| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
 Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Sun, 08 June 2003 01:13
|
 |
Having read, which could only be described as a fair few, threads of this forum, I was surprised to see that a *Triple Turbo* conversion had only been touched on in a passing comment...
Many assumptions have to be made when calculating the enormity of mathematical equations required to even begin comprehending such a conversion, however I will try to post my idea.
The Easy Bit: On second thoughts, a fair few more mathematical equations must be completed before choosing an appropriate configuration, however for the sake of argument I will assume that the turbo’s will be of (ct12a small), (ct12b medium), (ct26 larger). Factors to take in consideration: ceramic vs. steel, ball bearing vs. high flow, oil vs. ???
Assumption 1: An aftermarket system that would be capable of controlling such actions to my knowledge doesn’t exist, the logical response would be to create / re-program an auxiliary function. (More on this later) The possibility of having a split intercooler.
Theory: For those who have already tuned out contemplating that a triple turbo system is absolutely not possible, Henry T. Ford hadn’t even contemplated turbo’s, they simply didn’t exist. And as far as I know, the possibility of a triple turbo system being widely adapted to cars is ludicrous, however on a jet boat where high speed are normal, the stress upon smaller turbo’s would surely reach detonation. With only using large turbo’s we all know the sacrifice of low-end boost and spool up times that would even make Grandpa Simpson shiver. The application only holds relevance to forms of drag racing where 10th’s of a second determine 1st and last place.
The Answer: We hear turbine assisted car enthusiasts squawk and squabble about the best turbo combinations that provide power band over the broadest power curves. The latest modification is to replace twin turbo’s with a larger single or hybrid combination. Critics may pose the question, 3 turbo’s? Isn’t that excessive? Quite frankly yes it is, (if) you plan to run them all at once. Cleary it is a question of money, but no one has taken to the challenge of having their cake (edit: turbo/s) and eating it too. A turbo system designed to cover low range, mid range and high range, is predominantly a twin turbo system. How so? First we must understand the manifold order of the turbo configuration (A): the small turbo (B): another small turbo or mid sized and (C): the big fella. There are two orders possible, ACB or BCA, the reason for this being the brainchild of such an idea. (A) & (C) turbo’s must be used in tandem for perhaps a spilt second or two, hence the reason for being located next to each other or sharing the same inlet manifold piping.
Low end: (A) being a smaller turbo will spool marginally quicker than (B), (C) at this point in stage will be closed providing (A) with enough piping to adequately create turbulence for air to feed into the manifold quicker. (B) will being to spool while (A) has provided boost for the required low end response. The car will hit mid-range feeding from the pressure created by the now fully wound (B). (B) will carry the boost out-put to a level where pressure goes beyond (A)’s capacity. If we imagine the Y shaped piping between (A) & (C) acts like the butterfly in a throttle body, for those who cannot get past the idea of Y shaped piping, I can only describe it as a reverse 2 into 1 much like your headers or exhaust plumbing. For a split second or two the throttle body will transfer the pressure being fed to (A) through to (C) before closing the (A) piping completely.
This may not of course apply in reverse while the car slows, and pressure is reduced. The sheer pressure from (C) would not do wonders for (A) and therefore must be vented to the atmosphere while the butterfly then closes (C) and allows (A) spooling gradually.
Meanwhile (B) has been sustaining an acceptable level of boost between (A) & (C), and should be consider the main focus of such a system, a failure in (B) would result in … well a failure is a failure.
Other factors that could be adapted to into the equation could be the addition for a separate intercooler, however my small brain has not figure a way to combine to sperate intercoolers unlike the turbo.
Recommended number of cylinders: 6. Twin turbo’s exist on 4 cylinders likewise single turbo’s of 6 and 8 cylinders, so nobody can tell me the appropriate metal craft cannot be fabricated. It is all a matter of money, and an aftermarket computer that could use pressure sensors / rpm indicators as far as the switch between (A) & (C).
Any feedback, thoughts, comments and criticisms are welcome, as they help as all to understand the complex nature of such possibilities. If not, perhaps I have provided some half not boring text that has wasted some 5minutes of your time while you wait for the kettle to boil or the lackey to bring back the pies.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Sun, 08 June 2003 01:55
|
|
All I want to say is that 3 turbos means fiddly plumbing and a big wallet.
|
|
|
Location:
newcastle
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Sun, 08 June 2003 03:16
|
|
|
Man, whoever did that to the Supra has waaaay too much money & time on their hands.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Sun, 08 June 2003 03:23
|
|
Meh, shmeh...
It was a passing thought, there are so many years of back yard work shop I was sure someone would have something to say.
That being the case, thankyou for shooting my theory of originality although Im not suprised... some people have far too much time on thier hands and this fellow seems to be one of them...
Still, cant deny that a '3T' badge wouldnt raise a few eyebrows, and become a talking point for many grocery trips. 
-pd-
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Sun, 08 June 2003 05:21
|
|
|
i say the more the merrier! how about a turbo for every cylinder? mmmm
|
|
|
Location:
nowra
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Sun, 08 June 2003 10:01
|
|
ironically i was trying to figure out a triple turbo system the other day. because one of my mates (who knows little about cars) asked me if a triple turbo setup was possible.
i hadent thaught it through that far though.
mat
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Sun, 08 June 2003 13:14
|
|
ahh yes.. the beauty of spare time..
theoretically isnt it still a sequential turbo set-up..
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Sun, 08 June 2003 13:25
|
|
triple turbo?
i dont even know the differences between a single and a twin turbo system  (apart from one obviously having 2 turbos and the other only one)
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Sun, 08 June 2003 13:26
|
|
let me guess...
does 'Holden' mean ne thing to you ? 
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 01:28
|
|
| boudan wrote on Sun, 08 June 2003 23:26 |
let me guess...
does 'Holden' mean ne thing to you ?
|
if your implying that i drive a commodore, your wrong. 
my car at the moment is a mazda 626 (yay gutless as all hell! ), i'm currently looking for a 77 celica, but not having any luck due to uni/work taking up all my time.
i would still however like to know what the difference is between single and twin turbo if you'd be kind enough to explain...
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 01:42
|
|
My sincere most apologies friend, who isnt looking for a '77 atm... here in Brisbane they are few and far between, i travelled half way down the coast to check out a supposid RA28 ... turned out to be a RA23, my second choice, but the only advice I can give you is first in best dressed, they tend to get snapped up nice and quick so pretend ur intreseted in everything... you can always say no when you get there...
**
some more basic difference between turbo set-ups namely between single and twin:
as trends would have it, single turbos are usually bigger than those used in twin turbos applications. The single larger turbo seems to spool up slower due to physics creating less boost lower down in the rpm range, however when they come on boost toward the top end they will usually give a large power increase right up to redline.
the twin turbo on the other hand, are a set of smaller turbos, that will spool quicker bringing boost on at lower rpm levels however sacrifice effeincey at the top end.
There are also sequential twin turbo set ups, this allows the set up to run primarily to run a single turbo system until the predesired point at which the 2nd turbo will spool up... hence the idea for the triple turbos.
there are of course limitless varibles of these 2 cases, but generally this is what you should find when experimenting with any number of set-ups.
You may also be wondering about the hybrid turbo... basically taking ur turbo and hacking in it in half, the wack on either a larger / strong compressor wheel or the reverse.. the turbos are becoming more popular / expensive as they offer the best of both worlds from 2 different turbos..
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 02:15
|
|
now with that explained your triple turbo system makes a lot more sense to me. 
as for the celica, i've been looking for so long that i've almost got enough money to buy a better car...i now thinking or getting myself a gt4 or something along those lines.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 02:19
|
|
hahah... yeh its exaclty like that.... i been trying not to let my self look at the mkII supras.... altho very tempting with and the power extras and a nice pair of flared guards make them look tuff as tooveys nuts...
gotta stay focused tho... must get RA28... must....
jus look at putting the extra money into an engine conversion, or some nice interior mods if u want to keep it a daily driver..
its so very depressing not being able to find the right car at the right time...
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 03:56
|
|
I adore the concept of a sequential twin turbo set-up.....but i dont understand what the point of 2 parallel turbo's is for ?
eg: 1JZ - 2 turbo's - sequential - 1 small for low RPM, 1 big for high RPM
1G - 2 turbos - parallel - 2 ? for ? RPM
anyone care to explain ?
Thanx
Mani
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 04:01
|
|
the 1ggte has 2 ct12 turbos, in regaurds to ur question i guess its all relevant to the application that you wish to run your car in...
the point of having 2 turbos is that they will spool much faster and therfore bring boost on lower, this makes up for the lack of torque that the 1ggte has down low.
whereas the engines running squential turbos can survive with only one turbo as the engine produces enough of its own torque to get it off the line...
twin turbos will produce an even power curve / band, whereas the squential will produce a spike in the power curve when the 2nd larger turbo kicks in...
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 04:08
|
|
ok so your saying 2 CT12's will start boost from a lower RPM than a single CT12 ?
i dont understand how that works but ill take your word for it
besides boost from a lower RPM does it provide any more power ?
TA
Mani
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 04:14
|
|
2 ct12s will in theory produce double the power of 1 ct12, being the same turbo they will spool and precisely the same speed, the only diference is that both examples *should kick in at the same time* however the twin turbo system will have twice as much power...
this is of course taking into consideration that the same amount of exhaust is needed to spin 2 turbos as there is to spin 1... so in fact u could be right in say the single ct12 will come on boost sooner... but its jus getting technical
oh oh wait... i think i see ur problem.. the 1ggte runs 2X ct12A.... the 1jzgte has the ct12b.... hence i can see where ur getting confuzzeled...
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 04:21
|
|
no on im not talking about the 1JZ at all
im just comparing a single turboed 1G-GTE to a paralled twin-turboed 1G-GTE
so theyll both start boost from the same RPM ?
They'll both die out at the same RPM ?
the only difference is that the TT will have much more power than the single T ?
Thanx
Mani
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 04:28
|
|
youd be more or less shooting urself in the foot if u wanted to convert the 1ggte to a single ct12a... if would come on boost fractionally quicker, and die off at the same rate with only half the power... plus then ud have to look at the wear and tear of keeping it single ...
commonly ud see these sort of conversion done to the J series engines where a hybrid / garret / apexi / rollerbearing type turbo would be used...
possible options for the 1ggte -> single turbo would be ct26... then again if you were going to spend money on a customer set-up (no off the shelf kits im aware of).. then you should do it right the first time and get yourself something rated 200 - 400hp...
after all this you may as well bought urself a 1j, and ended up with the same power readings from a stock engine...
happy thinking
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
melbourne
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 04:33
|
|
ok, im going to oversimplify the issue, here goes.
first of all, the 1jzgte uses parralell turbos, the 2jzgte uses sequential turobs (afaik) the later 1jzgte uses a single turbo (the vvti model in chasers i believe)
one big turbo will give roughly the same performance of two smaller turbos (but then again, replacing one turbo with another will caue lager variations in performance anyway)
lets say we have a 6 cylinder 3 litre engine with 2 turbos, essentially each turbo is being powered by a 1.5 litre engine. if it is using a single turbo, then it is powered by a 3 litre engine. two (non-sequential) turbos wont necassarily reduce lag.
the way i see it, the only reason you would use three turbos on a 6 is because it would be cheaper than using "good" twins, or a really expensive "good" single.
id love to put triple stock turbos on a 1ggte some day, you would have to be careful with the pulse splitting, which may cause you some problems.
id also like to do some dinosaur v8 with 4 or 8 turbos, but to do that id want to be able to get the urbos damn cheap, and have a lot of time and space to do it.
i don't know if this has helped at all.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 04:40
|
|
all ways good to know someone know what there talking about... if u were going to go with the quad or octagonal ? turbo set-ups im sure ud want nothing smaller than an old KingsWood engine bay...
and yes.. if the pulse splitting that you refer to is the moment of change between the smaller and larger turbos... i can see why a very high qaulity BOV would be crucial... imagine the backpressure from the larger turbo hitting the small turbo at full pace.... you'd be pick ceramic compressor wheel outta ur bonnet for days....
|
|
|
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Mon, 09 June 2003 05:03
|
|
no im not talking about doing a single turbo conv on a 1G
im just trying to get my head around whats the point of having 2 turbos the same size running parallel thats all
Thanx
Mani
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Tue, 10 June 2003 02:32
|
|
The idea behind twin parallel turbos is to reduce the rotational mass of the turbos. Each turbo in a TT setup has a small, light turbine and impeller wheel. Even when you combine the mass of the two, it turns out to be less than a larger single turbo of a similar capacity. The rotational mass is an important factor when it comes to reducing lag; remember those wheels need to be accelerated to insane speeds (up to 100,000rpm) before they start making boost! This is also the reason for ceramic turbine wheels; they're much lighter than steel wheels.
As for the triple turbo idea, it's nice in theory but making it work in practice would be well and truly beyond the resources of the back yard tinkerer. There would be lots of trial and error involved, and the results aren't guaranteed. And let's not even mention the plumbing nightmare such a beast would create!
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Thu, 12 June 2003 08:26
|
|
ahh righto ....thanx norb
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
melbourne
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Thu, 12 June 2003 10:09
|
|
by "pulse splitting" i mean that you would want want (for example, assuming that cylinders 1&2, 3&4, 5&6 are each along the same line if you know what i mean) cylinders 1 and 2 going to turbo number 1, cylinders 3 and 4 going to turbo 2, and cylinders 5 and 6 going to turbo 3. this would still be for a parallel setup.
so the exhaust pulses are "hitting" the turbo at even intervals,
like
bang . . bang . . bang . . bang (etc)
rather than
bang . bang . . . bang . bang . . (etc)
if this helps.
i still want to do it
i have thought about the sequential setup, and i think it is doable, (akin to twincharging) even though you would be better off just using a sensible sized turbo or living wth the lag.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Triple Turbo Theorem
|
Thu, 12 June 2003 10:44
|
|
ah yes, but then you'd be limited to 3 turbos of the same size correct? other wise the equal levels of exhaust flow would not be able to push a big turbo any faster ??
or am i completely wrong ?
|
|
|
