Remote Turbo's?

[Pedro_The_Swift]

""SEMA 2008: STS Twin Turbo C6 Corvette a matte monster


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2008/11/656.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/sema-2008-sts-twin-turbo-c6-covette/)

Click above for a high-res gallery of the STS C6 Z06


The Squires Turbo Systems (http://www.ststurbo.com/home) twin-turbo C6 Z06 gives the former most-powerful Vette model a boost to 700 horsepower at a very reasonable 7 pounds of boost, which, depending on how sorted the Bilstein-shocked suspension is, could give it a good shot at sticking with a stock ZR-1. The most unique thing about this car is that STS mounts the turbos remotely, at the rear of the car. That placement keeps the engine bay freer and adds a host of technical perks like lower temps under the hood and cooler oil going to the turbo. And according to STS, some customers have even gotten better gas mileage. Strangely, though, for all of that new performance, the brakes look untouched. Check it out in the gallery of high-res photos below."



What are the Pro's and Cons of remote turbo's??

[Psimpson7]

I would say going back to my turbo petrol cars, the exhaust gas speed would be much lower by the rear of the exhaust. The turbo is spun by exhasut gasses and the slower they are, the slower the turbo will spin. 7psi is pretty low though, and when its strapped to a 7litre v8 it may not be such an issue.

Bearing in mind we got 30bhp, and much quicker pick up from just swapping from the cast manifold to an equal length tubular on my Integrale.

The other basic engineering issues I can think of include, the water cooling, and the oil feed for them.

The really long inlet tract may not be such an issue as things like the WRC mistshubishi evo rally cars have very long piping to the tintercooler and so on.

advantages as they say would be lower under bonnet temperatures.

an interesting, but strange idea in my opinion.

[stirlsilver]

I would say the only benefit is a less cluttered engine bay.

The drawbacks would be that you loose energy everywhere. Heat is lost in the exhaust piping from the engine to the turbo which means that less energy is delivered to it because as the gas cools, it becomes more dense and therefore you have a lower gas velocity. After that, you loose energy in all the high pressure inake piping that is needed to get the compressed air back to the front. Also, you need to have looong oil lines from the engine to the turbos, unless they have their own independent oil system.

And I would suppose that the tubros will talke a little longer to warm up (not 100% sure if it would be noticeable) due to slightly cooler exhaust gas and there being a lot of oil in the system.

[George130]

This is fairly comon. Needs less space in the engine bay so you can fit bigger turbo's. Turbos don't get as hot so can last longer and don't cook the engine bay.
Down side as I can see it is less pressure so less boost and as said seperate oil system or very long oil lines. You would also expect quite a bit of lag.

[clean32]

This is fairly comon. Needs less space in the engine bay so you can fit bigger turbo's. Turbos don't get as hot so can last longer and don't cook the engine bay.
Down side as I can see it is less pressure so less boost and as said seperate oil system or very long oil lines. You would also expect quite a bit of lag.

Bang on,

Only thing is as the Gas cools its Volume decreases. But mass will not. As it is it quite difficult to convert velocity into pressure, and centrifugal turbines are far from the best at doing this ( as are tunnel rams etc) maybe remote turbo will lead to coaxcel units. Boosted at 30+ bar anyone?

possibly a free flowing manifold may negate some of the lag issues, the long return pipe work I would imagine could remove the need for a intercooler.

As an idea may be mounting a turbo in\on the winch bar? Or may be the roof? or maybe not. At least I could keep my Air con

[andrew e]

I have a couple of turbos that i will be doing similar to my Defender buggy. The motor is already 1/2 a metre further back than normal, and the turbos will sit just behind the ute cab, so the run wont be as long as that Vette.

There is a great site which explains all about how to do it on the cheap junkyard turbos or somthing, it is a really good read and has a breakdown on the costs and power increase figures.

Andy

[mcrover]

You have to look at it as you fit a turbo that is suited to the job at hand.

You need to make 7PsI not 20 so you would build turbos which would do that with the exaust air flow you have.

The other advantages........your golf clubs are nice and warm when you take them from the boot and you have a good reason why not to buy icecream for the kids when you go shopping....:o

Just another gimick so people have something else to say their car has...."Oh yeah well mine has remote turbo's....Ha"....

It's just a big engine and little boost but I dare say would kick **** pretty well :p

[Bigbjorn]

Have a look at photos of Lockheed P38 Lightnings. The turbos are mounted well down the booms from the Allisons. These were designed in 1938.

[Bush65]

I'm concerned about thermal shock on water crossings with some recent model 4x4 that mount the turbo low in the engine bay. That would also concern me with remote mounts when low.

[mcrover]

I'm concerned about thermal shock on water crossings with some recent model 4x4 that mount the turbo low in the engine bay. That would also concern me with remote mounts when low.

Ummmmm, it's on a Corvette, I doubt it will be doing many water crossings, probably wouldnt even get used in the rain :p

[clean32]

Have a look at photos of Lockheed P38 Lightnings. The turbos are mounted well down the booms from the Allisons. These were designed in 1938.

Um yes but there tubos feed into a centrafugal super charger that was on the back of the motor. and was only any use at altatude.

[pop058]

a couple of years ago (or more) I read and article in a "fast 4's & rotaries" type mag and someone remoted a turbo right down the back of a japanese van (Hiace or similar). not a huge amount of boost as I recall, but no need for intercooler, oil cooler and got rid of the heat from the cramped area between the seats where the motor sits. I thought it was a great idea at the time as was a very easy retro fit

[Bigbjorn]

Um yes but there tubos feed into a centrafugal super charger that was on the back of the motor. and was only any use at altatude.

That was the whole point of supercharging aircraft piston engines, to maintain performance at altitude.The Allisons on P38's were fed through intercoolers between the turbos and the centrifugal blower.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

HIJACK!:D

Hey Brian,,, any chance of a FLOW chart of your previous post?:angel:

[clean32]

On topic

any of the turbo gurus have a Air Mass temp chart thay could post ?

7 psi cold is a lot more than 14 hot ( or could be) a good possable selling point for remote turbos?

[stirlsilver]

Bang on,

Only thing is as the Gas cools its Volume decreases. But mass will not. As it is it quite difficult to convert velocity into pressure, and centrifugal turbines are far from the best at doing this ( as are tunnel rams etc) maybe remote turbo will lead to coaxcel units. Boosted at 30+ bar anyone?

possibly a free flowing manifold may negate some of the lag issues, the long return pipe work I would imagine could remove the need for a intercooler.

As an idea may be mounting a turbo in\on the winch bar? Or may be the roof? or maybe not. At least I could keep my Air con

While you still do have the same mass flow rate, the cooling of the exhaust gas means that you have lost both kinetic energy and internal energy.

The energy of a flow consists of kinetic energy, internal and potential energy. Obviously the kinetic energy comes from the velocity of the flow, the internal energy from the temperature and pressure of the gas and the potential energy from altitude that it is at.

The pressure of a gas is proportional to its temperature, so having a gas cool means you are loosing internal energy, also the density of a gas is inversely proportional to its temperature so again, as it cools its volume reduces and the velocity of the flow reduces so a loss of kinetic energy also results.

The amount of energy you can get out of a turbo really depends on how much energy is being delivered to it in the exhaust gas, so really you want the turbo as close to the engine as possible to reduce the amount of heat that is lost through the pipes.

If you were ever to measure the temperature and pressure of a flow going in and out of the turbine side of the turbo you will find that the gas going in is at a much higher temperature and pressure than the gas going out. The difference in these values can be used to know how much shaft power is being delivered to to the compressor.

Sooo... just to sum up, if you fit a turbo a long way from the engine, insulate the pipes... or don't do it.

Sorry for the spiel on thermal dynamics there, I just figured I better elaborate on it a little more for those interested.

[clean32]

[QUOTE=stirlsilver;848795]

The pressure of a gas is proportional to its temperature, so having a gas cool means you are loosing potential energy, also the density of a gas is inversely proportional to its temperature so again, as it cools its volume reduces and the velocity of the flow reduces so a loss of kinetic energy also results.
QUOTE]

ok but as the Gas cools it slows down, but the total mass passing any given point is still the same.


[QUOTE=stirlsilver;848795]

The amount of energy you can get out of a turbo really depends on how much energy is being delivered to it in the exhaust gas, so really you want the turbo as close to the engine as possible to reduce the amount of heat that is lost through the pipes.

QUOTE]

closer to the outlet just meens there is less pipe or volume to get up to pressur before the turbo begins to spin.

we realy need to get a chart up, it sort of exsplanes where the energy is.

but as i posted before, 7 psi could = 14psi cold, thats why we have intercoolers.

[Bigbjorn]

I suspect the reason the hair dryers are rear mounted is that there is insufficient room under the bonnet. Most of these modern jiggers have barely enough space left under the bonnet to get a feeler gauge in.

[stirlsilver]

ok but as the Gas cools it slows down, but the total mass passing any given point is still the same.

At the end of the day, there is more energy going in the exhaust system at one end (from the engine) than what is going out (into the turbo) because there is energy losses in the pipe. Without going through the thermal dynamic equations to show this, the energy content in the exhaust gas reduces as it goes along a pipe because you have heat being radiated/convected out into the atmosphere. This energy that is lost is now no longer in the gas and as a result, less energy is being delivered to the turbo for it to produce shaft power for the compressor.



closer to the outlet just meens there is less pipe or volume to get up to pressur before the turbo begins to spin.

we realy need to get a chart up, it sort of exsplanes where the energy is.

but as i posted before, 7 psi could = 14psi cold, thats why we have intercoolers.

Perhaps having some length between the engine and the turbo is beneficial, since the exhaust gas is delivered in pulses rather than a continuous flow, but i'm really not sure here. But from a thermal dynamics stand point, less pipe the better.

I would be interested to see this chart actually. And you are probably right, depending on what temperatures hot or cold are, the cold gas at 7psi could be denser than the hot gas at 14psi.


By the way, I'm not intending to take stabs at you here or anything, I just enjoy these sorts of discussions :)

[Bush65]

...

closer to the outlet just meens there is less pipe or volume to get up to pressur before the turbo begins to spin.

...
Err no. Short pipes between head and turbo are much better, because the pressure is not adversely affected by reflection of pressure pulses like long pipes are.

[clean32]

Err no. Short pipes between head and turbo are much better, because the pressure is not adversely affected by reflection of pressure pulses like long pipes are.

But a sonic pulse will not spin a turbo.
A correctly designed long pipe system will use the pulse to make suck Or scavenging. IE why are extractors called extractors

[clean32]

At the end of the day, there is more energy going in the exhaust system at one end (from the engine) than what is going out (into the turbo) because there is energy losses in the pipe. Without going through the thermal dynamic equations to show this, the energy content in the exhaust gas reduces as it goes along a pipe because you have heat being radiated/convected out into the atmosphere. This energy that is lost is now no longer in the gas and as a result, less energy is being delivered to the turbo for it to produce shaft power for the compressor.:)

Correct, but only if you are talking about a positive displacement pump.
with a turbine and more so with a centrifugal turbine ( key word centrifugal) Mass is the motivator, energy is Mass X velocity.

Add heat and you get much more velocity but less Mass per volume.

Have a look at Jet engines and why they have moved away from centrifugal to Coaxial.





Perhaps having some length between the engine and the turbo is beneficial, since the exhaust gas is delivered in pulses rather than a continuous flow, but i'm really not sure here. But from a thermal dynamics stand point, less pipe the better.:)

You could even use the sonic pulses to speed up the Velocity, or to smooth out the gas pulses or us the gas pulses to scavenge, not of which is an option with close mounting a turbo. Infact a close mounted turbo instantly will decrease the efficiency of a IC but the benefits of boost exceed this loss.


I would be interested to see this chart actually. And you are probably right, depending on what temperatures hot or cold are, the cold gas at 7psi could be denser than the hot gas at 14psi.:)

I haven’t seen one for years, now days I work with water mainly. Had a quick Google with no luck.
if I remember correctly the most efficient expansion for energy used was only about 380 deg C to double the expansion you needed to go to 1200 deg C i think?




By the way, I'm not intending to take stabs at you here or anything, I just enjoy these sorts of discussions :)

Same here, I understand completely what you are saying, i just have a different understanding of the application. Having said all that if i was to mount a turbo on the rear bar of the county i suspect i would be quite disappointed. The R&D is massive

[clean32]

Temperature
- t -
(oC) Density
- ρ -
(kg/m3) Specific heat capacity
- cp -
(kJ/kg K) Thermal conductivity
- l -
(W/m K) Kinematic viscosity
- ν -
(m2/s) x 10-6 Expansion coefficient
- b -
(1/K) x 10-3 Prandtl's number
- Pr -
-150 2.793 1.026 0.0116 3.08 8.21 0.76
-100 1.980 1.009 0.0160 5.95 5.82 0.74
-50 1.534 1.005 0.0204 9.55 4.51 0.725
0 1.293 1.005 0.0243 13.30 3.67 0.715
20 1.205 1.005 0.0257 15.11 3.43 0.713
40 1.127 1.005 0.0271 16.97 3.20 0.711
60 1.067 1.009 0.0285 18.90 3.00 0.709
80 1.000 1.009 0.0299 20.94 2.83 0.708
100 0.946 1.009 0.0314 23.06 2.68 0.703
120 0.898 1.013 0.0328 25.23 2.55 0.70
140 0.854 1.013 0.0343 27.55 2.43 0.695
160 0.815 1.017 0.0358 29.85 2.32 0.69
180 0.779 1.022 0.0372 32.29 2.21 0.69
200 0.746 1.026 0.0386 34.63 2.11 0.685
250 0.675 1.034 0.0421 41.17 1.91 0.68
300 0.616 1.047 0.0454 47.85 1.75 0.68
350 0.566 1.055 0.0485 55.05 1.61 0.68
400 0.524 1.068 0.0515 62.53 1.49 0.68

[PAT303]

Were do you mount the airbox and how do you run 16' of 1 1/2 pipe underneath a defender?.How much lag will you have after dumping 18' of exhaust gas then getting back on the throttle?. Pat

[stirlsilver]

Correct, but only if you are talking about a positive displacement pump.
with a turbine and more so with a centrifugal turbine ( key word centrifugal) Mass is the motivator, energy is Mass X velocity.

Add heat and you get much more velocity but less Mass per volume.

Have a look at Jet engines and why they have moved away from centrifugal to Coaxial.

Sure, Mass x velocity is the rate at which work is being done (watts, hp, kW etc). But as far as I understand it, mass is just a means of transporting energy from one point to the other. You say that mass flow rate is that does the work in turning the turbine, sure I agree with that. But, you don't have any mass flow without a pressure differential to move it in the pipe.

I suppose you are taking the view that the engine has to do some work move exhaust gas out into the exhaust system and through the turbo, and regardless of the temperature of the gas that mass needs to go past the turbo, but what moves this mass is the fact that gas wants to go from a high pressure zone to a low pressure zone and these pressures change depending on temperature.

Say you had two balloons hooked to a small turbine which you could extract some energy from and measure, If both balloons were inflated with the same amount of mass (x kilograms of air) at the same temperature. And you then heated one balloon and cooled the other. You would phycially see the cold balloon reduce in size and the hot balloon increase in size, if you then vented these balloons through the turbine and measured the amount of work done I would expect to see that more work is done by the hot balloon than the cold one despite the fact that they both have the same mass of air stored within them.

Also with the centrifugal and coaxial in jet engines, i'm assuming you are talking about a compressor here and not a turbine? I can't think of any gas turbine engines that use a centrifugal turbine?... and I did aeronautical engineering so this is rather suprising. I know that centrifugal compressors are good at achieving high compression in a single stage, but they aren't very efficient which is why they have gone to multistage coaxial compressors... but no idea as a turbine.

[clean32]

i suspect i would be quite disappointed. The R&D is massive


Were do you mount the airbox and how do you run 16' of 1 1/2 pipe underneath a defender?.How much lag will you have after dumping 18' of exhaust gas then getting back on the throttle?. Pat

Mate must be getting late

[clean32]

Sure, Mass x velocity is the rate at which work is being done (watts, hp, kW etc). But as far as I understand it, mass is just a means of transporting energy from one point to the other. You say that mass flow rate is that does the work in turning the turbine, sure I agree with that. But, you don't have any mass flow without a pressure differential to move it in the pipe..

Correct,, turn it the othere way around energy moves mass.


I suppose you are taking the view that the engine has to do some work move exhaust gas out into the exhaust system and through the turbo, and regardless of the temperature of the gas that mass needs to go past the turbo, but what moves this mass is the fact that gas wants to go from a high pressure zone to a low pressure zone and these pressures change depending on temperature..

correct, regardless of temperature


Say you had two balloons hooked to a small turbine which you could extract some energy from and measure, If both balloons were inflated with the same amount of mass (x kilograms of air) at the same temperature. And you then heated one balloon and cooled the other. You would phycially see the cold balloon reduce in size and the hot balloon increase in size, if you then vented these balloons through the turbine and measured the amount of work done I would expect to see that more work is done by the hot balloon than the cold one despite the fact that they both have the same mass of air stored within them.

along as you didn’t cool the balloon down to where the internal pressure was = or less than ambient. AND each turbine was designed for each different application, the energy measured would be the same.

Amazing aye

[stirlsilver]

along as you didn’t cool the balloon down to where the internal pressure was = or less than ambient. AND each turbine was designed for each different application, the energy measured would be the same.

Amazing aye

you are going to have to explain that one to me. Bit of a thread hijack... but it is still sorta relevant.

Also, see above, I made a comment on the centrifugal turbines which you may have missed as I edited my post afterwards.

[clean32]

Also with the centrifugal and coaxial in jet engines, i'm assuming you are talking about a compressor here and not a turbine? I can't think of any gas turbine engines that use a centrifugal turbine?... and I did aeronautical engineering so this is rather suprising. I know that centrifugal compressors are good at achieving high compression in a single stage, but they aren't very efficient which is why they have gone to multistage coaxial compressors... but no idea as a turbine.

Centrifugal compressors are not good at achieving high compression, that’s why they went to muilty stage centrifugal compressors, and then on to mulity stage coaxial, and to believe that they have compression ratios of over 35:1 and a bypass of 45:1 what would Whittle be thinking now ( probably Dam Germans he was on the wrong track)

A centrifugal turbine was dropped really early on, about the same time as muilty cans got joined together.

[clean32]

you are going to have to explain that one to me. Bit of a thread hijack... but it is still sorta relevant.

Also, see above, I made a comment on the centrifugal turbines which you may have missed as I edited my post afterwards.

OK take your two balloons, same mass different temperature, ( but both have internal pressures above ambient.

fit a smaller outlet to the cooler balloon, and you would get the same velocity for the same period of time as the wormer balloon.

so Mass X velocity would be the same


Hijack, nope on topic, I think this remote turbo is worth exploring, I can see the benefits but also a heap of down side as well.

Ill do some math’s in a minute

[stirlsilver]

OK take your two balloons, same mass different temperature, ( but both have internal pressures above ambient).

fit a smaller outlet to the cooler balloon, and you would get the same velocity for the same period of time as the wormer balloon.


Say we extend this to the limit. What if we cooled the cold balloon to the point were the gas inside it is the same pressure as the atmosphere. You hook up the little turbine and you measure zero energy.

So hot balloon produces X Joules of energy, cold balloon produces zero Joules of energy. A third baloon with same mass of air etc. somewhere between the hot and cold balloon temperatures would be Y joules of energy.

So from this, I think it is safe to say that X is greater than Y is greater than 0.

[andrew e]

you people think too much. Just bolt a turbo on your car and see what happens, who cares about the theory behind it.

[beforethevision]

Say we extend this to the limit. What if we cooled the cold balloon to the point were the gas inside it is the same pressure as the atmosphere. You hook up the little turbine and you measure zero energy.

So hot balloon produces X Joules of energy, cold balloon produces zero Joules of energy. A third baloon with same mass of air etc. somewhere between the hot and cold balloon temperatures would be Y joules of energy.

So from this, I think it is safe to say that X is greater than Y is greater than 0.

I just wanna make mention that the baloon example is flawed. You are measuring the energy stored in the baloon. A baloon full of hot air is stretched further, and has more energy stored. Exhaust pipe is not elastic.

An engine pumps the same amount of exhaust gas (mass) out constantly. Without resistance, the mass throughput at any time is the same. With resistance, it will level out to be the same throughput, but dynamic characteristics may result in a delay while the smaller volume cold air can build pressure. Hot air will occupy more volume and build pressure faster. Flow over a resistance is based largely on pressure differential, and a number of less significant factoes like density etc...

Remote turbos to me sounds like potentially tragic lag. I usppose a 7L v8 isnt poor to start tho. If the throttle bodies are close or direct to head, it would reduce the plenum volume in vacuum, but there is still a lot of volume in lines to fill.

Cheers!

[scrambler]

What I thinks y'all fighten about is different applications of the same basic rules - i.e. transfer of energy by mass. E.g. one ton of water following over a waterfall can be made to do the same amount of work whether falling in 1 minute, one hour or one year - it will just take the minute, hour or year to do the work. BUT the water will do more work if the height of the waterfall is greater. I.e. the pressure (or in my example, height of the waterfall) makes a difference, not just the mas involved. Otherwise cars hitting each other at 10kph would do exactly the same amount of damage as cars at 100kph - they have the same mass after all.

The other cause for confusion here is that the exhaust gas is not pushing out the exhaust pipe against nothing (vacuum) but against air pressure, so reduction in pressure before the turbo DOES impact the efficiency of the turbo, equivalent to decreasing the height of the waterfall. Of course, the arguements for resistance etc apply whether the turbo has an additional pressure gradient before or after it, but the flow rate has a large impact on the resistance of the pipe. For the "mass mover" theorists, remember that there's a fairly large mass of air outside the motor which would press in if given the chance, e.g. the air "drawn in" by the turbo is actually pushed in by air pressure.

[stirlsilver]

I'll admit this has dragged on a bit, but it's interesting stuff... well, for me anyway. And it's always fun to have a good juicy debate.

[rovercare]

you people think too much. Just bolt a turbo on your car and see what happens, who cares about the theory behind it.

:DHow many of those argueing "theory" about turbocharging have done it?:p

[PAT303]

I was waiting for you to have a dig rovercare.I think the part about 7ltr V8 might mask alot of the problems such as lag etc.I would be nice to have the money to try out a couple of theorys though. Pat

[clean32]

why is there a thums down on my post? i didnt put it there

[clean32]

:DHow many of those argueing "theory" about turbocharging have done it?:p

Turbo, super, Nos,

still like to do old school things like 180HP Vivia ( doing the lotus thing)

currnetly have an isusu to start

[Bigbjorn]

:DHow many of those argueing "theory" about turbocharging have done it?:p

All of the above. Main problem is owners with high expectations, long pockets, and poor recall of advice and recommendations. Pressure charging engines not designed to be so, is a complex frustrating business. Spend enough time and money and progress can be made but not always to the expectations or needs of the owner. The gear was usually brought to me to fit or fix something bought or started by someone else. Most common are the owners who think bunging a blower or hairdryer on their 10yo supermarket trolley will make it into a supercar. Does not happen!!! For a street car, a blower that puffs max. 8psi over atmospheric will give good low speed torque without too many problems. If you want to get and use 16psi boost then expect big bills and problems. I am speaking of petrol engines.

[clean32]

All of the above. Main problem is owners with high expectations, long pockets, and poor recall of advice and recommendations. Pressure charging engines not designed to be so, is a complex frustrating business. Spend enough time and money and progress can be made but not always to the expectations or needs of the owner. The gear was usually brought to me to fit or fix something bought or started by someone else. Most common are the owners who think bunging a blower or hairdryer on their 10yo supermarket trolley will make it into a supercar. Does not happen!!! For a street car, a blower that puffs max. 8psi over atmospheric will give good low speed torque without too many problems. If you want to get and use 16psi boost then expect big bills and problems. I am speaking of petrol engines.

That would be 8psi over the vacume of a lead foot, say .5 bar thats nearly 1\2 a KG at ISO or only 1\4 KG at 70Deg C.

But i agree with you, i would build Nos Kitts, simple maths. first question was how much more HP, second question was how long do you wish for it to Last.

But Cool always works, big turbos big boost = heat and heat doint work.
One converstion i saw on a sportsman Lotus Espri was the air intake was though a aircon driven cooler, if you do the maths it makes sence to a point

[andrew e]

All of the above. Main problem is owners with high expectations, long pockets, and poor recall of advice and recommendations. Pressure charging engines not designed to be so, is a complex frustrating business. Spend enough time and money and progress can be made but not always to the expectations or needs of the owner. The gear was usually brought to me to fit or fix something bought or started by someone else. Most common are the owners who think bunging a blower or hairdryer on their 10yo supermarket trolley will make it into a supercar. Does not happen!!! For a street car, a blower that puffs max. 8psi over atmospheric will give good low speed torque without too many problems. If you want to get and use 16psi boost then expect big bills and problems. I am speaking of petrol engines.

In reality, if you put a turbo or blower on anything and give it a bit of boost, you will get a power increase regardless. Way back (8 years ago) when i was a wet behind the ears p plate deiver, i replaced my ac compressor with a toyota SC14 supercharger to my 300tdi defender ute. Fitted a 90m pulley and fed it through the turbo. Now before you say this would not work due to the blower being at lower boost than the turbo, It did pull 2nd gear cherpies with 33s, and was quicker with standard gearing and 38 inch tyres than my fathers stockie defender. All wrong in theory and all right in real life. It lasted 10000kms before i pulled it off the road to make it into a bushranger, but thats another story.

Andy