Gasoline Engine Turbocharger Concept.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of turbocharging gasoline engines, specifically exploring innovative configurations for turbo placement and exhaust routing. Participants examine the efficiency of different turbocharging setups, including conventional, rear-mounted, and the proposed system involving longer exhaust piping.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a rear-mounted turbo system with a unique exhaust routing design aimed at improving efficiency and power output.
  • Another participant challenges the effectiveness of cooling exhaust gases before they reach the turbo, arguing that it reduces energy available for mechanical work and may lead to poor turbo performance.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes the importance of short, large-diameter piping to the turbo for optimal performance, citing experiences with race car turbos.
  • Questions are raised about the necessity of heat in the turbo for optimal function and the impact of turbine housing size on performance.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the effectiveness of the proposed turbocharging setup, with some supporting the idea while others argue against it based on principles of thermodynamics and turbo performance. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal configuration for turbocharging.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions about exhaust temperature, pressure, and energy transfer, but these assumptions are not universally accepted or agreed upon. The discussion reflects a range of experiences and theoretical perspectives without reaching a consensus.

Who May Find This Useful

Individuals interested in automotive engineering, turbocharging technology, and performance modifications may find this discussion relevant.

Chevalade
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Conventional turbocharging is done from the manifolds. Or as close to as possible.

In the last few years, a company (STSturbo) came out that designed a system for rear mounted turbos, that seems to work well.

What I am ultimately trying to figure out is the most efficient way of turbocharging a gasoline engine.

I came up with this idea.

Normal pulse matched headers, going into a y exhaust setup (say 3 1/2") running to the back of the car, mking a u turn, then up to the front, where the turbo is mounted sideways (So the compressor inlet faces grille)

Now plumb compressor straight into intercooler.

Dump turbine exhaust behind front tire.

Compressor inlet has filter on it poking into grille.

REASONING.

1. Exhaust temps to turbo would be at atmospheric temp or close to. (Denser, pulse matched and you would not lose velocity, you would gain because of size of piping used?)

2. Turbo would run 2x as cool as a conventional or rear mount.

3. Oiling is easier to plumb.

4. Turbine exhaust has little to no backpressure.

This setup should make more power than either setup. (Traditional or rear mount)

Questions I have are...

1. Must the turbo have the heat element in it to function optimally?

2. Would you need to have a smaller turbine housing with cool air pushing the turbine? or would a larger turbine housing work the same?

3. Out of the 3 setups mentioned which would produce the greater amount of compressed air (boost)

This is more for a personal project than anything. So any insight would be appreciated.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Anyone?
 
Any chance of some sketches? I'm finding it hard to picture your proposal.
 
The problem with this, and with the STS kits, - and their general reasoning at least in their sales pitch- is that YES, the gas because denser... This does not mean it has more energy or capability to drive a turbine.

I don't want to go too crazy, but both pressure and temperature contribute to the energy content of a gas. The point of a turbine, is to pull that energy out of a gas and turn it into usable mechanical work, in this case to turn a compressor. Their logic is fundamentally flawed in that cooling the gasses does NOT drive the compressor better, in fact you are LOOSING energy which can be harnessed to do work, in the form of lost thermal energy. This is accompanied by a drop in pressure. Overall, this drop in energy hurts the maximum amount of energy available for the turbocharger. Now, here is where they get away with it: Turbocharger systems operate with a wastegate, which routes exhaust gasses around the turbine, because they are sized such that the available energy is more then what is required by the compressor to achieve a requested boost level. So, all that *really* gets hurt is the spool up time / lag, and they combat this by using smaller, more restrictive housings, which hurts overall system flow and thus power.

It works ok, for a budget system. Their marketing is very decieving and well, pretty much incorrect, but a lot of people believe it anyways. I would definantly NOT take this system to the extreme by doubleing the distance to the turbocharger, in fact if one wanted to improve uppon the STS systems the first place I would start is with major insulation of the exhaust system on the way to the turbocharger in order to keep this energy in the system.

FYI, on higher horsepower setups (I build turbo honda's and vw's in my spare time) we often see 30-50psi gauge pressure in the exhaust manifold before the turbocharger, at tempuratures up to 1700 degrees F... Drop that temperature down to near ambient, and the pressure decrease this will come with, your going to have one VERY poor running turbocharger.
 
YOU WANT A VERY SHORT PIPE TO THE TURBO AS BIG AS POSSABLE
study race car turbos they do it that way BECAUSE IT WORKS
yes turbo's get HOT , cold gas has little energy = low power

remember the big trade off in turbo's is drivability
too slow a responce [called spool] makes a poor driving car

I own and drive two turbo cars a gas volvo and a diesel M-B
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K