Have a look at Gale Banks "monster truck duramax" If you feed the supercharger with pressurised air, it will take more power to compress the air again after the supercharger. Gale proved that because his engine kept producing more power when he kept turning the supercharger down (using bigger pulleys) He did a Freightliner truck with a turbo and a supercharger and he had the supercharger premenantly feeding the turbo. You'll find that as the turbo starts sucking behind the supercharger and the supercharger makes less boost but flows more air, it will reduce the parasitic loss from the supercharger. Also, if you are going to permanently feed the turbo with the supercharger then you'd be just as well to intercooler between them as well as after them.
Check out Richard Holdeners recent test on the AMR500 supercharger. He has it bolted to an LS and ran it venting to atmosphere (to measure total CFM), and also with a restrictor to see how much cfm it flowed while actually compressing air. He shows both dyno graphs of the engine to show JUST the difference in parasitic loss of a loaded vs. unloaded supercharger. Difference was surprisingly minimal. I know it doesn't cover your exact situation but has some relevance.
Thats an irrelevantly small supercharger on an enormous engine. That supercharger is probably suitably sized for a 1.0-1.4L engine that makes well under 100hp as standard...
Lovely to see Luke and Mrs Luke working well together, so rare. Engineering excellence as usual, I love the research and thinking aspects. This is how all cars should be made - from an engineering perspective and not the rapacious accountants. 👍👍👍
The blower is a fixed displacement pump. The work required to compress a quasi static ideal gas is the integral p.dV. Since the blower ratio is effectively constant regardless of incoming air density, gamma doesnt change (air is air), the change in pressure across the roots will be greater if fed with higher pressure air. Therefore, More Work is required (and more belt torque.). Ways around this would be a clutch on the blower or a diverter (blowoff) valve to bypass the roots when the turbocharger is spooled up. In industrial and aero twin-charging systems, it is common to turbo into blower. Interstage and Post coolers are common. Remember that the pressure ratios of the two multiple, not add! There is a good thread on eng-tips about twincharging (user warpspeed writes it up well.)
Great video and project. I worked on quite a few Detroit Diesel two stroke engines that were supercharged, but the construction equipment never got into the 92 series that was supercharged and turbocharged. It’s definitely a head scratcher for me which way it should go. I think ideally would be a clutch on the supercharger to disengage after the turbo is fully spooled and is doing its thing.
@@miguelsmith9622 on DD's the supercharger is blow through. makes the static pressure needed to make the engine run. never seen how the turbo's run, but in those days it wasnt high pressure, so it might as well have gone straight through the supercharger.
Think Gale already answered that the turbo was pushing on his roots blower and making it harder for the super charger if i recall the video. i'm building a similar project but was going to use a 103mm throttle body (billet one for a LS Motor) infront of the turbo inlet with the supercharger blowing into the turbo from behind the throttle body. Hopefully allowing the turbo to suck on the supercharger to stop the Supercharger creating positive pressure thus lowering paracitic losses but then allowing a full 4" open inlet for the turbo. This is for a 2.4L diesel with an M45 from a merc with a mini pulley and Holset HX35 with added control from an arduino micro controler.
Just doing some back of the envelope stuff here. Work=horsepower=force•displacement(distance not volume). Think the force required to spin the belt half a turn. Pressure=force/area. The volume that the supercharger moves is fixed per revolution as is the surface area of the screws that encounter the resistance to compression, but what isn't fixed is the pressure. The resistance to rotation/losses in the supercharger all the physical losses: bearings, intertia, belt deformation, noise, heat... those are all fairly constant. The largest resistance is compressing the air. Since the volume pumped by the supercharger is constant per rotation, if you have more pressure on the inlet side it's going to take more force to spin. It will however increase the pressure. That said, more pressure isn't always better, you want more density. Anyway, my speculation is it will be harder to spin with the turbo feeding it. Which should make sense if you consider compressing a piston in cylinder pressurized to 1 bar vs 2 bar. More pressure, harder to compress, more work because you have to move more particles.
Yes, the supercharger compresses air. Compressing air requires work. The work/power required to compress air is proportional to the volume of air being compressed (per second). Conversely, if you close the inlet and allow vacuum to accumulate, the load (perhaps counterintuitively) decreases. If you're concerned about the supercharger drawing more power from the crank than you want after the turbo is spooled, then you'll want a bypass valve across your supercharger. Ideally, your supercharger would be bypassed once the differential pressure from your turbo compressor inlet to outlet reaches a specific pressure i.e. 1 bar (with the turbo feeding the supercharger, this is easy because the pressure produced by the turbo can be tapped before it feeds the supercharger inlet, and used to move a pneumatic plunger and large bypass valve). You're left with minimal losses from the SC, and maximum boost pressure at the manifold that depends on only the turbo (and wg if you use one). One alternative, as someone else already pointed out, is you could otherwise use a magnetic clutch on the SC... but you would still need to bypass the SC so it doesn't become a serious restriction.
I am so happy to see this man, I'm building a twin turbo set up using td04s that make about 650hp on a well known petrol straight 6cyl. If that looks good I may be needing a Lil advice on what big turbo to compound it with. Your intake has been key to making this work, so thanks for that.
I'm pretty sure that the power required to drive the supercharger should be a function of RPM and the pressure differential across the blower - there might be a slight effect of air density but that's not the dominant factor. For basically any compressor, power is flow rate multiplied by pressure change, multiplied by an efficiency factor for the particular type of pump. The amount of boost the blower makes is of course determined by its displacement relative to the engine and the drive ratio, which is constant whether or not the turbo is feeding positive pressure into the blower. So I suppose one wants to bypass the blower once the turbo is spooled in order to both reduce the parasitic losses and keep the total boost pressure under control.
20:34 why not make a lever with a pulley on it, that allows you to put tension on the belt when you want to run the supercharger. And Vice versa, when you don’t want to run the supercharger.
In theory, and that being said I could be completely wrong. The super charger relies on pulley speed to attain the desired compression. Meanining it only compresses the same psi or bar above what atmospheric pressure is. So my best guess is, if it raises the pressure 5-10 psi above open air, it would still only raise the turbo compressed air 5-10 lbs above the turbo output. I can only quote pressures from petrol turbo engines of the past but, if the turbo produces 12 psi, the super charger should boost that pressure up to 17-22 psi. Very roughly speaking of course. Volume of flow should be interesting though. Obviously a turbo will spin many times faster, but at lower engine speeds, the super charger could potentially provide a bit of vacuum to the turbo maybe, just maybe, causing a very slight vacuum at the exhaust manifold. 🤷♂️ Dunno, as I am not a pro, but air as a compressable liquid can lead to some very interesting side effects. You may end up needing just a tiny bit of a alcohol mist in the system, just to keep compression temps under control. Absolutely awesome build already though. Keep up the incredible work.
They will make more power together. The blower will not become a restriction up until the point it overheats and seizes up!😅 if the blower has a 1.5 pr and draws 14psi atmospheric air, the output is 21 psi or a 7 psi increase. If the blower is instead fed 21 psi air (14+7 from a turbo) the outlet will be 32 psi or an 11 psi increase. I gather this is where the terminology for "compound" charging comes from. Standing by for Gale to scream about air density. He is, of course, correct on the issue. 😂
Back in the 80s someone built a Latham supercharger/ twin turbo engine. I cannot remember if it was a chevy v8 or ferrari flat 12, anyway the super charger was belt driven and incorporated a flapper door between the supercharger and turbo. Once the turbo boost over pressured the Latham supercharger the flapper door would change position and only allow turbo boost pressure to flow into the engine. Once the flapper door cut out the Latham supercharger the parasitic loss to drive the supercharger went to near 0%. It was explained that once the supercharger could no longer move air there was no load and hence no load no parasitic loss. Latham superchargers were identical to turbine engines by way of having vanes instead of lobe, screws, or impellers. Never the less the logic is the same if the supercharger cannot move air it is just spinning in it's enclosure/housing. In other words, no need to be concerned about supercharger clutches.
Are you suggesting shut the inlet to the supercharger so it’s spinning in a vacuum therefore no losses? Or are you suggesting the outlet of the s/c goes to atmosphere with no resistance?
Someone probably already mentioned this but Detroit Diesel used to make turbocharged/supercharged 2 stroke diesel engines. And if I remember correctly they fed turbocharged air into the supercharger. Because they were 2 stroke diesel engines they had to be supercharged to run, adding the turbocharger was for better power characteristics. Including higher horsepower than supercharged alone. Again if memory serves.
It might be the option to use them in parallel because it might be that your supercharger starts to restrict turbo in higher revs and turbo restricts your supercharger at lower revs. But you might need some active valving to prevent back-flow.
The power required to turn the supercharger when either on it's own or compounded with a turbo should remain roughly the same. The supercharger is a positive displacement compressor and the compression ratio remains the same regardless of the suction pressure, the compression ratio and the flow rate determines the power required to turn it .
This is just a theory but if you direct the “waste air” from the supercharger after the turbo takes over to the exhaust it should create a capillary effect that will scavenge the exhaust gases more effective.
Compound the boost. Intake to turbo, turbo to cooler then put a water to air intercooler after the SC or the reverse if your worried about the parasitic losses.
Why not plumb the two chargers separately with the supercharger handling the low speed boost and the turbo the highspeed boost? The two systems could flow direct into the inlet manifold with a valve(s) controlling which line operates i.e. parallel twin charging. It would mean that the supercharger would need a clutch pulley to disconnect it at the point the turbo takes over and solenoid valves to close/open the path to the inlet manifold. The answer as to whether you want a sequential system or a parallel system lies in the application and how it is to be used.
Hi Luke, You know volume of oil in the supercharger. You could make a new dipstick to suit your orientation. Just mark the stick where the oil level currently is. I like a dipstick....,
I'm concerned about the oil 'level' since the installation orientation has been changed dramatically. I work with drive systems at work (motor + gearbox units) and another shift mounted a drive in a different orientation, having filled the gearbox to it's natural (original orientation) level. Needless to say, the splash feed system could not supply enough lubrication to the 'higher' gears and the gearbox burned out way prematurely. Just a thought Luke.
14:30 I’m guessing you’ll blow seals in the supercharger using the turbo to feed the supercharger, I believe the 2 stroke Detroits and almost every early application of “twin charging” has been supercharger feeds turbos with some type of bypass like you originally described but maybe sometime of valve other than ball valve, like a blow off valve in-line, on the vacuum side prior to supercharger and spring seat like a diesel injector on a pipe with the spring pressure that lets off at a certain cfm
i would imagine running the supercharger air thru the compressor housing then thru intercooler would give the car boost from the get go and at the same time not cause to much restriction at the top where the turbo wants to pull the air thru the supercharger.
It's a bit apples to pumpkins, but the Detroit 2-stroke diesel engines that ran both superchargers and turbochargers had the turbo feeding the blower. There were blower only, as it was needed for the 2-stroke to start and run, but no turbo only. However, if blower to turbo was in some way better to a worthwhile degree, I have to think Detroit would have made the change, or conversions would have been popular.
not sure if that was true. The supercharger is really integral to the 2-stroke detroit engines. it is gear driven. The turbo would bypass the compressor as well. What i read was that the turbo would eventually overdrive the compressor which in turn would drive the engine via the geardrive of the compressor. Clearly that would be counterproductive, hence the bypass.
I would plump them both separately into the intercooler and have a electric throttle body on the supercharger pipe into the intercooler for when the turbo comes on song. Could do with a clutch on the supercharger for when the turbo on boost dor less power loss.
Damn you!! I recently bought a Chevrolet 3100 -49 and was looking under the hood thinking "Hey! Maybe i'll finally have a reason to get a MB smoky-boi.." But NOW i cant do it! :D
@@DieselPumpUK Honestly, no real reason except it would be fun to have a unique combo... But i guess as long as i don't go for a 350 it'll be kinda unique.
I find the answer to the combined HP question is as you say the engine's ability to consume is a bit fixed. But the overall result will be Highly reduced turbo lag, so a larger turbo becomes of no consequence. Blower to turbo vs. turbo to blower is the question. Requiring "What"? controlling mechanism-'s.
Im definitely not that clever but i would imagine that the supercharger only really cares about pressure difference between it's inlet and outlet. So going by that theory if it was feeding itself from atmospheric and producing 10psi static pressure then having a turbo upstream producing 10psi and the supercharger compressing it to 20psi would be the same . The thing that makes me doubt my theory is that this is a dynamic system with changing flow and temperatures .
I would keep them compounded all the time. If the SC pressure ratio is 2x, and you feed it 3 bar air from the turbo, you'll have the potential for 6 bar without pushing either charger that hard. The trick would be to select a turbo that will flow as much air at 3 bar as the engine can eat at 6 bar. The SC won't take any more power to boost the air from 3 bar to 6 bar as it would to boost 1 bar to 2 bar. The ratio is what matters. Air density will be determined by your charge air cooling package.
I think if you get the blower drive ratio correct you can get it to make the power you want up top without having it come on too hard too early, and still have the throttle response since it makes x boost at x rpm regardless of how you have rolled into the throttle or any boost lag. Maybe an electronic boost controller mechanism could bleed some off at lower rpm to reduce unscheduled rapid disassembly?
My bet is the pressured air from the turbo would actually help the supercharger spin, as instead of the sc trying to suck and squeeze the air, the turbo is equalizing it, and applying pressurised to the sc so it doesn't need to suck, just blow through
Think about it this way. The supercharger is a pump but if you feed it air it should act as a motor. So it should lesson the energy needed to drive it if you feed it air.
Bench test the KB2.8 with an electric motor driving it. Compare the amps when building pressure to the amps when vented to atmosphere. Since screw superchargers build pressure internally I suspect the recovered HP from venting won't be a high percentage, but that's a very low confidence guess without testing.
14:00 I think it’s going to be like when you try going faster thru the air ,resentence will rise with the pressure. So if that’s the case it may take more effort to spin the supercharger with the increasing pressurised air coming from the turbo. It will use less then that 90 something hp if the air is less dense,so I think from here up you going use more then 90 ish hp to spin in. That’s my opinion let see others.
No contest between the notorious gmc and that other thing. Mechanical all the way, everyday of the week pal. Electronically controlled toys are not my thing. On a side note, do you guys have the gear to run up and check out a bosch P7100. Cheers for the great videos.
Subject "compressor power loss" from a theoretical point of view: the compressor has 2 main ways to waste energy: Friction in bearings, belt-pulley, etc. - remains more or less the same - and friction with the fluid to be compressed (air). The higher the density/viscosity of the fluid, the higher the friction (more molecules available to "stick" to the moving surfaces and "don't let go"). So if you put the turbocharger's output at the supercharger's input (in series), the supercharger will work within a more dense environment and therefore will draw more parasitic power. Why don't you put the two in parallel with 1-way valves to a "boost rail" into which one of the two presses air depending on rpm? Besides, the supercharger is a pump & as such it'll multiply the pressure by x% output vs. input. Yet you can't put any pressure into the engine, so I suppose you'll use a wastegate or something similar to limit the pressure in the manifold. So, when the turbocharger kicks in, the supercharger will work harder, will of course get hotter and will ve no benefit for the engine power. By the way, it's great how passionate you are about your work and how much you understand about your builds! Keep up the good work!
Luke, you posed an interesting question about compounding turbo into super and super into supercharger. I was always lead to believe a turbo does not care about what the pressure into the compressor is the turbo is only ever limited by the differential from compressor intake to compressor outlet. If you look at Gale’s work on the pikes peak truck vs killing a duramax he uses both ways of compounding. Reading Gale’s textbooks I drew the conclusion that, the supercharger will always maintain the same parasitic draw until it becomes the restriction then the turbo will start assisting driving the supercharger reducing the engine draw, but I believe at this point you’re now creating excessive heat as we have a new restriction to flow. Is the turbo you chose considerably larger than usual for an OM606? I would be inclined to setup the compounding in both ways to test for yourself. It would be interesting to see the super blowing into the turbo with an intercooler between then the turbo to an aftercooler before the inlet. If the turbocharger starts to have a limit to the boost pressure it can make then it’s most likely a restriction in its intake (supercharger isn’t blowing enough) and add a bypass valve. Personally I need a round the world ticket to speed a few weeks each with all my idles, Luke, Gale Banks, Cat engineers, speed of air, Christian Von Koenigsegg just to name a few.
Should have watched the video through before commenting. Slow the brain down Luke. Remember: SUPERCHARGERS; TURBOCHARGERS AND INTERCOOLERS are density machines. You should make more total power as you’re aim is to increase the density twice.
The parasitic loss of the supercharger should be proportional to the pressure differential between inlet and outlet. So piped sequentially, the turbo when spooled up will reduce drive losses on the supercharger no matter which side of the supercharger it's plumbed to.
I would go compound turbos instead of SC. It's something different but I believe it will overcomplicate things, won't be as efficient and more things to mess up I think
You could maybe use a c63 supercharger clutch pulley with the bypass valve idea would be cool test to see the difference. Will it soot less at low revs with the supercharger having more air?
I would say that it would not make difference as if you put idea of compound turbos, one turbo pushes say 1bar in to other turbo, that turbo only needs to compress it further 1 bar to get 2 bar as combined. So your supercharger will only compress difference of before and after it. If you get me Great project tho👍
Another awesome video. Just a minor question or minor critique.....Is that fuel tank a little low? I'm sure it'll be fine. Not like that truck will be a daily driver/work vehicle.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have the pulley on a magnetic clutch like the c230k? So it basically comes on straight away but then goes of when the turbo kicks in? That way it won’t be constant on and whining
VW's twincharge 1.4 petrol uses the supercharger for low revs then switches the turbo in at about 3000rpm. I'm tipping that forcing turbo'd air to pass through the supercharger will not increase power as it merely increases resistance in the supercharger, and feeding supercharged air through the turbo inlet would cause weird interference in the exhaust side of the turbo, where the impellor is spinning faster than the exhaust gas would dictate. I would ditch the project and spend more time with my missus.......
Its a difficult balance I would Supercharger to the turbo and then intake. But if the Turbo can flow more air than the supercharger can deliver af higher RPM's the. It's would act like a blockage. If the supercharger can make higher pressure then it could but pressure on the turbo shaft. But this could also be a issue on the supercharger. I don't think is a giant concern if the car is not pushed har constantly.. If I was to doit Ingo only supercharger and have a nice set op headers since the OM606 and 605 likes to rev and then get som fantastic noises..
Hi there, we need 5 or 6 speed automatic transmission for G wagon from 90s. Like g500 g320 g300td etc. is there any possibility to convert a new series g transmission with adapter plate and matching software box something like that. Thx ahead.
I saw jp Performance trying the valve System with a giant Turbo ans Electric Turbo/supercharger. It Never Really worked. The System with pushing the air from the Turbo to the supercharger is the normal way as you often. If your theorie with increasing the needing power to Turn the supercharger is right, it may doesnt matter Because you mutliplying the boost🤔
The question is, does the twin screw supercharger make a pressure increase inside of the unit or is the boost simply a result of restriction into the engine? If it was a straight lobe supercharger the boost from the turbo overcoming the supercharger would actually put power back into the crank through the pulley.
twinchanged 606 build? Reminiscent of Blacksmoke's OG w123 back in 2011 but seriously, the community can benefit from learning about this approach. Thanks for sharing the fabrication methodology.
You can set it up like Gale Banks did the Freightliner build, that was a super - turbo! Power to drive the supercharger is based on pressure ratio and inlet pressure, there is a formula somewhere. Also the power difference between gasoline and diesel on the same turbo is due to the air fuel ratio of diesel vs gasoline, diesel needs more air for the same volume of fuel.
I think i would keep the SC and the turbo separately. I would source a clutch setup from an E55 that way you can control engagement to make up for the low boost situations with turbo. In theory you could even run an oversized turbo since SC would make up for losses on bottom end. Shouldn't be too hard to tune engagement on a dyno where you can see both boost and hp on a graph. Looks like a fun project and cant wait to see it running.
perhaps the mounting plate for the supercharger should have some recesses in it to create passive cooling fins as having that much direct contact is going to get it very hot
The turbo will push the supercharger lobes as you will have the inlet side hit by a stream of denser air. Gale banks explains it in one of his viedos, and i trust him
I believe the supercharger would require more energy if it is fed with compressed air, but it is hard to predict how the roots blower will behave. Excited to see what happens as you test different configurations, hope you get high torque from idle to redline!
i like the idea of spending the time to simply try supercharger only, which i think may be surprisingly good, and both ways of feeding the charger with the turbo and vice versa.
The reason a petrol makes more power with boost versus diesel is that the diesel requires so much more air to create heat for combustion, which You already know Luke. Hence less hp. Running the SC alone will be pathetic in performance cause it won’t meet the demands of air requirements for the diesel. Detroit Diesels used SCs to create “normal” power but that was also a 2stroke diesel. Ideally you could compress with SC, intercool, feed the turbo, intercool then to the intake. I suspect the turbo will require more air than the SC can produce or even flow, hence a blowoff valve running off vacuum in the tube feeding the turbo for the air requirements at higher engine speeds. The parasitic loss from the SC will be less as the turbo comes on because the PSI will be less in the SC so taking less HP to compress air. PSI is created via a restriction. All this talk about how much power is irrelevant with the dinosaur stock steering and suspension you’ve decided to retain on the front of your truck?!?! I’d be more worried about controlling that school bus like suspension with all that power!!!
I was wondering if any consideration has been given to an electric motor initial fast turbo spool, I believe they have been available on F1 engines with the Kers system. Does anyone, or Luke know anything of these? Is it possible to obtain an edrive fast turbo spin activator which would work from idle to say 2500 rpm?
Holy chit you're the OM606 mad scientist to rule them all! Phenomenal job. I can't wait to see your future content from this sexy, sexy beast! P.S. Yes I thumbs up'd all the comments. If everyone did this to some extent it would make the yt robot shoot videos like these into more feeds.
Авто/Мото
![State of Play | September 24, 2024 [ENGLISH]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fVs0suPHAX8/mqdefault.jpg)
Have a look at Gale Banks "monster truck duramax"
If you feed the supercharger with pressurised air, it will take more power to compress the air again after the supercharger. Gale proved that because his engine kept producing more power when he kept turning the supercharger down (using bigger pulleys)
He did a Freightliner truck with a turbo and a supercharger and he had the supercharger premenantly feeding the turbo.
You'll find that as the turbo starts sucking behind the supercharger and the supercharger makes less boost but flows more air, it will reduce the parasitic loss from the supercharger.
Also, if you are going to permanently feed the turbo with the supercharger then you'd be just as well to intercooler between them as well as after them.
Great minds. He did both of your suggestions.
Check out Richard Holdeners recent test on the AMR500 supercharger. He has it bolted to an LS and ran it venting to atmosphere (to measure total CFM), and also with a restrictor to see how much cfm it flowed while actually compressing air. He shows both dyno graphs of the engine to show JUST the difference in parasitic loss of a loaded vs. unloaded supercharger. Difference was surprisingly minimal. I know it doesn't cover your exact situation but has some relevance.
will be interesting to see the difference as one is roots and this is a screw
@@mightyfinejonboytraditionally roots blowers get really hot after 5ish psi
@@boblogIIIfan the really old original 6-71's were rated at 15 psi. yeah they get hot when you try to overdrive them to get more.
Thats an irrelevantly small supercharger on an enormous engine. That supercharger is probably suitably sized for a 1.0-1.4L engine that makes well under 100hp as standard...
Lovely to see Luke and Mrs Luke working well together, so rare.
Engineering excellence as usual, I love the research and thinking aspects. This is how all cars should be made - from an engineering perspective and not the rapacious accountants. 👍👍👍
It would be interesting to see it against the darkside boys 6.0 v12 build
Really looking forward to the rest of this build. It's going to be amazing content
No that's one video I'd like to see 1/8th mile and dyno shootout keep up the Amazing work and videos
Gale Banks proved on his channel that the supercharger becomes really inefficient when you feed pressurized air into it.
Dense air is heavier and will travel slower therefore will take more energy to move. Drag increases with air density.
The blower is a fixed displacement pump. The work required to compress a quasi static ideal gas is the integral p.dV. Since the blower ratio is effectively constant regardless of incoming air density, gamma doesnt change (air is air), the change in pressure across the roots will be greater if fed with higher pressure air. Therefore, More Work is required (and more belt torque.). Ways around this would be a clutch on the blower or a diverter (blowoff) valve to bypass the roots when the turbocharger is spooled up.
In industrial and aero twin-charging systems, it is common to turbo into blower. Interstage and Post coolers are common. Remember that the pressure ratios of the two multiple, not add! There is a good thread on eng-tips about twincharging (user warpspeed writes it up well.)
Great video and project. I worked on quite a few Detroit Diesel two stroke engines that were supercharged, but the construction equipment never got into the 92 series that was supercharged and turbocharged.
It’s definitely a head scratcher for me which way it should go. I think ideally would be a clutch on the supercharger to disengage after the turbo is fully spooled and is doing its thing.
Doesent the turbo dump on top of the intake manifold ( just Below the supercharger is spinning all the time)?
@@miguelsmith9622 on DD's the supercharger is blow through. makes the static pressure needed to make the engine run. never seen how the turbo's run, but in those days it wasnt high pressure, so it might as well have gone straight through the supercharger.
Think Gale already answered that the turbo was pushing on his roots blower and making it harder for the super charger if i recall the video. i'm building a similar project but was going to use a 103mm throttle body (billet one for a LS Motor) infront of the turbo inlet with the supercharger blowing into the turbo from behind the throttle body. Hopefully allowing the turbo to suck on the supercharger to stop the Supercharger creating positive pressure thus lowering paracitic losses but then allowing a full 4" open inlet for the turbo. This is for a 2.4L diesel with an M45 from a merc with a mini pulley and Holset HX35 with added control from an arduino micro controler.
Absolutely Fantastic. So excited to see the experimenting and results
Just doing some back of the envelope stuff here. Work=horsepower=force•displacement(distance not volume). Think the force required to spin the belt half a turn. Pressure=force/area. The volume that the supercharger moves is fixed per revolution as is the surface area of the screws that encounter the resistance to compression, but what isn't fixed is the pressure. The resistance to rotation/losses in the supercharger all the physical losses: bearings, intertia, belt deformation, noise, heat... those are all fairly constant. The largest resistance is compressing the air. Since the volume pumped by the supercharger is constant per rotation, if you have more pressure on the inlet side it's going to take more force to spin. It will however increase the pressure. That said, more pressure isn't always better, you want more density.
Anyway, my speculation is it will be harder to spin with the turbo feeding it. Which should make sense if you consider compressing a piston in cylinder pressurized to 1 bar vs 2 bar. More pressure, harder to compress, more work because you have to move more particles.
Super charger low revs no lag and turbo for rest of power
Yes, the supercharger compresses air. Compressing air requires work. The work/power required to compress air is proportional to the volume of air being compressed (per second).
Conversely, if you close the inlet and allow vacuum to accumulate, the load (perhaps counterintuitively) decreases.
If you're concerned about the supercharger drawing more power from the crank than you want after the turbo is spooled, then you'll want a bypass valve across your supercharger. Ideally, your supercharger would be bypassed once the differential pressure from your turbo compressor inlet to outlet reaches a specific pressure i.e. 1 bar (with the turbo feeding the supercharger, this is easy because the pressure produced by the turbo can be tapped before it feeds the supercharger inlet, and used to move a pneumatic plunger and large bypass valve). You're left with minimal losses from the SC, and maximum boost pressure at the manifold that depends on only the turbo (and wg if you use one).
One alternative, as someone else already pointed out, is you could otherwise use a magnetic clutch on the SC... but you would still need to bypass the SC so it doesn't become a serious restriction.
The build we all wanted to see 👌
I am so happy to see this man, I'm building a twin turbo set up using td04s that make about 650hp on a well known petrol straight 6cyl. If that looks good I may be needing a Lil advice on what big turbo to compound it with. Your intake has been key to making this work, so thanks for that.
which tdo4's? you're aiming for more than 650 then?
that is some really neat engineering, would love to learn the skills it would take to do beautiful brackets like that
I'm pretty sure that the power required to drive the supercharger should be a function of RPM and the pressure differential across the blower - there might be a slight effect of air density but that's not the dominant factor. For basically any compressor, power is flow rate multiplied by pressure change, multiplied by an efficiency factor for the particular type of pump. The amount of boost the blower makes is of course determined by its displacement relative to the engine and the drive ratio, which is constant whether or not the turbo is feeding positive pressure into the blower. So I suppose one wants to bypass the blower once the turbo is spooled in order to both reduce the parasitic losses and keep the total boost pressure under control.
Yep Iv been following both the builds ❤ and must say I love both but I’m more of a GMC fanboy, keep up the amazing content mate.
20:34 why not make a lever with a pulley on it, that allows you to put tension on the belt when you want to run the supercharger. And Vice versa, when you don’t want to run the supercharger.
In theory, and that being said I could be completely wrong.
The super charger relies on pulley speed to attain the desired compression.
Meanining it only compresses the same psi or bar above what atmospheric pressure is.
So my best guess is, if it raises the pressure 5-10 psi above open air, it would still only raise the turbo compressed air 5-10 lbs above the turbo output.
I can only quote pressures from petrol turbo engines of the past but, if the turbo produces 12 psi, the super charger should boost that pressure up to 17-22 psi.
Very roughly speaking of course.
Volume of flow should be interesting though.
Obviously a turbo will spin many times faster, but at lower engine speeds, the super charger could potentially provide a bit of vacuum to the turbo maybe, just maybe, causing a very slight vacuum at the exhaust manifold.
🤷♂️ Dunno, as I am not a pro, but air as a compressable liquid can lead to some very interesting side effects.
You may end up needing just a tiny bit of a alcohol mist in the system, just to keep compression temps under control.
Absolutely awesome build already though.
Keep up the incredible work.
Yesss... this vs the V12 Amarok!!
They will make more power together. The blower will not become a restriction up until the point it overheats and seizes up!😅 if the blower has a 1.5 pr and draws 14psi atmospheric air, the output is 21 psi or a 7 psi increase. If the blower is instead fed 21 psi air (14+7 from a turbo) the outlet will be 32 psi or an 11 psi increase. I gather this is where the terminology for "compound" charging comes from.
Standing by for Gale to scream about air density. He is, of course, correct on the issue. 😂
Back in the 80s someone built a Latham supercharger/ twin turbo engine. I cannot remember if it was a chevy v8 or ferrari flat 12, anyway the super charger was belt driven and incorporated a flapper door between the supercharger and turbo. Once the turbo boost over pressured the Latham supercharger the flapper door would change position and only allow turbo boost pressure to flow into the engine. Once the flapper door cut out the Latham supercharger the parasitic loss to drive the supercharger went to near 0%. It was explained that once the supercharger could no longer move air there was no load and hence no load no parasitic loss.
Latham superchargers were identical to turbine engines by way of having vanes instead of lobe, screws, or impellers. Never the less the logic is the same if the supercharger cannot move air it is just spinning in it's enclosure/housing. In other words, no need to be concerned about supercharger clutches.
Are you suggesting shut the inlet to the supercharger so it’s spinning in a vacuum therefore no losses? Or are you suggesting the outlet of the s/c goes to atmosphere with no resistance?
@@DieselPumpUK outlet side.
Someone probably already mentioned this but Detroit Diesel used to make turbocharged/supercharged 2 stroke diesel engines. And if I remember correctly they fed turbocharged air into the supercharger. Because they were 2 stroke diesel engines they had to be supercharged to run, adding the turbocharger was for better power characteristics. Including higher horsepower than supercharged alone. Again if memory serves.
It might be the option to use them in parallel because it might be that your supercharger starts to restrict turbo in higher revs and turbo restricts your supercharger at lower revs. But you might need some active valving to prevent back-flow.
The power required to turn the supercharger when either on it's own or compounded with a turbo should remain roughly the same. The supercharger is a positive displacement compressor and the compression ratio remains the same regardless of the suction pressure, the compression ratio and the flow rate determines the power required to turn it .
Engineers Nerding Out . Always great fun .
This is just a theory but if you direct the “waste air” from the supercharger after the turbo takes over to the exhaust it should create a capillary effect that will scavenge the exhaust gases more effective.
Compound the boost. Intake to turbo, turbo to cooler then put a water to air intercooler after the SC or the reverse if your worried about the parasitic losses.
Let's go for a 1000hp build!
amazing project by the way, learned a lot with this channel
Wish these motors weren't so damn expensive now.
Why not plumb the two chargers separately with the supercharger handling the low speed boost and the turbo the highspeed boost? The two systems could flow direct into the inlet manifold with a valve(s) controlling which line operates i.e. parallel twin charging. It would mean that the supercharger would need a clutch pulley to disconnect it at the point the turbo takes over and solenoid valves to close/open the path to the inlet manifold. The answer as to whether you want a sequential system or a parallel system lies in the application and how it is to be used.
Hi Luke, You know volume of oil in the supercharger. You could make a new dipstick to suit your orientation. Just mark the stick where the oil level currently is. I like a dipstick....,
I'm concerned about the oil 'level' since the installation orientation has been changed dramatically.
I work with drive systems at work (motor + gearbox units) and another shift mounted a drive in a different orientation, having filled the gearbox to it's natural (original orientation) level.
Needless to say, the splash feed system could not supply enough lubrication to the 'higher' gears and the gearbox burned out way prematurely.
Just a thought Luke.
14:30 I’m guessing you’ll blow seals in the supercharger using the turbo to feed the supercharger, I believe the 2 stroke Detroits and almost every early application of “twin charging” has been supercharger feeds turbos with some type of bypass like you originally described but maybe sometime of valve other than ball valve, like a blow off valve in-line, on the vacuum side prior to supercharger and spring seat like a diesel injector on a pipe with the spring pressure that lets off at a certain cfm
i would imagine running the supercharger air thru the compressor housing then thru intercooler would give the car boost from the get go and at the same time not cause to much restriction at the top where the turbo wants to pull the air thru the supercharger.
It's a bit apples to pumpkins, but the Detroit 2-stroke diesel engines that ran both superchargers and turbochargers had the turbo feeding the blower. There were blower only, as it was needed for the 2-stroke to start and run, but no turbo only. However, if blower to turbo was in some way better to a worthwhile degree, I have to think Detroit would have made the change, or conversions would have been popular.
not sure if that was true. The supercharger is really integral to the 2-stroke detroit engines. it is gear driven. The turbo would bypass the compressor as well. What i read was that the turbo would eventually overdrive the compressor which in turn would drive the engine via the geardrive of the compressor. Clearly that would be counterproductive, hence the bypass.
Keep up the good work i love ur vids!
I would plump them both separately into the intercooler and have a electric throttle body on the supercharger pipe into the intercooler for when the turbo comes on song. Could do with a clutch on the supercharger for when the turbo on boost dor less power loss.
Damn you!! I recently bought a Chevrolet 3100 -49 and was looking under the hood thinking "Hey! Maybe i'll finally have a reason to get a MB smoky-boi.." But NOW i cant do it! :D
Why can’t you do it?
@@DieselPumpUK Honestly, no real reason except it would be fun to have a unique combo... But i guess as long as i don't go for a 350 it'll be kinda unique.
I find the answer to the combined HP question is as you say the engine's ability to consume is a bit fixed. But the overall result will be Highly reduced turbo lag, so a larger turbo becomes of no consequence. Blower to turbo vs. turbo to blower is the question. Requiring "What"? controlling mechanism-'s.
Im definitely not that clever but i would imagine that the supercharger only really cares about pressure difference between it's inlet and outlet. So going by that theory if it was feeding itself from atmospheric and producing 10psi static pressure then having a turbo upstream producing 10psi and the supercharger compressing it to 20psi would be the same . The thing that makes me doubt my theory is that this is a dynamic system with changing flow and temperatures .
I would keep them compounded all the time. If the SC pressure ratio is 2x, and you feed it 3 bar air from the turbo, you'll have the potential for 6 bar without pushing either charger that hard. The trick would be to select a turbo that will flow as much air at 3 bar as the engine can eat at 6 bar.
The SC won't take any more power to boost the air from 3 bar to 6 bar as it would to boost 1 bar to 2 bar. The ratio is what matters.
Air density will be determined by your charge air cooling package.
I think if you get the blower drive ratio correct you can get it to make the power you want up top without having it come on too hard too early, and still have the throttle response since it makes x boost at x rpm regardless of how you have rolled into the throttle or any boost lag. Maybe an electronic boost controller mechanism could bleed some off at lower rpm to reduce unscheduled rapid disassembly?
My bet is the pressured air from the turbo would actually help the supercharger spin, as instead of the sc trying to suck and squeeze the air, the turbo is equalizing it, and applying pressurised to the sc so it doesn't need to suck, just blow through
This vs V12TDI cant wait
Think about it this way. The supercharger is a pump but if you feed it air it should act as a motor. So it should lesson the energy needed to drive it if you feed it air.
Bench test the KB2.8 with an electric motor driving it. Compare the amps when building pressure to the amps when vented to atmosphere. Since screw superchargers build pressure internally I suspect the recovered HP from venting won't be a high percentage, but that's a very low confidence guess without testing.
14:00 I think it’s going to be like when you try going faster thru the air ,resentence will rise with the pressure. So if that’s the case it may take more effort to spin the supercharger with the increasing pressurised air coming from the turbo.
It will use less then that 90 something hp if the air is less dense,so I think from here up you going use more then 90 ish hp to spin in.
That’s my opinion let see others.
I think it would be better without the charger, with a really fancy compound turbo setup, or a charger with a clutch like Eaton
you are an real crafstman
No contest between the notorious gmc and that other thing. Mechanical all the way, everyday of the week pal. Electronically controlled toys are not my thing.
On a side note, do you guys have the gear to run up and check out a bosch P7100.
Cheers for the great videos.
Subject "compressor power loss" from a theoretical point of view: the compressor has 2 main ways to waste energy: Friction in bearings, belt-pulley, etc. - remains more or less the same - and friction with the fluid to be compressed (air). The higher the density/viscosity of the fluid, the higher the friction (more molecules available to "stick" to the moving surfaces and "don't let go").
So if you put the turbocharger's output at the supercharger's input (in series), the supercharger will work within a more dense environment and therefore will draw more parasitic power. Why don't you put the two in parallel with 1-way valves to a "boost rail" into which one of the two presses air depending on rpm?
Besides, the supercharger is a pump & as such it'll multiply the pressure by x% output vs. input. Yet you can't put any pressure into the engine, so I suppose you'll use a wastegate or something similar to limit the pressure in the manifold. So, when the turbocharger kicks in, the supercharger will work harder, will of course get hotter and will ve no benefit for the engine power.
By the way, it's great how passionate you are about your work and how much you understand about your builds! Keep up the good work!
Sic truck, legend.
the girl on the camera is very high class.
She’s Luke’s wife.
Luke, you posed an interesting question about compounding turbo into super and super into supercharger.
I was always lead to believe a turbo does not care about what the pressure into the compressor is the turbo is only ever limited by the differential from compressor intake to compressor outlet.
If you look at Gale’s work on the pikes peak truck vs killing a duramax he uses both ways of compounding.
Reading Gale’s textbooks I drew the conclusion that, the supercharger will always maintain the same parasitic draw until it becomes the restriction then the turbo will start assisting driving the supercharger reducing the engine draw, but I believe at this point you’re now creating excessive heat as we have a new restriction to flow.
Is the turbo you chose considerably larger than usual for an OM606? I would be inclined to setup the compounding in both ways to test for yourself.
It would be interesting to see the super blowing into the turbo with an intercooler between then the turbo to an aftercooler before the inlet.
If the turbocharger starts to have a limit to the boost pressure it can make then it’s most likely a restriction in its intake (supercharger isn’t blowing enough) and add a bypass valve.
Personally I need a round the world ticket to speed a few weeks each with all my idles, Luke, Gale Banks, Cat engineers, speed of air, Christian Von Koenigsegg just to name a few.
Should have watched the video through before commenting.
Slow the brain down Luke. Remember:
SUPERCHARGERS; TURBOCHARGERS AND INTERCOOLERS are density machines. You should make more total power as you’re aim is to increase the density twice.
Very Very Nice, says Tom from Germany
I have a Buick Riviera that is SC they use system that has the blower loop to itself at part throttle , 1998 3800 . No clutch
we are still waiting for the episode with Vlad, the Patrol winner
Would that be a drag and dyno battle between 2 Yorkshire men? That would definitely be something to see, I can't think of who the other guy might be🤔
Nice wrk but how much cfm is the head capable of moving
The parasitic loss of the supercharger should be proportional to the pressure differential between inlet and outlet. So piped sequentially, the turbo when spooled up will reduce drive losses on the supercharger no matter which side of the supercharger it's plumbed to.
I would go compound turbos instead of SC. It's something different but I believe it will overcomplicate things, won't be as efficient and more things to mess up I think
You could maybe use a c63 supercharger clutch pulley with the bypass valve idea would be cool test to see the difference. Will it soot less at low revs with the supercharger having more air?
I would say that it would not make difference as if you put idea of compound turbos, one turbo pushes say 1bar in to other turbo, that turbo only needs to compress it further 1 bar to get 2 bar as combined. So your supercharger will only compress difference of before and after it. If you get me
Great project tho👍
Another awesome video. Just a minor question or minor critique.....Is that fuel tank a little low? I'm sure it'll be fine. Not like that truck will be a daily driver/work vehicle.
Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have the pulley on a magnetic clutch like the c230k? So it basically comes on straight away but then goes of when the turbo kicks in? That way it won’t be constant on and whining
it would be great to meet the guy who has the golf 6 om606 turbo+ supercharger
Please, add the song titles in the videos, so we can enjoy the tunes on the artists sites too! :)
VW's twincharge 1.4 petrol uses the supercharger for low revs then switches the turbo in at about 3000rpm. I'm tipping that forcing turbo'd air to pass through the supercharger will not increase power as it merely increases resistance in the supercharger, and feeding supercharged air through the turbo inlet would cause weird interference in the exhaust side of the turbo, where the impellor is spinning faster than the exhaust gas would dictate. I would ditch the project and spend more time with my missus.......
Maybe try the same set up Nissan super turbo ,just bigger scale
What size wheel and tyre?
Vw did a 1.4 with a turbo and supercharger they weren’t very reliable, prove it can be done!
Let’s hope it doesn’t suffer from a diesel run away
That will break my petrol head heart
Make them own seperate systems by an double inlet to manifold and then their own intercoolers? 🤔
Its a difficult balance
I would Supercharger to the turbo and then intake. But if the Turbo can flow more air than the supercharger can deliver af higher RPM's the. It's would act like a blockage. If the supercharger can make higher pressure then it could but pressure on the turbo shaft. But this could also be a issue on the supercharger. I don't think is a giant concern if the car is not pushed har constantly..
If I was to doit Ingo only supercharger and have a nice set op headers since the OM606 and 605 likes to rev and then get som fantastic noises..
Hi there, we need 5 or 6 speed automatic transmission for G wagon from 90s. Like g500 g320 g300td etc. is there any possibility to convert a new series g transmission with adapter plate and matching software box something like that. Thx ahead.
check out the kimera evo37 system!!
Can anyone let me know whats the song is called that starts at around 1:55 ??
MENUDA BESTIALIDAD
I saw jp Performance trying the valve System with a giant Turbo ans Electric Turbo/supercharger. It Never Really worked. The System with pushing the air from the Turbo to the supercharger is the normal way as you often. If your theorie with increasing the needing power to Turn the supercharger is right, it may doesnt matter Because you mutliplying the boost🤔
maybe two turbochargers compound system would be more interesting and easier to setup?
Qwantwz hp??
imho a turbo charging a Supercharger is nonsens - only the other way around makes sense.
Or the Delta S4 way.
Untuk pajero!
That turbo is too small for the supercharger
The question is, does the twin screw supercharger make a pressure increase inside of the unit or is the boost simply a result of restriction into the engine? If it was a straight lobe supercharger the boost from the turbo overcoming the supercharger would actually put power back into the crank through the pulley.
twinchanged 606 build? Reminiscent of Blacksmoke's OG w123 back in 2011 but seriously, the community can benefit from learning about this approach. Thanks for sharing the fabrication methodology.
You can set it up like Gale Banks did the Freightliner build, that was a super - turbo!
Power to drive the supercharger is based on pressure ratio and inlet pressure, there is a formula somewhere.
Also the power difference between gasoline and diesel on the same turbo is due to the air fuel ratio of diesel vs gasoline, diesel needs more air for the same volume of fuel.
I think i would keep the SC and the turbo separately. I would source a clutch setup from an E55 that way you can control engagement to make up for the low boost situations with turbo. In theory you could even run an oversized turbo since SC would make up for losses on bottom end. Shouldn't be too hard to tune engagement on a dyno where you can see both boost and hp on a graph. Looks like a fun project and cant wait to see it running.
"ontrol engagement "
When I understand him correctly, he loves the idea of NO controller very much.
i laughed at notorious gmc, i did
perhaps the mounting plate for the supercharger should have some recesses in it to create passive cooling fins as having that much direct contact is going to get it very hot
The turbo will push the supercharger lobes as you will have the inlet side hit by a stream of denser air. Gale banks explains it in one of his viedos, and i trust him
I believe the supercharger would require more energy if it is fed with compressed air, but it is hard to predict how the roots blower will behave.
Excited to see what happens as you test different configurations, hope you get high torque from idle to redline!
100% agree with you because the mass of the air will increase for the same amount of volume.
i like the idea of spending the time to simply try supercharger only, which i think may be surprisingly good, and both ways of feeding the charger with the turbo and vice versa.
The reason a petrol makes more power with boost versus diesel is that the diesel requires so much more air to create heat for combustion, which You already know Luke. Hence less hp. Running the SC alone will be pathetic in performance cause it won’t meet the demands of air requirements for the diesel.
Detroit Diesels used SCs to create “normal” power but that was also a 2stroke diesel. Ideally you could compress with SC, intercool, feed the turbo, intercool then to the intake. I suspect the turbo will require more air than the SC can produce or even flow, hence a blowoff valve running off vacuum in the tube feeding the turbo for the air requirements at higher engine speeds.
The parasitic loss from the SC will be less as the turbo comes on because the PSI will be less in the SC so taking less HP to compress air.
PSI is created via a restriction.
All this talk about how much power is irrelevant with the dinosaur stock steering and suspension you’ve decided to retain on the front of your truck?!?!
I’d be more worried about controlling that school bus like suspension with all that power!!!
I was wondering if any consideration has been given to an electric motor initial fast turbo spool, I believe they have been available on F1 engines with the Kers system.
Does anyone, or Luke know anything of these?
Is it possible to obtain an edrive fast turbo spin activator which would work from idle to say 2500 rpm?
Holy chit you're the OM606 mad scientist to rule them all! Phenomenal job. I can't wait to see your future content from this sexy, sexy beast!
P.S. Yes I thumbs up'd all the comments. If everyone did this to some extent it would make the yt robot shoot videos like these into more feeds.