Ther have been a lot of rumours around the introduction of an electric supercharger to the next generation rotary .

What do we know about this ?.... why would Mazda look at this vs a turbo or SC ???


































GO

 

we know that they've tested it for years, using it in the hybrid premacy models

 

I'm picking that it would maybe flow enough for 4-5 psi in the midrange and 1-2 psi up top . Just enough to give the 16x the power it needs to compete with the competition.
Anything bigger would be too heavy ?

 

there are a lot of patents deposited by Mazda about electric assisted turbos in pasts years

 

So, pardon my retardedness, I assume the electric current it pulls is less of a parasite than an actual mechanical SC, right? At least, for our smaller engines?

 

/\The advantage is there is no parasitic drag at cruise .

The problem has always ben the size of the motor needed to drive the compressor . To make say 5psi of boost at 7500rpm it needs to be large , and will draw huge current requireing a bulky electrical system .
But if they only wanted say 5psi at 4000rpm and say 1-2psi peak ..... it might be doable

 

Cuz electric motors can give ya 100% torque @ probably 0 rpm.

this is also why a Prius can beat a Ferrari in 0-6 race


with all the more stupid unrealistic emission standard + safety standard, I doubt the car will weight anything less than 1400 kg just like now.

gotta love older cars, like my 7, even I keep all the emission there cuz I can't stand the exhuast smell, a lot of people can just remove all the emission equipment pretty easy. saves weight + easier to fix.

 

I have always found super chargers to be more reliable than turbos as well. I never have been a fan of turbos. GMC released a super charger for the 2500 HD that gave you 4 more mpg. Super chargers are instant and provide boost even at idle. They don't run off the hot exhaust either. A super charger runs off the intake, now compressing air super heats it so either way the systems are hot. But super heating air and running off an already extremely hot exhaust system? It would allow the system to take less heat abuse, and provide better fuel mileage. Now as for it being electric vs pulley driven I couldn't tell you. My only guess would be since our engines are low torque it eliminates the extra draw on the system. But it would increase draw on the alternator. So the draw increased draw on the alternator must be less than the draw would be from a pulley driven SC.

I am really interested in these new 1.6 SC engines though. I have a lot of questions like will they mount up to our transmissions? Will they fit in with little modification? What kind of power will the end result be vs fuel mileage.

 

Doc you would be surprised how cold the intake air could be if it get's cooled by inter-coolers. Yes I know super hornets systems is much more complicated but it takes 700 degree bleed air and can blow ice chunks in the cockpit in the gulf if the add heat valves break. The hard part is getting the intake charge temps down in a very limited space and time frame.

 

I know how cold they can get, but this is the 8 with very limited space. Running the proper intercooler helps. I am just saying that SC vs TC. The TC system is going to cause more heat over all since the SC is running off fresh air and not coming from a device thats being super heated by exhaust.

 

Doc, the way you described both systems is a bit convoluted... I'm sure you understand how they work, but the way you described them sounds incorrect. So just to clarify..

A supercharger and turbocharger are essentially the same thing with the only main difference being how they are powered. Superchargers are powered mechanically, typically via a pulley. A turbocharger is powered by the exhaust flow. The air entering both should/could be the same.

Turbochargers depend a lot on a proper set up. They can be very reliable and have essentially no lag.

 

But it takes a little more work and tuning on a turbocharger, and theres a few more pieces to the whole kit. It takes a little more time, but yes everything you said is correct

 

Talking electric..

Why haven't we seen Auto makers use a sole Electric Air Conditioning system for cars, is it because of amperage load required to run an electric compressor?, surely an Alternator can be designed to manage supply??

Everything else in our cars Air Cons are electric except Compressor, would stop load and HP sacrifice from Renny, plus fuel economy would improve??.

We have electric Steering, why not Air??

 

Your not done with it yet?

 

http://jalopnik.com/5728504/

OMFGWTFBBQ

 

very dangerous IMHO...

 

That.......confuses me greatly.

 

and where are our 42 volt systems? I thought there would have been a switch by now?

 

ohh http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/4226979 booger

 

What about inverters/converters, I guess 12 Volts can't handle the load or the inverters can't..?

 

here's more speculation about teh electrically supercharged 16x

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-new...-ar103285.html

and the requsite photoshop



too bad the "artist" missed one of the major design lines of the Kodo design which is the hood crease flowing into that crease that drops down over the doors. they completely disconnected the line never mind that that side scallop/scoop/vent doesnt belong there.

 

For one, it would be much less efficient. You already have ample rotational power to power the compressor (via a belt from the crank). To do electric, you have to first convert that rotational power into electrical power. Then you have to router it over to another electrical motor, whose purpose is to convert the electrical power back into rotational power. At each stage you loose efficiency. Plus you have the weight and cost of an additional electric motor...and a bigger generator/regulator. And more components to warranty. The only good reason to do this (that I can think of) would be to relocate the compressor due to space/design constraints.