# Twin Turbo Techniques



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

Hey guys, im pretty new to the dub-scene. however, cars are a huge part of my life. dad's a mechanic and back in his glory days, was a hot-rodder. i've always had a question as to how the 4-cylinder twin turbos run, as well as vrTT's as well..

when TT'ing a 4cyl motor, say a 1.8L or 2.0L motor, would two exhaust pipes run to each turbo? or would it go 4-1 from the manifold, into the first turbo, and then from the exhaust of the first turbo, into the exhaust inlet of the second turbo and out from there? sounds ridiculous, but im curious as to which way would be more beneficial..

and similarly for the VRTT's 3 pipes per turbo or 6->1 etc.?

thanks for the replies :thumbup: :beer:


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

either or, both are options, but neither is worth the extra cost or hassle.


----------



## VR6DPLMT. (Mar 1, 2003)

Do you want to twin turbo your 4cylinder in order to be unique or do you think it will make more power? Unique yes and I think it would be interesting to see a dyno of TT I4 1.8T or 2.0 TFSI. Good luck. I have heard of a few TT VR6's 12v and 24v people eventually just went to a single large turbo. However not hating at all I think it will be quite interesting.


----------



## CorrieG60 (Jan 18, 2004)

There is a guy in Holland who already built a TT 1.8t, it's sitting in a mk2 Golf, and produces somewhere around 635Hp!
The links: http://www.hulsenturbotuning.nl/Projecten_Carlo_Hulsen_2008.htm
Pics of the engine: http://www.hulsenturbotuning.nl/Projecten_Carlo_Hulsen_Proefstand.htm
And the shot banking it: http://www.hulsenturbotuning.nl/Projecten_foto_bestanden/Motorproefstand_Carlo_Hulsen.wmv

Have fun!


----------



## BoostedDubVR6T420 (Dec 4, 2009)

Twin turbo usually both have an exhaust running to them usually from two cylinders and are usually of equal size. Compound(sequential) twin turbo has all the exhaust running to a smaller turbo which goes from that into a bigger turbo. Twin turbo usually has compressor discharges running into the intake. Compound(sequntial) has the compressor discharge from the smaller turbo routed directly into the bigger turbo, then that is routed into the intake.


----------



## Little Golf Mklll (Nov 27, 2007)

I hope your not thinking about turbocharging your 1.8 in your CL. Those engines are useless apart from gas milage.:laugh:


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

Ha ha ha ha, naww i wouldn't spend the money/time on that 1.8. but i was just curious coming from an engineering background. it would be fun to experiment it both ways one being sequential (stated above) versus two pipes into one turbo and the other two pipes into the second... 

thanks for all the responses so far, they're very interesting and also very logical

....Question for all.... 

What do you think will be more powerful? Sequential turbos OR split up the exhausts (2 into each turbo for 4cyl, or 3 into each turbo for 6cyl) :beer:


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

petergiarrizzo said:


> What do you think will be more powerful? Sequential turbos OR split up the exhausts (2 into each turbo for 4cyl, or 3 into each turbo for 6cyl) :beer:



single turbo would be the most powerful.

the smaller a turbo, the less efficient it is.
:beer:


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

TBT-Syncro said:


> single turbo would be the most powerful.
> 
> the smaller a turbo, the less efficient it is.
> :beer:


Really? Hmmm... what if you ran two moderate sized turbo's instead of one large one? i would assume the amount of air flow coming from two turbo's would be much more than that of a single turbo. No?


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

petergiarrizzo said:


> Really? Hmmm... what if you ran two moderate sized turbo's instead of one large one? i would assume the amount of air flow coming from two turbo's would be much more than that of a single turbo. No?



no, turbos come in various sizes.

remember a turbo is a product of the exhaust that is pumped through it, so when you have two, each is only getting half as much exhaust.


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

CorrieG60 said:


> There is a guy in Holland who already built a TT 1.8t, it's sitting in a mk2 Golf, and produces somewhere around 635Hp!
> The links: http://www.hulsenturbotuning.nl/Projecten_Carlo_Hulsen_2008.htm
> Pics of the engine: http://www.hulsenturbotuning.nl/Projecten_Carlo_Hulsen_Proefstand.htm
> And the shot banking it: http://www.hulsenturbotuning.nl/Projecten_foto_bestanden/Motorproefstand_Carlo_Hulsen.wmv
> ...


What a load of BS. Two WRX turbos and a hacked up truck intercooler will never make 635hp (crank or wheel).


----------



## CorrieG60 (Jan 18, 2004)

It can..... if you run it up to 9600rpm....
this is the specs list:

Block:
Type: 2.0L TFSI
Displacement: 2008 cc
Bore: 83,0mm
Stroke: 92,8 mm
Compression: 7,9:1
Pistons: JE
Rods: "Custom made" H-profile
Rod bearings: race version

Head
Valves: 20 (in 12 / out 8)
Rockers: mechanical, CatCams
Cams: 284 in/ 274 out, CatCams
Remarks: Flowed head

Others
Turbo: 2x Mhi 19T
Exhaust manifold: "Custom made"
Intake manifold: "Custom made"
4x 48mm => 42mm throttle bodies
Exhaust: 2x 63,5mm => 76mm
Gearbox: 02J with Quaife sper differencieel
Clutch: Sachs racing pressure group and sinther plate
fuel pump: 2x Bosch motorsport (270 lph)
Injection: 4 injectors (1600 cc/min per cilinder)
Injection: 1 injector Methanol (1600 cc/min)
Management systeem: KMS M35 with dual lambda controllers

Power
RPM: 9200 tpm
Power: 467 kW (635 pk)
At: 8500 tpm
Torque: +/-500 Nm (370 Ft/lbs)
At: 5000 - 8500 tpm


----------



## zoidmk5 (Sep 17, 2006)

if its uniqueness and power that your looking for, than running a small turbo into a bigger one would be the way to go. like some of the newer turbo deisel trucks. you get that instant boost from the first turbo when you launch, then it pumps charged air into the larger turbo so you still have power in the top end. if you have the time, money, and resources, than i say do it. but this will be a challange and will take alot of time and money. would be interested to see a build thread on this


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

zoidmk5 said:


> if its uniqueness and power that your looking for, than running a small turbo into a bigger one would be the way to go. like some of the newer turbo deisel trucks. you get that instant boost from the first turbo when you launch, then it pumps charged air into the larger turbo so you still have power in the top end. if you have the time, money, and resources, than i say do it. but this will be a challange and will take alot of time and money. would be interested to see a build thread on this


I definitely want to go unique. And once I have the resources (im a student as of now) i will certainly start this build. i would like to build this on the 9A motor, so yeah it will definitely be a challenge, especially considering it will be all put into a mk3 golf. thanks though:thumbup:


----------



## DarkSideGTI (Aug 11, 2001)




----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

Hahahahaa, love the illustration. :thumbup:


----------



## zoidmk5 (Sep 17, 2006)

petergiarrizzo said:


> Hahahahaa, love the illustration. :thumbup:


it doesn't get much more simple than that


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

Instead of the sequential set up, run two GT28RS's and call it a day. You would get just under a full liter of displacement on each turbo and they would flow enough air in the higher RPM's. Only trick would be to get a smaller hot side housing to even make it worth the time, otherwise you would be waiting for weeks for both of them to spool up.


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

thats what im concerned about.. the fact that a bigger turbo taking longer to spool up.. versus two smaller turbos, they'll spool up nice and quick.. but will there be less, same, or greater air flow in the high RPMs like a bigger turbo?


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

petergiarrizzo said:


> thats what im concerned about.. the fact that a bigger turbo taking longer to spool up.. versus two smaller turbos, they'll spool up nice and quick.. but will there be less, same, or greater air flow in the high RPMs like a bigger turbo?


Air flow will be the same provided you choose your turbos and AR wisely. Look at the B5 S4s for example, the most powerful cars are using GT28RS and GT2871 turbos. They both pull extremely hard till redline with no sign of boost drop. They have separate intercoolers, downpipes, etc and they only converge before going into the intake. Systems like that will flow just as well as a larger single turbo. Only problem is that its complicated, there's two of everything, downpipes, inlets, intercoolers, oil supply and feed lines. It is a more simplistic approach to get a single turbo but for originality you CAN make twins work.


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

well its only more complicated in the sense that yeah, you will need two intake pipes, two intercoolers, and two pipe routes for each of those, and then at the end of it, combine it into one at the intake manifold. other than that, its really no more complicated than a single turbo... its like turbo-ing a turbo'd car hahaha


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

petergiarrizzo said:


> thats what im concerned about.. the fact that a bigger turbo taking longer to spool up.. versus two smaller turbos, they'll spool up nice and quick.. but will there be less, same, or greater air flow in the high RPMs like a bigger turbo?


no they wont. each turbo will only get half as much energy. (nothing comes for free).

two small turbos creating 600hp will spool slower than one single turbo creating 600hp.

a perfect and modern example is the BMW n54 and n55 motors. the newer single turbo motor spools faster than last years twin turbo motor, but they make almost the same HP.


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

i understand that they only make half as much energy if you split up the exhaust manifold, but at the same time, there are two turbines spooling and creating air pressure into the cylinders. I would have to assume that its still creating enough boost. Or am i totally wrong?


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)




----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

Now thats what im talkin about. Absolutely stunning work, super clean. :thumbup:


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


>



any idea as to what it will look like with the intake piping?, if its not done yet, make a build thread, ill subscribe :thumbup:


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

no build thread on this one.....just a built car by next spring. unvailing at VW Cult Classic 2011 iin coopersburg pa. 

but as of now, the intake piping with join together into one. and thses are twin gt25's and will run twin 39mm tial WG. with 3'' vbanded exhaust.


----------



## zoidmk5 (Sep 17, 2006)

NLS never ceases to amaze me


----------



## DarkSideGTI (Aug 11, 2001)

shouldn't you have paired cylinders 1-3 and 2-4?


----------



## zoidmk5 (Sep 17, 2006)

DarkSideGTI said:


> shouldn't you have paired cylinders 1-3 and 2-4?


i didn't even notice it at first that he didn't pair them like that. wonder why? any logic on this NLS?


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

it shouldnt make too much of a difference becaust cylinders 1&4 are both rising as 2&3 are falling, so as long as you have two that are opposite in travel, it should still work effectively.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

correct most people think the pulses have to be in a fireing order...they don't. did massive research on this before building. comfirmed it with BIG time turbo people, since we are always learning. if you have the pulses staggerd-like we did, you'll have a faster spool then a bang/bang then 2 dead hits.

thanks for the kind comments:thumbup:


----------



## DarkSideGTI (Aug 11, 2001)

I was wrong in saying it should be 1-3 and 2-4. It should actually be 1-4 and 2-3. This will reduce scavenging as when cylinder 1's exhaust valves are open cylinder 4's will be closed.

Not saying it won't work the other way.


----------



## MaxVW (Nov 4, 2004)

The main reason a tt is less efficient is because there is more rotational mass in 2 smaller turbos then in one larger one


----------



## DarkSideGTI (Aug 11, 2001)

MaxVW said:


> The main reason a tt is less efficient is because there is more rotational mass in 2 smaller turbos then in one larger one


 Depends on the size of the turbo's.


----------



## Flipdriver80 (Jul 17, 2004)

zoidmk5 said:


> i didn't even notice it at first that he didn't pair them like that. wonder why? any logic on this NLS?


 lol


----------



## Flipdriver80 (Jul 17, 2004)

DarkSideGTI said:


> Depends on the size of the turbo's.


 why you would run two identical sized turbos is beyond me. especially when they are both small. but then again this is a show car and beauty is much more important than practicality.


----------



## DarkSideGTI (Aug 11, 2001)

ask BMW or Audi.


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

MaxVW said:


> The main reason a tt is less efficient is because there is more rotational mass in 2 smaller turbos then in one larger one


 Understood. However, once the turbos spool up, they will carry more momentum... again, im an engineering student, and thinking about it in a "physics" way, once you have a "heavy" weight.. in this case, initially spooling the turbos, the easier it is to continuously have them spinning... unless im thinking about this totally wrong :S


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

DarkSideGTI said:


> ask BMW or Audi.


 this...and toyota and nissian, and many other race cars and factory car...


----------



## zoidmk5 (Sep 17, 2006)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> this...and toyota and nissian, and many other race cars and factory car...


 Mitsubishi, Ford, the list goes on


----------



## Flipdriver80 (Jul 17, 2004)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> this...and toyota and nissian, and many other race cars and factory car...


 its not a factory car... are you trying to make power or show off your fabrication abilities. cuz if power is the main objective then your doing it wrong.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

funny, yes its a show car, but yes i'll pull off 375+whp. so either way...it will have balls and look good doing so. 

YES 100% yes....if i wanted to get 600 whp...i'd do it with one. but i'm going for good power, crazy one off looks and a show car that i can drive. 

factory cars aren't the only same size twin turbo cars. many race cars do it as well...even some posted on this forum.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

this is factory?.... 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4923294-SL-C-Monocoque-project.


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

TBT-Syncro said:


> either or, both are options, but neither is worth the extra cost or hassle.


 Compound turbocharging while lots of work can make a small engine/big turbo/high whp car have a street car powerband. And a flatter powerband as well. 

Its only worth it to the person who does it and wants to experiment, but gets expensive when you have to pay a shop, right?


----------



## Flipdriver80 (Jul 17, 2004)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> this is factory?....
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4923294-SL-C-Monocoque-project.


 yeah lets compare an 8cyl twin turbo to a 4cyl twin turbo. makes total sense they are the same thing


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

DarkSideGTI said:


> ask BMW or Audi.


 well BMW stopped, and so did Audi. What does that tell you?


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

Dave926 said:


> Compound turbocharging while lots of work can make a small engine/big turbo/high whp car have a street car powerband. And a flatter powerband as well.
> 
> Its only worth it to the person who does it and wants to experiment, but gets expensive when you have to pay a shop, right?


 then why does no one do it? why did AMS ditch it on their time attack car?


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

TBT-Syncro said:


> well BMW stopped, and so did Audi. What does that tell you?


 Mercedes didnt... They're still running their v12 bi-turbos  sure its 3 times a 4cyl motor, but just because some are, some aren't :thumbup:


----------



## notsoslow (Nov 5, 2009)

I say do your homework and make sure you know just what your in for....and then just get on it. You can spend all your time deliberating on it, and not getting anywhere or you can break bread and get on with it. Twin turbo four cyl. FTW. I don't care what they, say if you want to build it because it gets you hyped up then do it and don't let em say "well everyone else does it this way", sooooo :beer:


----------



## 3lfk1ng (Apr 10, 2008)

I have some twin turbos posted on my photo album 
Take a look: 
http://picasaweb.google.com/107247024933846304012/Slamburlgars#


----------



## Dave926 (Mar 30, 2005)

TBT-Syncro said:


> then why does no one do it? why did AMS ditch it on their time attack car?


 I dont believe the AMS car was compound, but rather sequential like the mazda rx7, porsche 959 etc. Compound charging is rare and few people do it themselves, but the few that have end with great results. I know there is a link to a dsm guy who did one recently on mega boost and a flat powerband, I will send a link later.


----------



## Flipdriver80 (Jul 17, 2004)

petergiarrizzo said:


> Mercedes didnt... They're still running their v12 bi-turbos  sure its 3 times a 4cyl motor, but just because some are, some aren't :thumbup:


 the point is not that 2 turbos dont work for larger motor applications. its extremely efficient. but its not practical for a 4cylinder. i wonder why VW didn't put 2 turbos on its most recent 16v turbo in the MK5 and MK6. hmmm


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

Less is more.


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

Flipdriver80 said:


> the point is not that 2 turbos dont work for larger motor applications. its extremely efficient. but its not practical for a 4cylinder. i wonder why VW didn't put 2 turbos on its most recent 16v turbo in the MK5 and MK6. hmmm


 they didnt put TT's on it for economical purposes (financials)... But aside from that, if they offered it in two different packages, a 16v turbo OR a 16v twin turbo, you wouldn't opt for it? i highly doubt that


----------



## Flipdriver80 (Jul 17, 2004)

no because unless the turbos are tiny as hell there;s no way 2 cylinders are going to spin a turbo fast enough to create good boost at low rpms.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

have you done it? oh? no? ok...then 2500-2600 RPM full spool is nice?


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> correct most people think the pulses have to be in a fireing order...they don't. did massive research on this before building. comfirmed it with BIG time turbo people, since we are always learning. if you have the pulses staggerd-like we did, you'll have a faster spool then a bang/bang then 2 dead hits.
> 
> thanks for the kind comments:thumbup:


 like a harley davidson ?, thx for sharing :thumbup:


----------



## Flipdriver80 (Jul 17, 2004)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> have you done it? oh? no? ok...then 2500-2600 RPM full spool is nice?


 no but i don't need to go to the ****ing dentist to know it sucks... 

see there's these things with pages in them, we call them books, and some geniuses in their respective fields have already done research and tests to figure things out like physics and laws of relativity... now what i do is take these books and read them so that I too can have the knowledge that these men had, only thing is i didnt have to do ****all to figure the information out. all i had to do was read. you should try it sometime. a book on business ethics might be right up your alley. :thumbup: 

so you've built a twin turbo car that reaches full boost at 2500-2600 rpm?? what size were the two turbos you had on this car?


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

angry are we? geez. relax 
gt25's spool under 3K....works well for twins...again, single IS better for huge power. but thats not the goal or question.


----------



## Flipdriver80 (Jul 17, 2004)

you know that a little bit bigger single turbo will spool faster and hold a higher level of boost, being that its a 4cylinder. 


with 2 cylinders driving them you will be at a loss, but at least it will look pretty sitting there.


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> angry are we? geez. relax
> gt25's spool under 3K....works well for twins...again, single IS better for huge power. but thats not the goal or question.


Thank you for attempting to steer back to twin turbo setups. people ride their pride and keep pushing the idea of a single turbo. 

Guys... im not lookin to have a drag car pushing +600hp its a fwd car, id like to leave some rubber on the tires. im looking for a Solid 400-450hp car, no more than that really. and the twin turbo's would be smaller in size so they do spool faster. 

i do have a question though... what if you had small turbo hot sides, and mated it to a larger turbo's cool side? bigger spool fins on that side, and still have the small spool fins in the hot side... anyone ever try this???


----------



## TIGninja (Mar 21, 2010)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> angry are we? geez. relax
> gt25's spool under 3K....works well for twins...again, single IS better for huge power. but thats not the goal or question.


When you divide the exhaust energy between two turbos you loose any advantage. One properly sized turbo for the displacement,rpm,and power level you desire will always beat you for several reasons. 

1. The complexity of one turbo is beyond the scope of most people to install let alone two turbos.

2. two turbos will give you twice the failure rate.

3. two turbos gives you more mass to accel to spool up which costs in lag.


How do you plan to control these turbos?

I know it all sounds cool but in reality there is alot more to be considered then is even realized here.


----------



## killa (Nov 26, 2000)

The twin turbo thing is nice and looks great, i'm all for it for the bling and unique factor as you can spool the turbo at 2500's rpm's but....

turbos have powerband, you can't spool up at 2500 and pull to 8k, if you spool it at 2500 then it means that it'll fall on its face around 5500's or so, that's the nature of the beast.
Why? Turbine wheel and housing size.
Can this be fixed? yes, either steup up to a GT28 since it has a larger turbine wheel or just go with a much bigger T25 housing. 

What now? well, bigger housing, more power due to less exhaust backpressure, raising VE, moving the torque up to the right which by itself makes the hp go up at the same psi, sound familiar?

No such thing as a free cake and eating it too here, you'll encounter the same problems with twins as with single turbo setups, the issue is that you'll have to swap two of everything when you decide to change powerbands (either complete turbos or two housings)

I like the bling factor but the extra work is not worth my time.

Do keep the pics up and coming though


----------



## Flipdriver80 (Jul 17, 2004)

and dont forget the fact that each turbo will only be driven by 2 cylinders, which will create more lag... but like i stated already and someone else just said the bling factor will be cool. but thats about it, and the showing off of fabrication skills.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

yup. this setup will be mostly that....its a show car and will look differnt and over the top. and will work...100% perfect best boost best setup for power? no, but it will work well.


----------



## schimt (Jan 15, 2007)

petergiarrizzo said:


> Understood. However, once the turbos spool up, they will carry more momentum... again, im an engineering student, and thinking about it in a "physics" way, once you have a "heavy" weight.. in this case, initially spooling the turbos, the easier it is to continuously have them spinning... unless im thinking about this totally wrong :S


sorry to join this convo late, just saw no one replied to this comment,

You are correct that once you have it up to speed it will be "easier" or less energy required to keep the same speed, and this might not be entirely true, more that is will take more energy to change it's speed. 

You are forgetting one major aspect, that your engine is a dynamic system. As engine rpm's increase, flow rate through the motor increases there for flow rate out of the turbo must increase as well to sustain the boost pressure. And even worse is when you shift gears that extra energy you put into the system by sacrificing spool up times, is lost when the wastegate opens up and your turbo/turbos slow back down. 

The one thing that could be a plus about increased angular moment is that the turbo may not slow down as much between gears and may be closer to full boost when you get back on it depending on how fast you shift, similar concept to having a heavy flywheel compared to a light one leads to a smoother transition.

All this is very minimal imo as long as the turbo is sized right, but it just sounded like you were trying to use this as a justification to a twin turbo setup and dont agree with that...

Complexity, cost, fitment issues, all lead to it being the least favorable choice. If you are really going to engineering school you should know better then most that the simplest design is always the best. 

We are blessed with the fact that our motors have the exhaust port all on one side ot the head or motor, where v8 or v6 or and V configured motor which has headers coming off opposite sides of the motor, is the only scenario that warrants the use of a twin turbo setup, short of what everyone said with the "coolness factor"

If you decide to go a head with this project, make sure you document it well and share with us! We would love to follow the project. Goodluck with what ever you decide :beer:


----------



## SoFarKingFast (Jul 9, 2003)

Could two turbos be less efficient due to the additional friction of another shaft?

There is also the fluid dynamic part of it, is air turning a corner in a pipe sized X going to offer the same resistance as air going through two pipes sized X/2?


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

SoFarKingFast said:


> Could two turbos be less efficient due to the additional friction of another shaft?
> 
> There is also the fluid dynamic part of it, is air turning a corner in a pipe sized X going to offer the same resistance as air going through two pipes sized X/2?


Good call.. im not sure.. but i have a program called Solidworks, it does fluid analysis.. im sure that if i create a mock up version of a turbo i could simulate this. hmm....


----------



## schimt (Jan 15, 2007)

it would be very difficult to produce the precise geometries of the parts of a turbo in solid works, your never going to be able to produce a realistic model, you are going to get into thermodynamics with heat transfer from the hot side to the compressor side, thermodynamics of the compressor process, fluid dynamics of oil in the journal or ball bearings, so then you have to consider oil pressure from the motor and flow rate of oil. Ect, ect. Just a whole mess of analysis for no reason truly. Unless you can play it into one of your theoretical design classes at school! I don't know if you are a Mech E or not. 

Haha anyways, i really dont think these inefficiencies play any measurable impact on one setup or the other, i still think it all comes down to complexity, cost and easily fitting all this in what ever car your planning for this setup.


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

some of you guys are thinkin WAY TOO HARD... somebody just do it alrdy. it's prob not gonna be 100% perfect at first, but prob 90% of that hard stuff will be done. The next setup will only get better:thumbup:


----------



## zoidmk5 (Sep 17, 2006)

wow, you guys took this thing pretty far. the OP isn't looking for high HP numbers, just something unique that also performs. he's not looking to take this thing to 8500rpm like most BT guys. its obvious that this build is more than feesable, so now its just time for him to get crackin. hope to see a build thread soon


----------



## petergiarrizzo (May 31, 2010)

provided i get a decent co-op job, i will certainly be posting a VERY detailed build thread. almost to the point where its an instruction manual


----------

