Is Possible a Twin-Charged for a built Renesis?
02-01-2008, 12:43 AM
#27
rotorized!!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I defend the good Dr, you guys are all thinking cars and it's aplication in the rx-8, when in fact the wankel engine has always been the unsung prophet of the skies, not the roads.
02-01-2008, 05:39 PM
#33
Registered
Just because it was used successfully in WWII doesn't mean it is good now. We've had a few years since then to improve technology. Unless of course the suggestion is to revert back to carbs and magnetos since they worked back then.
The short answer is yes it can physically be done. However with today's technology I really can't see any reason why this complexity is necessary other than just looking cool. I would personally use series turbocharging as used in the Opel Astra Diesel before I'd use a turbo and a supercharger. This would be far more efficient. Keep in mind I like both turbos and superchargers. I just don't necessarily like them together.
I also can't see why you'd want it on an aircraft rotary. You don't require the wide powerband that cars require. That's the whole point of having a twincharged system in the first place. It's to broaden the powerband. For aircraft use I'd use an exhaust driven turbo as it can somewhat compensate for altitude through the use of the wastegate. This is something that a crank driven supercharger can't do. I see no reason why this wouldn't be sufficient for an aircraft.
The short answer is yes it can physically be done. However with today's technology I really can't see any reason why this complexity is necessary other than just looking cool. I would personally use series turbocharging as used in the Opel Astra Diesel before I'd use a turbo and a supercharger. This would be far more efficient. Keep in mind I like both turbos and superchargers. I just don't necessarily like them together.
I also can't see why you'd want it on an aircraft rotary. You don't require the wide powerband that cars require. That's the whole point of having a twincharged system in the first place. It's to broaden the powerband. For aircraft use I'd use an exhaust driven turbo as it can somewhat compensate for altitude through the use of the wastegate. This is something that a crank driven supercharger can't do. I see no reason why this wouldn't be sufficient for an aircraft.
02-01-2008, 05:41 PM
#34
Registered
02-01-2008, 09:00 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got it from a buddy who used to head up the engineering group for aftermarket at Garrett. I think he got it from a Supra forum or something.
Oh, and because I forgot to do this before, someone mentioned VW's twin-charged economy model earlier.
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
Oh, and because I forgot to do this before, someone mentioned VW's twin-charged economy model earlier.
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
02-06-2008, 03:56 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was actually done on an Evo before.
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthr...t=twin+charger
Evos 2.0L 4 banger does not generate enough exhaust gases like rotaries do and when it comes to slightly large turbos such as T4 Gt35r, it develops substantial lag. ( ex. 23psi @ 5000+ rpm )
This guy has done the twin charging to overcome lag from running a very large turbo at high altitude.
But it has proven to be extremely difficult to engineer and even more difficult to tune for a map.
For an Rx8, I think its a dumb idea.
If you are not using such a large turbo, there's no need for supercharger for the low end.
And let's say you do plan to use a very large turbo such as gt42r.
Can you really hit the efficiency of the 42r to justify for the use of the supercharger?
I mean, I haven't seen any rx8 hit more than 12-13psi even with a very efficient turbo and intercooler. A turbo like 42r doesn't shine until 35-40+ psi in case of Evo application. Even considering rx8's high comp ratio, I would still say it doesn't shine until 20+ psi.
If the engine can't handle that much boost, why go big? and throw supercharger?
If you shooting for 800+whp from a rotary that might explain the insanity.
but other than that, its just a waste and stupidity IMHO.
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthr...t=twin+charger
Evos 2.0L 4 banger does not generate enough exhaust gases like rotaries do and when it comes to slightly large turbos such as T4 Gt35r, it develops substantial lag. ( ex. 23psi @ 5000+ rpm )
This guy has done the twin charging to overcome lag from running a very large turbo at high altitude.
But it has proven to be extremely difficult to engineer and even more difficult to tune for a map.
For an Rx8, I think its a dumb idea.
If you are not using such a large turbo, there's no need for supercharger for the low end.
And let's say you do plan to use a very large turbo such as gt42r.
Can you really hit the efficiency of the 42r to justify for the use of the supercharger?
I mean, I haven't seen any rx8 hit more than 12-13psi even with a very efficient turbo and intercooler. A turbo like 42r doesn't shine until 35-40+ psi in case of Evo application. Even considering rx8's high comp ratio, I would still say it doesn't shine until 20+ psi.
If the engine can't handle that much boost, why go big? and throw supercharger?
If you shooting for 800+whp from a rotary that might explain the insanity.
but other than that, its just a waste and stupidity IMHO.
02-07-2008, 04:23 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give it a go! Kiwi attitude
You Yanks need a lesson in good kiwi attitude - give it a go!
Sir Ed who just died was first to conquer Mt Everest - his motto Nothing ventured nothing gained
Our Airforce flew AK4 Skyhawk using parts tossed out by you Yanks.
Who designed the Merlin engine used in your Mustang? - A Brit!
Sir Ed who just died was first to conquer Mt Everest - his motto Nothing ventured nothing gained
Our Airforce flew AK4 Skyhawk using parts tossed out by you Yanks.
Who designed the Merlin engine used in your Mustang? - A Brit!
02-07-2008, 04:41 PM
#39
You Yanks need a lesson in good kiwi attitude - give it a go!
Sir Ed who just died was first to conquer Mt Everest - his motto Nothing ventured nothing gained
Our Airforce flew AK4 Skyhawk using parts tossed out by you Yanks.
Who designed the Merlin engine used in your Mustang? - A Brit!
Sir Ed who just died was first to conquer Mt Everest - his motto Nothing ventured nothing gained
Our Airforce flew AK4 Skyhawk using parts tossed out by you Yanks.
Who designed the Merlin engine used in your Mustang? - A Brit!
Not only is a retarded idea...but with variable geometry turbos...its even LESS of an issue...
You need to be retired before you infect anyone else with your ignorance...
02-07-2008, 04:57 PM
#40
You Yanks need a lesson in good kiwi attitude - give it a go!
Sir Ed who just died was first to conquer Mt Everest - his motto Nothing ventured nothing gained
Our Airforce flew AK4 Skyhawk using parts tossed out by you Yanks.
Who designed the Merlin engine used in your Mustang? - A Brit!
Sir Ed who just died was first to conquer Mt Everest - his motto Nothing ventured nothing gained
Our Airforce flew AK4 Skyhawk using parts tossed out by you Yanks.
Who designed the Merlin engine used in your Mustang? - A Brit!
02-07-2008, 05:09 PM
#41
Also unfortunately they have a tendency to exist in even the nicest of places...
02-07-2008, 05:22 PM
#42
I've got an idea. How about you give it a go and report back when you are finished?
It might be an Aussie attitude to "give it a go", but it is a distinctly American attitude to "wait and see".
More importantly, its this Dane's attitude to "laugh at fools", whom I don't suffer gladly.
It might be an Aussie attitude to "give it a go", but it is a distinctly American attitude to "wait and see".
More importantly, its this Dane's attitude to "laugh at fools", whom I don't suffer gladly.
02-07-2008, 05:29 PM
#43
You Yanks need a lesson in good kiwi attitude - give it a go!
Sir Ed who just died was first to conquer Mt Everest - his motto Nothing ventured nothing gained
Our Airforce flew AK4 Skyhawk using parts tossed out by you Yanks.
Who designed the Merlin engine used in your Mustang? - A Brit!
Sir Ed who just died was first to conquer Mt Everest - his motto Nothing ventured nothing gained
Our Airforce flew AK4 Skyhawk using parts tossed out by you Yanks.
Who designed the Merlin engine used in your Mustang? - A Brit!
I agree with eviltwinke your a retard, and if you don't drop the "I'm a professor I drive a Jaguar" atitude you may want to find somewhere else to post.
02-07-2008, 07:25 PM
#45
Just because its possible does not necessarily mean its particularly wise to do so...
It's possible for me to cram a hand grenade inside all the retards I encounter...
It's simply unwise to get my hands all full of crap...
I don't really mind the post explosive mess as much as the crap I have to deal with cramming my hand up the orifice while giving the "your sooo stupid" lecture...
It's possible for me to cram a hand grenade inside all the retards I encounter...
It's simply unwise to get my hands all full of crap...
I don't really mind the post explosive mess as much as the crap I have to deal with cramming my hand up the orifice while giving the "your sooo stupid" lecture...
02-07-2008, 11:29 PM
#46
Registered
02-07-2008, 11:33 PM
#47
Registered
Try it yourself and report back to us.
Alot of dead people had that same motto!
With creativeness like that you'll always be using antiquated technology.
Not a Kiwi apparently!
With creativeness like that you'll always be using antiquated technology.
Not a Kiwi apparently!
