Conor Harrington

was thinking about these while talking to the dad.
say for instance 2 litre focus supercharged pretty simple someone on here is selling one.
why dont people strap on a turbo aswell??
i know 1 think is costs but when both installed what else really has to be changed i know its not as simple as strap on and go haah jsut wanted to know hwo it woudl be done?

wirralphil

see will pedleys thread. compond charging is what it is called.

thread here....

https://passionford.com/forum/restor...3-10-a-24.html

Conor Harrington

ohh isee isee dident know there was a name for it see learnt somethign new alread

creator

i think also alot to do with it is space in the engine bay.i think it might have been mike rainbird who said he tried to do it on a cossie yb but the size of the charger needed there was just not enough room for it in the bay. i might be wrong tho

pani_k

iTrader: (1)

There is little point in doing both since you can tick all the boxes by speccing an engine build around one form of forced induction so compound charging will be a complete waste of money. Items you can achieve with either a turbo or supercharger conversion.

Driveability- Check
Power- Check
Torque- Check
Response- Check

Items you could achieve with a compound charge conversion

Waste money- Check
Pub bragging rights- Check
Any better than a well built turbo or supercharger conversion- chec..errrrr......

Conor Harrington

ohh i see so having both woudlent always be the best then and yeah i coudl imagine space woudl play a vital part in it.
what would you all say is best super or turbo and what sort of gains woudl you be getting etc

johnandhissaffy

iTrader: (1)

supercharger is better 4 me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaROX2DsbB4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSluw...eature=related

johnandhissaffy

iTrader: (1)

and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGUMg...eature=related

fraser9764

iTrader: (3)

what a load of pish.
with just a turbo you generally end up with lag, or limited top end power. supercharging you get excellent drivability but not as much top end power.
compound charging gives the best of both worlds.
so you are saying the golf 1.4 tsi is just for pub bragging rights? 158 bhp out of a 1.4 with excellent drivablity and economy, sounds good to me.

Big Will_

Er really?

So you can get a 500bhp+ turbo spec 2.0, 16 valve, 4 cylinder engine to make 0.6bar of boost at 1000rpm??

pani_k

iTrader: (1)

Both forms offer a trade off. Supercharging lacks the top end and big mid range punch of a turbo and a turbo lacks anything low down and comes in strong around the mid range. I don't understand why both would be necessary on an engine certainly for the outlay to my mind it isn't financially and logically viable. Everyone with a 500bhp or even a 400bhp Cosworth or Zetec running a supercharger to help anything below 3000rpm? Thought not...

How many compound charged conversions are there on here or in fact anywhere out the in the tuning world vs straight up supercharging or turbocharging?

simon170

Just cos its harder to and costs more doesnt mean its not worth doing.

Look at my car for example.

Big Will_

Pani - i strongly suggest you have a look at Simon Norris's 1000bhp+ GT47 and M62 supercharged engine... It has MORE response and power through the low revs than a standard evo and goes on to make 1000bhp+

Or maybe the tuning boundaries shouldn't be pushed and explored?

You state that there aren't many Cosworth engines running compound charge setups - i actually know of 2 seperate people who are exploring the options at the moment!

As you say, both the supercharger and the turbocharger have inherit restrictions, combining them allows for an elimination of the downfalls!

conor.rst

iTrader: (3)

Turbo is the was forward :P and if you dont like turbo lag then get anti lag just have to put up with some pops and bangs ha!

pani_k

iTrader: (1)

I do understand your point with regards to turboing a 170 but you wouldn't have compound charged it would you if you were going for huge power for response because chances are you either wouldn't have the funds or it would not be worth the gain.

Somebody tell andrewg he did it wrong because he spent all that money and never supercharged it and Rod for that matter.

Conor Harrington

so confusing so say if money wasent an option would you all go for a compound then??
and also how much does each 1 cost etc ?

pani_k

iTrader: (1)

I understand what you are saying Will, but just proves my point. Two people out of how many running (thinking of) a compound charged setup. I come into you for a responsive 450-500bhp engine and state I want no lag, first thing that pops into your head is a compound charged setup. I can see merits for very high powered turbo vehicles but for what most people seem to be happy with, isn't really an issue is it.. 1000bhp+ as you stated.

pani_k

iTrader: (1)

Money no option then of course, why wouldn't you? Best of both worlds as said. Will should be able to give you a better low down of costs involved as he is actively doing so to his 170

Conor Harrington

yeah very true jsut wanted to see if there was people who think no matter what 1 is better then the other?

simon170

I was making a point, not saying I'm going to do it to mine.

Andrews car is a race car, so high revs only. Rods cars is a top speed car so bottom end is not needed.

For a street driven car, a compiund setup offers bottom end and high HP, making nice to drive without sacrificing top end power.

As Will Said, look at Simon Norris' car, using a GIGANTIC turbo that would give a tiny power band but huge peak power and supercharger to keep the car on power below the turbos boost thresh-hold, best of both worlds.

So right there you have expamples of how it can be advantageous in both street and race applications.
It might not be the best solution to all situations, but to say its pointless simply isnt true.

Rod-Tarry

My car is a road car not a Topspeed car. Its covered 106k miles & about 100 miles at Brunters. It makes full boost by 4.2k. If you were to look under my bonnet you would see why compound charging would be very difficult spacewise. Ive had the pleasure of owning both Turbo & Supercharged cars & with the twin scroll latest billet Turbos supercharging seems a bit pointless. However i would like to see it done in a big horsepower YB.

foreigneRS

so more torque from idle to 4.2k rpm would be pointless?

maybe not worth doing because of cost, packaging issues etc, but not pointless.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

For Rod's application its pointless is what he was saying, as it will just be an parasitic extra drain on the crank, he can already generating more power than his engine has the strength to handle if he wants using the turbo and nitrous so why would he want something that stops some of that power getting to the wheels by turning a charger instead?

I looked into compound charging my nova and decided the same thing that there was nowhere in the rev range I would particuarly want to use the extra power so no point in the extra weight and losses of having the charger too.

Depends what you want from a car, personally I quite like revving a car when im on track so I dont really care what power it makes at 3000rpm as im at more than that before Ive even left the pitlane and not below it for the whole session.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Depends on the application as to what the best solution is.

As for cost, you could easily sink 10K into trying and failing to do a decent job of compound charging your engine if you dont know what you are doing.

foreigneRS

i would personally find a road car to be nicer to drive at <4k rpm with more torque than not. whether it's worth the trouble is another matter, that's all i'm saying.

zetecdan

this was on ebay a while back, anyone here??
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/sierra_W0QQite...item45f17a5950

Mr Whippy

Compound charging