3 ms·

Yeah, my initial reaction was "name an auto manufacturer who isn't betting its future on small, turbocharged engines. It's pretty much a necessity, and much to

Yeah, my initial reaction was "name an auto manufacturer who isn't betting its future on small, turbocharged engines. It's pretty much a necessity, and much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high-revving, naturally-aspirated engine). Volvo does appear to be distinguishing themselves though. Namely in the fact that they're coming to market with an e-booster (electric turbo). There are plenty of dual-inlet turbocharged engines on the market, and Mercedes pushed the envelope with their M133 engine found in their performance oriented version of the CLA, but no one, that I'm aware of, has brought an e-booster to market. There was quite a bit of speculation that BMW would use one on their latest M3, but instead they went with a dual-turbo setup and some cool electronic wastegate management software that improves spool-up time. The combo supercharger/turbochargers setup is crazy exciting though. The last car I can remember with that kind of setup was Lancia's group B rallye submission, the Delta S4. That car made, ostensibly, 480 HP from about 1.8L. In reality, the output was more in the area of 550 HP, and legend has it that engineers pushed the powerplant close to 1000 HP. Every auto manufacturer is staring down a future of emissions and fuel economy standards that are going to require some fundamental shifts in the way cars are built and powered. Most manufacturers are moving in the direction of hybrid technology. BMW is betting the farm on mass-produced carbon fiber technology. Everyone has a strategy, and most involve lower displacement, forced-induction engines, often coupled with hybrid drivetrain components.

rodgerd 12y ago
> It's pretty much a necessity, and much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high-revving, naturally-aspirated engine). Except for all the auto enthusiasts that Audi (ur-Quattro and almost all their performance cars since), Toyota (Celica GT-R, Supra), Nissan (Skyline GT-R), Subaru (pretty much everything), court, or who remember the era of 1000 HP Formula 1 cars fondly. But yeah, I guess all automotive enthusiasts.
- bradleyland 12y ago
  Uh, I never said "all", I said automobile enthusiasts, then added the qualification of the ones who prefer N/A engines using parenthesis. Although, I see that my wording could be taken both ways. I didn't mean for the word everywhere to mean "all", I just mean that there are enthusiasts in just about every circle of automobile culture who prefer N/A motors. Just look at all the "all motor" import tuners. There's an "all motor" group in every sub-group.
sliverstorm 12y ago
A "twincharger" (super+turbo) is notable for different reasons than you suggest. A turbo can hit stupid peak power numbers all by itself. The addition of the supercharger to the turbo dramatically improves low RPM power and often peak torque as well. In doing so, it also makes a larger turbo more practical as it reduces the problem of "turbo lag" (wherein a large turbo paired with a small engine doesn't engage until very high RPM) Race engines, of course, often aren't quite as worried about turbo lag because many cars spend their entire time at peak power.
- bradleyland 12y ago
  Yeah, I didn't mean to use the output of the Delta S4 as a statement of intent for the system. In fact, the purpose of the supercharger on the S4 was the same as is mentioned here (by you) and in the article. All group B cars suffered from sever turbo lag, and the combo setup on the S4 was considered a significant advantage for Lancia.
bradleyland 12y ago
Another interesting technology that we see in racing (F1), but haven't yet seen in a road car (although we probably will) is driving the turbo directly with recovered electrical energy. Volvo is driving a third turbine, which works, but it's not as efficient as simply spinning the turbine directly with an electrical motor assist. The reason they don't do this is that exhaust powered turbochargers are a real motherfucker of an environment. Excuse the language, but they really are. A turbocharger glows red-hot when generating boost. Putting an electric motor anywhere near them requires lots of advanced materials science and engineering. A turbocharger has two main parts: a turbine that is powered by exhaust energy, and a compressor that pressurizes the intake manifold. Volumetrically, these two are separate. They are connected mechanically by a shaft that runs between the turbine and the compressor. This shaft is, traditionally, only a few inches long, and has some pretty sophisticated lubrication systems. Mercedes went all crazy with their F1 engine and spaced the turbine and compressor apart. Way apart. On opposite ends of the engine apart. This is crazy when you consider how fast a turbo spins. It's not unusual for them to exceed 100,000 RPM. The shaft must be lubricated and extremely well balanced. The benefit of this arrangement is that the compressor is not exposed to the heat of the turbine. As I alluded to earlier, the KERS system in an F1 car can drive the turbocharger directly using electrical energy that is recovered during braking. Spacing the turbine away from the compressor affords the perfect opportunity to save the life of your electrical motor that drives said turbo. The hope is (and it always is) that this technology will trickle down to road cars. Volvo appears to be taking the first step, albeit with a compromise.

rodgerd 12y ago

> It's pretty much a necessity, and much to the lament of automobile enthusiasts everywhere (who prefer a high-revving, naturally-aspirated engine). Except for all the auto enthusiasts that Audi (ur-Quattro and almost all their performance cars since), Toyota (Celica GT-R, Supra), Nissan (Skyline GT-R), Subaru (pretty much everything), court, or who remember the era of 1000 HP Formula 1 cars fondly. But yeah, I guess all automotive enthusiasts.

bradleyland 12y ago
Uh, I never said "all", I said automobile enthusiasts, then added the qualification of the ones who prefer N/A engines using parenthesis. Although, I see that my wording could be taken both ways. I didn't mean for the word everywhere to mean "all", I just mean that there are enthusiasts in just about every circle of automobile culture who prefer N/A motors. Just look at all the "all motor" import tuners. There's an "all motor" group in every sub-group.

sliverstorm 12y ago

A "twincharger" (super+turbo) is notable for different reasons than you suggest. A turbo can hit stupid peak power numbers all by itself. The addition of the supercharger to the turbo dramatically improves low RPM power and often peak torque as well. In doing so, it also makes a larger turbo more practical as it reduces the problem of "turbo lag" (wherein a large turbo paired with a small engine doesn't engage until very high RPM) Race engines, of course, often aren't quite as worried about turbo lag because many cars spend their entire time at peak power.

bradleyland 12y ago
Yeah, I didn't mean to use the output of the Delta S4 as a statement of intent for the system. In fact, the purpose of the supercharger on the S4 was the same as is mentioned here (by you) and in the article. All group B cars suffered from sever turbo lag, and the combo setup on the S4 was considered a significant advantage for Lancia.

bradleyland 12y ago

Another interesting technology that we see in racing (F1), but haven't yet seen in a road car (although we probably will) is driving the turbo directly with recovered electrical energy. Volvo is driving a third turbine, which works, but it's not as efficient as simply spinning the turbine directly with an electrical motor assist. The reason they don't do this is that exhaust powered turbochargers are a real motherfucker of an environment. Excuse the language, but they really are. A turbocharger glows red-hot when generating boost. Putting an electric motor anywhere near them requires lots of advanced materials science and engineering. A turbocharger has two main parts: a turbine that is powered by exhaust energy, and a compressor that pressurizes the intake manifold. Volumetrically, these two are separate. They are connected mechanically by a shaft that runs between the turbine and the compressor. This shaft is, traditionally, only a few inches long, and has some pretty sophisticated lubrication systems. Mercedes went all crazy with their F1 engine and spaced the turbine and compressor apart. Way apart. On opposite ends of the engine apart. This is crazy when you consider how fast a turbo spins. It's not unusual for them to exceed 100,000 RPM. The shaft must be lubricated and extremely well balanced. The benefit of this arrangement is that the compressor is not exposed to the heat of the turbine. As I alluded to earlier, the KERS system in an F1 car can drive the turbocharger directly using electrical energy that is recovered during braking. Spacing the turbine away from the compressor affords the perfect opportunity to save the life of your electrical motor that drives said turbo. The hope is (and it always is) that this technology will trickle down to road cars. Volvo appears to be taking the first step, albeit with a compromise.