• Welcome to The Truck Stop! We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.

    Your truck knowledge is missing!
    • Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
    • We have tons of knowledge here for your diesel truck!
    • Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
    • NO ADS! The site is fully functional and ad free!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

    Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

eaton m112 supercharger

Pros
instant boost
less exhaust plumbing
cool sound
less cooling loss maybe?

Cons
more parastic drag on engine creating less useable power
more drive pressures
possibly less efficent at high rpms?
annoying sound
less fuel efficent

it seems to me who is no expert on supercharging ot turbo technolgy that superchargers worked good on road going vehicles years ago because turbo technolgy had not evolved well enough to make driving a big low rpm diesel effeicent had varying speeds. superchargers created instant boost and get enough accerlation to get going. now with the advent of vgt, vnt, vvt turbos they can create faster boost and get rid of that annoying and troublsome lag associated with them and create a engine with more efficency because of the low parasitic loss a turbo puts on a engine to turn it and use it. im just guessing so i could be completey wrong.
 
There's a company that builds a 400 hp 6.5 supercharged for marine,I'll have to look it up again. I often thought of using a procharger,but they cost alot,theres also a company that makes a supercharger for the H1 Hummer.
 
I have seen the whipple and marine kits for the 6.5, the reason I ask about the m112 (from the 03/04 cobra) is because you can find the supercharger and intercooler for under 600 bucks, and could be bolted on as easy as milling out an intake adapter. Also it is very similar in size and performance as the whipple supercharger. Seems like it would be another route of upgrading from the stock turbo and freeing up the exhaust side for some more mpg's.
 
I think it would be good providing low rpm boost, and have it "hand-off" at a higher RPM that a larger turbo could then take over. A clutch to disengage around 1800rpm or something.

Would be cool no matter what, just because. :) And since you live 10 minutes from me, giddy up!
 
I've seen older big truck and boat diesels with both. They didn't use a clutch either so they must have to do some sizing to get it right.
 
Matt Bachand said:
I think it would be good providing low rpm boost, and have it "hand-off" at a higher RPM that a larger turbo could then take over. A clutch to disengage around 1800rpm or something.

Would be cool no matter what, just because. :) And since you live 10 minutes from me, giddy up!
Click to expand...


Think two-stroke detroit........not quite the same concept, but it is a starting point!:thumbsup:
 
The latest issue of Diesel Power has a couple page spread on a marine use Duramax that Banks built that incorporates an Eaton Roots type blower, thru twin turbo's.

The pkg looks like so many of Bank's projects - an impressive combination of form & function. Very cool looking. The article vaguely implies it might make 900 lb-ft of torque from off idle to 3800 rpm.
 
I think what you are getting to is a Turbo-Compound Engine As the article says, at some point the turbine is making as much power as the crank.

There are much better ways to turn a turbine than using a pistons and a crankshaft to generate heat. If you want some REAL HP you need to get rid of the recip engine and just leave the turbine. Airplane engineers realized this years ago. There have been running automotive turbine cars, Chrysler tried it, Rover did as well. You want to show up those wimpy Duramax guys with their 5" exhaust pipes? Show 'em a REAL exhaust pipe, something like 10" or so - then stick on an afterburner and truly show them who is boss!
 
bobbiemartin said:
I think what you are getting to is a Turbo-Compound Engine As the article says, at some point the turbine is making as much power as the crank.

There are much better ways to turn a turbine than using a pistons and a crankshaft to generate heat. If you want some REAL HP you need to get rid of the recip engine and just leave the turbine. Airplane engineers realized this years ago. There have been running automotive turbine cars, Chrysler tried it, Rover did as well. You want to show up those wimpy Duramax guys with their 5" exhaust pipes? Show 'em a REAL exhaust pipe, something like 10" or so - then stick on an afterburner and truly show them who is boss!
Click to expand...

the problem with that is the turbine sucks down too much fuel to be practical for a daily driver, its a cool concept though.
 
Anubis said:
the problem with that is the turbine sucks down too much fuel to be practical for a daily driver, its a cool concept though.
Click to expand...

Who's talking about fuel economy? We're talking POWER!:D:D:D

Yea I was having a bit of fun here. Excessive fuel use was one of the big problems with turbines. I did see one of the Chrysler turbines once at a car show. The Amelia Island Concours, which is held on a very swank golf course. The guy started it up while I was there. Real quiet - and it burned a spot of the putting green from the exhaust!
 
NoDak said:
VW does just this, they call it "Twincharging". With a direct injected gas engine, the results are impressive. I thought the supercharger uncoupled, but I don't see that now. Perhaps, as the turbo comes up to speed, the supercharger just "free wheels"?

http://www.worldcarfans.com/1090617...e-bags-international-engine-of-the-year-award
Click to expand...

It might be like on the 8v,12v,16v-71& 92 TT's that detroit made, once the turbos spooled up the and started to develop higher pressure than the blower there is a valve inside the blower that would open and the pressure would be the same on both sides of the blowers compressor, at which point the turbo's are making all the boost and the blower(s) essentially freewheels.
 
bobbiemartin said:
Who's talking about fuel economy? We're talking POWER!:D:D:D

Yea I was having a bit of fun here. Excessive fuel use was one of the big problems with turbines. I did see one of the Chrysler turbines once at a car show. The Amelia Island Concours, which is held on a very swank golf course. The guy started it up while I was there. Real quiet - and it burned a spot of the putting green from the exhaust!
Click to expand...

Actually the biggest issues were heat, noise, and the ceramics used in the regenerator were not happy with thermal transients seen in variable speed application, this is still an issue with advanced ceramics used now in gas turbines, they are best suited for base load machines that operate at a consistent power band.

Fuel consumption was/is a consideration but could be worked out also some issues with the transmission used in the turbine cars, the OTR semi truck test vehicles did okay as well,

AB is not viable for hi-way vehicles, but make for nice visuals on the drag race track
 
Thread mining... bringin back from the dead, LOL

Anyhow, what are thought's of twin m90's ?... I know they were based around 3.8 liter engines, but 2 of them should be OK, maybe.. I am curious to know what the power curve / rpm range would be and how they would compare with a single T4 HX40 / BD diverter valve combo in a center mount config.
 
One of my boats is a Conch 27 powered by a Volvo KAD 44 diesel with super charger and turbo. It has an electronically controlled clutch that hands off the super charger to the turbo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top