a different way to get rid of boost lag?

[MainFrame]

LOL, drive my 18G 2L....

Funny enough, my 20g outspooled my vf22.. granted on a 2.5L, but still..

[zax]

I outspooled your mother last night Trebek

[SD_GR]

That would be bi-turbo I think. Twin turbo would imply turbos of the same size, which would both kick in at the same time, versus a bi-turbo setup with 2 different sizes. Not trying to be a jerk, just clarifying it up.

Except the Maserati Biturbo had two turbos the same size and predates this discussion by thirty years or so.

The "twin" vs. "bi" turbo really doesn't stand much scrutiny since different manufacturers use different terms, just like the "4WD" vs. "AWD" labels. The moment one thinks they've got it straight, there's an example of a major manufacturer that says and does just the opposite.

[Heide264]

The "twin" vs. "bi" turbo really doesn't stand much scrutiny since different manufacturers use different terms, just like the "4WD" vs. "AWD" labels. The moment one thinks they've got it straight, there's an example of a major manufacturer that says and does just the opposite.

Agreed SD.

Most of the literature I've read comments on the fact that the terms are loosely interchanged, despite some believing there is a "correct" or "incorrect" use of them. In my opinion, either "series" or "parallel" should be used to correctly identify the configuration. I personally would call both turbo configurations "twin turbo".

[RayfieldsWRX]

Yeah, I've always seen people discuss 2-turbo setups as being either "sequential" or "parallel", sequential being the setup where one spools early, and the other late.

[Heide264]

Yeah, I've always seen people discuss 2-turbo setups as being either "sequential" or "parallel", sequential being the setup where one spools early, and the other late.

Mm, yup, intended to say "sequential", not "series". My background seems to have gotten the better of me there.

[SD_GR]

Sequential vs. parallel does make more sense. "Series" vs. "sequential" will become conflicting though if/when people actually start implementing what they said they would back in the 80s: using one turbo to compress air into another (everything was going to be ceramic, of course... Right...). Still, we'll fall off that bridge when we get there I suppose.

[zax]

Sequential vs. parallel does make more sense

Agreed. I've always simply referred to the turbo arrangements as sequential or parallel bi-turbo. For example, the Mk4 Toyota Supra utilized a sequential bi-turbocharged arrangement, while the outgoing BMW 335i employed a parallel-biturbo arrangement.

[Heide264]

Sequential vs. parallel does make more sense. "Series" vs. "sequential" will become conflicting though if/when people actually start implementing what they said they would back in the 80s: using one turbo to compress air into another (everything was going to be ceramic, of course... Right...). Still, we'll fall off that bridge when we get there I suppose.

I believe that is common practice in some industrial (diesel) applications, where the system is not nearly as dynamic as a typical consumer engine (Generators with varying loads for example). I could be wrong, however. We had a guy that works on industrial turbos on this board I thought. I wonder if he is around any more.

Series was a brain fart on my end. Electrical background, not mechanical.

[SD_GR]

I believe that is common practice in some industrial (diesel) applications, where the system is not nearly as dynamic as a typical consumer engine (Generators with varying loads for example). I could be wrong, however. We had a guy that works on industrial turbos on this board I thought. I wonder if he is around any more.

Series was a brain fart on my end. Electrical background, not mechanical.

I don't think a car has used the setup but I could be wrong.

I like "series" too though and not just for turbos. Think of gearboxes for example.

[SD_GR]

I believe that is common practice in some industrial (diesel) applications, where the system is not nearly as dynamic as a typical consumer engine (Generators with varying loads for example). I could be wrong, however. We had a guy that works on industrial turbos on this board I thought. I wonder if he is around any more.

Series was a brain fart on my end. Electrical background, not mechanical.

I don't think a car has used the setup but I could be wrong.

I like "series" too though and not just for turbos. Think of gearboxes for example.

[RayfieldsWRX]

Series was a brain fart on my end. Electrical background, not mechanical.

Totally understandable! Allow me to induct you into our current conversation.

[SD_GR]

induct

Badabump! Heh... Induct...

[Heide264]

I don't think a car has used the setup but I could be wrong.

I like "series" too though and not just for turbos. Think of gearboxes for example.

I wouldn't expect a car to, unless it was an 18 wheeler or a vehicle that is intended to be driven over a small operating range.

The idea is more ideal when you start to look at very high pressures and very narrow operating ranges. You would not want this on a gasoline power car to say the least.

Totally understandable! Allow me to induct you into our current conversation.

I see what you did there

[mcdbrendan]

Sequential vs. parallel does make more sense. "Series" vs. "sequential" will become conflicting though if/when people actually start implementing what they said they would back in the 80s: using one turbo to compress air into another (everything was going to be ceramic, of course... Right...). Still, we'll fall off that bridge when we get there I suppose.

In my limited diesel experience, I've also heard this setup called a compound turbo setup.