Supercharging A R33

[Miller the hoon]

Interesting tread

the r35 v8 i wonder if a s/c is being tested on that cause of the fact of no turbo

do you have to rebuild an engine if it was n/a and you ither super charge or turbo it

james

[Warpspeed]

I have no doubt a turbo top fuel engine could be built, and probably be just as powerful, but it would most likely be completely underivable.

The existing rules outlaw a whole lot of things, including turbos.

The fuelers use slider clutches and this holds the tyres right at the point of traction limit over the full quarter. A turbo would be almost impossible to launch consistently, and when it DID hit boost, it would just break into uncontrollable wheelspin.

Pretty much the same with motorbikes. Turbos are great, but beyond a certain fairly high power to weight ratio, they just are too difficult to drive (ride) and not responsive enough.

[illusiVe]

couldnt you just take half a turbo and bolt that up to one of the engine's camwheels or something and that spin the turbo, then just feed the compressed air into the intake via an intercooler? (presuming that the ECU can handle +boost ?

[ebola]

couldnt you just take half a turbo and bolt that up to one of the engine's camwheels or something and that spin the turbo, then just feed the compressed air into the intake via an intercooler? (presuming that the ECU can handle +boost ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes.

its called a supercharger

EDIT:

And since I am here, could someone explain HOW a top fueler could be expected to run a turbo? Here I was thinking that heat management was a serious issue (oil and water cooled), and yet a top fueler that ejects still combusting fuel out of its 8 individual dump pipes could run a turbo.

Till I see a reasonable explanation, I'll stick to my guns.

There - my 2c, and my $2 change

Edited December 22, 2005 by ebola

[Warpspeed]

The problem is getting it to spool up, and controlling boost and engine torque (drivability).

Where you have a constant speed engine under very heavy constant load like in a diesel truck, electricity generator, or a boat, or even in an aircraft, turbos work great. What turbos are not so good at is for very fast acceleration.

If your turbo takes two seconds to spool up and reach full boost, the engine cannot accelerate to full power in less than two seconds. Think about it......

The engine can NEVER accelerate faster than the turbo can accelerate.

In a car that does not really matter, even a fairly fast car.

But in a motorcycle, it sure does matter. A powerful bike may go through three gears in four seconds. No turbo can keep up with that. So turbos don't work well on powerful motorbikes.

They don't work on powerful drag cars either. Once the power to weight ratio becomes really high, turbos are more of a liability than an asset. The engine becomes too peaky and laggy, and underivable.

Even the Formula one drivers hated turbos. They were very hairy to drive, especially in the wet, and generally less responsive, and less reliable than the larger normally aspirated engines they replaced.

None of this applies to road cars, and turbos are really great on the street.

But if you were building a 5,000 horsepower car for something, a supercharged big capacity V8 would be the only way to do it.

If you wanted 5,000 horsepower for a boat, a gas turbine would easily beat anything else. But it would probably take twenty seconds to spool up to full power.

[ebola]

All good points, warpspeed.

Though there are a few bikes with turbos, they don't run alot of boost. Though seeing some crazy guy popping a mono at 300+ kph on a bike with a turbo.

well, I'll just say that stability wasn't great (and I *like* motorbikes).

but yes, turbos take time to spool. Though I would say an engine can accelerate faster than the turbo - it just wont make as much power.

I agree that a turbo is impractical for a top fueler (and as you said illegal).

I just don't think that it could be done, as in I think that heat woult be too much of an issue.

gas turbine..... now there's a thought. only question is how much reduction gearing would you need?

"She does 220 in first. I hate the 60 kph speedlimits though"

--another semi-pointless debatable point brought to you by the letter 'I'

[Oblivion]

To raise the issue again. The purpose of a supercharger on a skyline, would be instant power correct. So the issue is how to attach a supercharger of whatever size etc (worry about that later), into the skyline system without distrupting the turbo set up. You might have to move the turbos, or maybe not. The question is how is it set up? In parallel, possible but dangerous, or can it be run off another separte system and ducted in which is possible, but does anyone know more of the technical side, on how the air flows?

[doommachine]

Haha.. gas turbine powered car? Already done! In the sixties, no less.

http://www.turbinecar.com/

Hehe.. freaking neat, I'd probably eat a frog to own one of these bad boys.

 

From Autospeed's article

"They were certainly the only cars on the road that had tachos going to 60,000 rpm."

Man... imagine the sheer AWESOMENESS OF IT

Edited February 2, 2006 by doommachine

[Warpspeed]

Oblivian, Google "twincharge".

It has been done many times before, Nissan have done it on a production car, (the March) so have Lancia, and VW. The latest 2006 model Golf GTI just released in Europe has both a turbo and a supercharger.