[Willy Mo]

its just too damn expensive to make it efficient enough to work well.

[Scott2001GT]

I just dont find a Eaton blower a very good turbo manifold

[Willy Mo]

thats what i mean, it would be too expensive to get a kenne bell or whipple to make it worth it.

[Scott2001GT]

I dont think any blower is a good manifold for a turbo car.

I'd love to see a D1sc feed a turbo or two on the compressor side.









(thinks to self...mmmmmmmmm)

[Willy Mo]

Originally Posted by Scott2001GT I dont think any blower is a good manifold for a turbo car. I'd love to see a D1sc feed a turbo or two on the compressor side. (thinks to self...mmmmmmmmm)

hmm idk how well that would work.

[Scott2001GT]

apparently diesel guys do it

[WickedSnake00]

Never said it was a great design. Plus it doesn't make too much sense for racing, but not based on performance. A compound boost setup uses lots of parts, and so you pay a considerable weight and reliability penalty. It also doesn't cater to the two extremes of torque and power. Plus it's very expensive. None of which would be favorable for racing per se.

It is a pretty novel design if you have the bills to shell out for it. It's not that different from compound turbo's, which are used fairly often in high horsepower applications. I'm not making an endorsement, just stating the facts the best I can.

Just like everything else, to each his own.

[Black Bullitt]

If I owned a Cobra I would do twins all the way and ditch the blower. Maybe you get a slight advantage out of both, but the end of the 1320 is where the difference is really going to show, IMO.

[stal94gt]

Originally Posted by WickedSnake00 It does have a lot to do with preference, as does any forced induction setup. And it isn't exactly a flat power curve. The difference is you'll see massive torque numbers down low, I've heard as high as in the 500+ ft-lb range as low as 2500rpm. That's just no comparison to what a TT setup would offer at that speed. At the same time the turbo is going to surpass this compound setup for power at higher engine speeds. It's a trade off. It's also fairly similar to a compound turbo setup, but a twin screw will provide a much more noticable change versus a small diameter turbo.

a whippled cobra puts down 600+ tq at 2500 rpm's. there is enough power to be had out of a big whipple or a set of twins to blow majority of motors. most people remove the sc to simplify tuning. it is a good concept but it lacks alot of the common sense. im not saying to not do it, but there is alot of head ache running a setup like that.

[Black Bullitt]

I agree...any type a boost leak would be a PITA to try to find for an example.

[WickedSnake00]

Originally Posted by stal94gt a whippled cobra puts down 600+ tq at 2500 rpm's. there is enough power to be had out of a big whipple or a set of twins to blow majority of motors. most people remove the sc to simplify tuning. it is a good concept but it lacks alot of the common sense. im not saying to not do it, but there is alot of head ache running a setup like that.

The torque numbers I referenced were with the rather anaemic Eaton M112, so naturally they will be lower.

And I agree 100% about the simplicity. Headache is an understatement regarding these setups. I've actually been talking to another engineer regarding mathematically modeling it on the 2.3 mustangs board, and it's complex to say the least.

That said I also think with a clutch and bypass arrangement you could see a downright frightening power and torque curve. These seem to be the arrangements favored by OEM's such as Mercedes and Cummins for compound boost. But this also adds to complexity. I'd love to build my concept, but that'll have to wait until I have a suitable test platform and considerable disposable income. If anything I'd run some tests first using a cheap beater. Just a thought.