VanDyne Super Turbo

**dahoseman** · #1: 05-21-2013, 12:02 AM

I've been waiting for something like this design for a long time. It has the benefits of twin charging in a single unit. No lag. Power from idle.

Technical Explanation of the VanDyne SuperTurbo - YouTube

**LegacyDan** · #2: 05-21-2013, 01:06 AM

pretty popular on lots of german and vw models already

**Beanboy** · #3: 05-21-2013, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegacyDan

pretty popular on lots of german and vw models already

Nobody is transferring power back to the engine mechanically via the supercharger CVT like this system though.

This is closer to the electric turbocharger idea from BMW where an electric motor helps spin up the turbine and then is used to slow it down (no traditional wastegate) sending electricity back to a battery pack/capacitor.

**MatsuDano** · #4: 05-21-2013, 06:05 AM

was...

was that...

Al Gore narrating that?

zzzzzzzzzzz...

**dahoseman** · #5: 05-22-2013, 02:10 AM

I'm not even concerned with the regenerative power part. I like the supercharger with turbocharger component. For any smaller engine that lacks low-end torque, supercharging adds great drivability (like a VW Corrado, Small engine Mercedes, or Toyota Lumina Minivan). For any larger high-torque engines that already have low-end grunt, turbocharging is fantastic to add HP to the grunt torque (Dump trucks, Diesel trucks, Hennessy V10's)

I love a coffee-table torque curve. If a FAI system can produce boost at idle and continue that same boost to redline, I am quite interested.

**GEE-OTTO** · #6: 05-22-2013, 09:01 AM

Kinda like a useful version of Subaru Bi-Turbo setup

**wurkenman** · #7: 05-25-2013, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatsuDano

was...

was that...

Al Gore narrating that?

zzzzzzzzzzz...

Come on people, I'm super serial !!!!

**StoplightAssassin** · #8: 05-25-2013, 08:36 AM

It looks like they're adding a lot of complexity, maintenance, and cost by using a system like this.

Recent turbo engines with direct injection have hardly any lag at all. Look at GM's new LTG engine. The twin scroll turbo is integrated into the manifold. Peak torque is available from 1500 to 5500 rpm.

Excelsior!

**dahoseman** · #9: 05-26-2013, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StoplightAssassin

It looks like they're adding a lot of complexity, maintenance, and cost by using a system like this.

Recent turbo engines with direct injection have hardly any lag at all. Look at GM's new LTG engine. The twin scroll turbo is integrated into the manifold. Peak torque is available from 1500 to 5500 rpm.

Excelsior!

True for the most part. I do love direct injection and not sure why Subaru hasn't been on it for a while (like Mazda's Speed3 and Speed6). I'm still quite confused as to why it hasn't been on nearly every car for many years, considering it is actually a relatively 'old' technology whose benefits were realized when the Model T was modern technology and was refined even before computers were common.

To play devil's advocate, direct injection is great for what we colloquially call "lag", but is no substitute for having 3-5PSI right off of idle. Combining the two would be fantastic.

**iNVAR** · #**10:** 05-29-2013, 05:34 PM

Quote:

For any smaller engine that lacks low-end torque, supercharging adds great drivability

Err... I always thought that a small engine with little low-end torque is hurt by a supercharger at the low end... A supercharger is a direct parasitic mechanical load on the crank.

**boostedgrocerygetter** · #**11:** 05-29-2013, 06:10 PM

It would nice if you could get this set up on our motors but I don't see to much room for it.

As far as direct injection. Just a guess but it probably hasn't been to popular because of how dirty it allows the intake valves to get since you don't have to injectors to help clean them with fuel. Not sure about any of you but I wouldn't want to tear down one of our motors to walnut blast the intake valves.

**K2e2vin** · #**12:** 05-29-2013, 07:19 PM

I don't know, I kind of think of it as more of a compromise between a turbo and twin-charge setup. Main reason being even though a (roots) supercharger doesn't have the peak efficiency of a turbo, it's more efficient over a wider area(a lot of guys prefer roots/screw SCs over centrifugal already). Though, of course this very much depends on the CVT/gearing and compressor choice. The transmission itself can be a source of more drag that reduces efficiency(I'd be curious about cooling too).

Also, the regeneration properties seem like a waste too since the turbine acting directly with the engine could also be a source of drag(friction) and backpressure. I'd imagine a properly sized turbo would work better and I honestly like BMW's idea better since it's using "wasted" energy converted into a storable(is that even a word?) form of energy.

Maybe if the somehow simplify everything, I'd be more conviced...but I think it's hard to beat a properly sized turbo. There's ways to set them up for economy, or power, or a combination of both!

If you want to twin charge your Subaru...check out the SC from Innovate for the BRZ/FR-S...half-way there?:

**dahoseman** · #**13:** 06-06-2013, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iNVAR

Err... I always thought that a small engine with little low-end torque is hurt by a supercharger at the low end... A supercharger is a direct parasitic mechanical load on the crank.

A supercharger is parasitic at all rpms, but it produces more power than it requires to operate. It is also NOT equivalent (typically) to think of it as a belt driven turbo that builds boost after a lull of low rpm parasitical drain on power. Most superchargers have their greatest charging effects in low RPMs. There isn't a normal manifold vacuum on supercharged vehicles. As long as it's spinning, it's producing more power than it requires to run (except at initial start). I can't speak for other people's experiences, but I've driven several different small displacement supercharged vehicles (Several VW Corrado G60's and a Toyota Previa) as well as their normally aspirated counterparts.

The 1.8L corrado with the G-charger definitely had more power than the NA 1.8L engine or 2.0L (on other models) at 1000rpm when letting the clutch out.

Toyota actually dropped the NA engine option in favor of S/C on their 90's previa minivans because the supercharged version produced much better torque at the same fuel economy. I know people want to argue the parasitic model (it's true, but does not account for combustion, friction, and other variables in fuel consumption), but I've seen more than one vehicle stay at the same fuel consumption or actually improve fuel economy with mild supercharging. I can't give great explanations of why, but I'm just aware that it happens. Just look at the government EPA ratings on production cars.

1995 Toyota Previa NA with 135hp vs 1995 Toyota Previa S/C with 160hp. The supercharged engine actually gets 1mpg better on the highway.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find....12385&id=12386

Anyway, I'm clearly biased. I like superchargers on gasoline engines for real world driving. I rarely drive in the screaming high rpm in normal driving and I like to accelerate from stop signs and have grunt to get up a hill without shifting.