Is THIS a sequential turbo setup?

[focusedrage]

Ok so I board and curious, and I was messing with autocad, and i though up this....

Is this what a squential turbo set up woudl look like?
I would imagine that the lower turbo would be a bigger one, and the upper would be a quick spooling one. The elbow with the * on it was a part that I was wondering about: woudl this just be an elbow or would it be some sort of valve that could chose weather or not the exhaust flows into the second turbo. Other things that would have to be considered are how the wastgates are utiliezed: One on the exhaust runner? I think this would be fun to discuss. I hear that twin turbo setups take forever to spool but that "sequential" are more effieccent. i dont know what this is, and by no means am I considering it. I know it would be expensive, it seems like it woudl work. Hmm

 

[focusedrage]

COuld it be doen with 2 t25s? hmm...

 

[Agent Ezzard]

A sequential setup is where two turbos of different trims are used in tadem. The smaller turbo is used for low-mid and a slighty larger one for mid-high. The setup you displayed would heat up charge air so high you that you would need an intercooler of immense proportions . MKIV Supra's, Z32's(300zxTT), and 3rd gen RX7's all come with this setup stock. I dunno if the 3000GT VR4 has a sequential setup.

 

[2-0turbo]

No, it is not a sequential setup. Nice picture! You have drawn a compound turbocharged setup. Diesel trucks (the kind that pull sleds, not OTR type trucks) do this, sometimes three stages, putting out more than 100 PSI boost.

 

[IPT]

300z's are not sequential they are like the 3000gt's. They just have one turbo for each bank of cylinders.

 

[candela]

omfg...100psi!!!!!

 

[IPT]

There was a guy at a tractor pull that was telling that he was standing about 20 feet from the track and the motor on the tractor that was pulling desided to end its life then and there. They were running 80 psi on the motor and then it lifted the head, turbos and about the top two to three inches of the block and the sleeves with it. They run a saftey band around the front of the motor so if this happens then the motor goes flying forward and not back onto the driver. They head assembly flew about 40 feet in front of the tractor and about 10 feet from this guy that was telling me this. He said that the head assembly weighed 400 -500 lbs. and left a crator 8 inches deep in the hard packed ground.

Sorry to get off subject, but this just came to my mind reading this post.

 

[focusedrage]

whoa, thats intense, well what is the best turbo set up? i guess the most sensible is a single ball bearing..., but what aobut twin turbos?

 

[DMS-WhiteGSX]

twins have been done on DSMs, but remember that one big turbo can flow more than two smaller turbos. I'd suggest going with a 16G, if you don't want to be Joe Dragracer it should be more than enough.

 

[RocketDSM]

Due to the small displacement of our engines, I can't really see a use for a twin turbo setup versus a good single turbo. On a 2.43L stroker, MAYBE and I still doubt it. You have to keep in mind that boost is boost it doesn't matter how it's made. The lag difference of a well tuned single versus a (pardon the term) jury rigged twin turbo will likely be minimal. On a V type engine, or the rotary (and remember a rotary is most like a 3.9L V6 than anything else) they are large enough to support the airflow of two turbos. There are a lot of turbos out that COULD flow well over what our engines can use. For practicality purposes, stick to one turbo.

 

[focusedrage]

hahah, yeah deffinatly im nto gonna try anything unknown... but hows THIS for an idea , (this seems like something that woudl be done to honduhs, bling bling) ok if one could find very small turbos, , and then youcould have QUAD TURBOs... haha like each trubo would be piped so that each exhaust stroke would power a turbo to feed the intake stroke... this is of course the most convoluted thing ever, but it woudl be funny to see still i totaly agree that a single turbo is best

 

[Dyre]

Thats a compound setup, like someone already said, and indeed this is where the term INTERcooler comes from. They ussally put some type of intercooler between the two turbos.

All 'import' intercoolers are technically aftercoolers. I have no idea WHY the japs started calling all thier aftercoolers intercoolers, probably a foul up, or a language thing (probably can't say the word aftercooler very well, like 'double'..)
Automotive bullshit leason for the day.

 

[MustGoFaster020]

it's actualy called a "staged" setup. I read in some book that one guy was using 4 turbos in a 3 stage system, with water injection between each stage to cool off the air charges. The first stage was two turbo's feeding into the next and the that one fead into the last.
1>3-4-to intercooler to-> engine
2
Ended up being like 240 psi. Of coarse it was a Diesel so there is no chance of detonating.

 

[Newlogics]

well, how about this setup:
Having smaller turbo (minimal turbolag) running up to it's efficiency point, and then redirecting exhaust to bigger one to avoid turbolag.

This would be alternating design i guess.... Just brainstorming...

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[Dyre]

Thats a sequintial setup like those found in MKIV's and FD's

 

[focusedrage]

Newlogics:

Well this makes sense but what woudl happen is when the switch is made boost woudl be lost and you woudl still need to spool up the second one.

I would sugest that the exhaust from the first turbo be routed into the second but the air outlet from the second be let vent to the atmospher, this way, the second turbo will spool in anticipation without having back pressure, then when the switch is made the exahust would hut an alreddy spooled turbo and start pressurizing the air. IMO i think its all a bit complicated.

Im suprised no one has developed a motorized turbo: when the gas is pressed a small motor spins up the turbo to speed and then the exhaust can take over

 

[Newlogics]

Well, as for motorized, turbo spins as such velocities, that few electrc motors are able to replicate, in addition, Electric motors can't sustain heat from the turbo.

 

[focusedrage]

true, but i pretty sure that turbos will max out at about 100000 rpm, and motors can do 30000 i think, but even still. i guess ball bering is a good way,

 

[RabidDonkeyBoy]

that first pic is what is called inline turbo or compound turbo charging.

it can't be done on anything other than deisel/copression ignition engines.

cat and a bunch of other tractor trailer engine companies have been offering dual inline turbo setups for ~5 years now.

tractor pull engines have been running tri inline setups for 3+ years now with 200-300PSi some are starting to run quad inline setups for 350-400PSi on 200CID I6's

 

[IPT]

Originally posted by RabidDonkeyBoy

tractor pull engines have been running tri inline setups for 3+ years now with 200-300PSi some are starting to run quad inline setups for 350-400PSi on 200CID I6's

They guy I taked to a couple of weeks ago had a small motor and it was a 540CID. (Single Turbo running 50 psi)

 

[RamenPride]

Originally posted by focusedrage
COuld it be doen with 2 t25s? hmm...

sure can, why don't you ask Doug Derby how he did it. Is his shop even around still?

 

[bigfoot]

Here is the Supra downpipe with the sequential valves.

http://www.mkiv.co.nz/articles/turbos.htm

I'd like to build a log style manifold with a Garrett under each end. Modify the supra downpipe to fit between them. Move the alternator around back. Put it on top of the AC compressor, running on the same belt. The supra guys switch to single because the stock CT12 turbos (about the same size as a T25 or a T-3 45 trim)are unreliable, and u can't get parts to rebuild them. The downpipes are great for us. I've read of 23lb. With boost just above idle. On a 3.0 of course. With HKS upgraded turbos, 550rwhp. Should rock on a 2.4 stroker. Maybe with two t-3 60 trims.
Or we could all bug the heck outa Turbodyne and Garrett until they release these new turbos. Turbodyne has it's listed as a current product.

Dynacharger
http://www.turbodyne.com/

e-Turbo
http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/2001/8/blow_hard/index3.phtml

Here is a good tech article on it. Hope u can access Autospeed w/o subscribing, sometimes u can.

http://www.autospeed.com/members/A_1250/P_1/article.html

They put windings around the turbo shaft and spin it up like an electric motor when u need boost. It's jointly developed by Turbodyne and Garrett. Last year I read that they are suing each other over it, but have heard nothing since. Generate some calls and emails everybody.

 

[RabidDonkeyBoy]

Originally posted by RamenPride


sure can, why don't you ask Doug Derby how he did it. Is his shop even around still?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1854942309

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

i don't understand why ghey ass topics like this come up for DSMS when it would take way to much money to actually do a twin parallel turbo setup on a DSM, whne there are proven/cheaper/easier turbo upgrade paths. when was the last time you heard of the Audi TT beign a tuner car?

 

[focusedrage]

what ever happend to just fun converstation, not to mention how cool convoluted things are, i mean if i had unlimited money i woudl totaly do crazy stuff like this oct-turbo v-8... hahahaha

 

[1992EclipseGSX]

There was a guy at a tractor pull that was telling that he was standing about 20 feet from the track and the motor on the tractor that was pulling desided to end its life then and there. They were running 80 psi on the motor and then it lifted the head, turbos and about the top two to three inches of the block and the sleeves with it. They run a saftey band around the front of the motor so if this happens then the motor goes flying forward and not back onto the driver. They head assembly flew about 40 feet in front of the tractor and about 10 feet from this guy that was telling me this. He said that the head assembly weighed 400 -500 lbs. and left a crator 8 inches deep in the hard packed ground.

Sorry to get off subject, but this just came to my mind reading this post.

ITP, after reading your post I just have to set the record straight. My uncle pulls in the NTPA super farm class, the most common turbo setup in that class is a 3 stage 4 turbo setup, with no air-to-air intercooler just water injection. The first two turbos are the same size and are the biggest ones, they feed the third turbo which is a little smaller, and that feeds the forth turbo which is the smallest, then the 220-240psi of boost is piped to the intake manifold. Inbetween the turbos and the intake manifold is where the water is injected. His tractor has never been on a dyno for obvious reasons, but it makes somewhere around 2000hp at 5000rpm, and spins agricultural combine tires that weigh 450 pounds each at 100mph. Also his whole motor only weighs 800 pounds, the head is 200-250 and they have no "safty bands" on them. I asked him if he has ever known of a motor lifting the head and block like you described and he has never heard of it, he said the bolts would break and the intake manifold would blow off before the head ever would.
Now that I have that off of my chest, back to the original subject.
Running a staged turbo setup on our cars wouldn't be worth the cost, wieght, and complexity it would add. Also even a huge intercooler could not lower the air temp back to a "normal" level. But it is still fun to talk about. Just remember that compound turbos (like one turbo for each bank of cylinders on a V-8) add airflow, and staged turbos add boost.