantial level. Works well in all applications really. Just not necessary in many apps. A single large turbo will always be more efficient(i.e. not ALWAYS, but up to a certain HP, say 800 on an I4...So basically always:smile:)
:iagree:
Polygon
06-24-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Self
Well that's the point of a sequential setup, actually. Having a smaller turbo to handle low RPM boost, and a larger, more efficient turbo to take over when RPMs and exhaust gasses are at a more substantial level. Works well in all applications really. Just not necessary in many apps. A single large turbo will always be more efficient(i.e. not ALWAYS, but up to a certain HP, say 800 on an I4...So basically always:smile:)
:iamwithst
Couldn't agree with you more.
Well that's the point of a sequential setup, actually. Having a smaller turbo to handle low RPM boost, and a larger, more efficient turbo to take over when RPMs and exhaust gasses are at a more substantial level. Works well in all applications really. Just not necessary in many apps. A single large turbo will always be more efficient(i.e. not ALWAYS, but up to a certain HP, say 800 on an I4...So basically always:smile:)
:iamwithst
Couldn't agree with you more.
Drifter To Be
06-24-2003, 11:14 PM
damn... haha...
I was probably thinking about non sequential twin turbo.:tongue:
I was probably thinking about non sequential twin turbo.:tongue:
Self
06-25-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Drifter To Be
damn... haha...
I was probably thinking about non sequential twin turbo.:tongue:
Hehe, probably. Non-sequential twin turbo setups are often found or made to be put on V-style motors. For example, my 5.7 liter V8 in my Camaro. I actually began the process of a turbo setup a couple years back but had to pull out because of the immense cost. But basically for my motor, if I was going to twin turbocharge it, I could set up two identical turbo's on either side of the motor and pipe the exhaust gasses from each seperate bank of cylinders through one of the turbo's. This allows for an easier fuel tune setup, and two larger turbo's boosting to their maximum capacity. I was never going to institute this type of setup on my Camaro though. Once again, a larger single turbo will ALMOST ALWAYS be more efficient. I was planning to run a single T76 or T88 and see how much boost I could wring out of it before everything went to hell:biggrin:
After buying a FMIC, completely revamped fuel system, a rear end, and valvetrain components to handle the boost, the price, already at a whopping $6000, OWNED ME:biggrin2::icon16::frown:
:biggrin:
damn... haha...
I was probably thinking about non sequential twin turbo.:tongue:
Hehe, probably. Non-sequential twin turbo setups are often found or made to be put on V-style motors. For example, my 5.7 liter V8 in my Camaro. I actually began the process of a turbo setup a couple years back but had to pull out because of the immense cost. But basically for my motor, if I was going to twin turbocharge it, I could set up two identical turbo's on either side of the motor and pipe the exhaust gasses from each seperate bank of cylinders through one of the turbo's. This allows for an easier fuel tune setup, and two larger turbo's boosting to their maximum capacity. I was never going to institute this type of setup on my Camaro though. Once again, a larger single turbo will ALMOST ALWAYS be more efficient. I was planning to run a single T76 or T88 and see how much boost I could wring out of it before everything went to hell:biggrin:
After buying a FMIC, completely revamped fuel system, a rear end, and valvetrain components to handle the boost, the price, already at a whopping $6000, OWNED ME:biggrin2::icon16::frown:
:biggrin:
SleeperCivic
06-25-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Self
but had to pull out
Dammit, I hate pulling out!! :icon16:
but had to pull out
Dammit, I hate pulling out!! :icon16:
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026