Suzuki engineered a turbo 1100 cc motor for Arctic Cat sleds, so they certainly have the experience in manufacturing. Don't know much about it though.
Suzuki Turbo concept -return of the turbos?
- Thread starter CafeRay
- Start date
You probably know a lot more about this than I do so if you'd like to flesh out your reasons, I'm all ears. For starters, why wouldn't a low pressure supercharger work on a lower revving undersquare torque motor, like, say, the NC700? Or why would the turbo be better?
Parasitic loss. The small motor is limitted in power as it is, so sapping some of that power to drive the compressor is a loss that isn't needed, when you could create the positive manifold pressure with zero loss by using a turbocharger as well. Also, turbocharger lifespan is generally much longer than superchargers. The turbocharger is easier to keep cool with water cooled housings, and doesn't need to be driven at boost speeds when no boost is required (crusing at steady speeds for example). The supercharger, being gear or belt driven, can't easily be uncoupled when boost isn't being asked for, but a wastegated turbocharger is simple and efficient in it's on/off boost operation.
The parasitic loss is a given but it's proportional to engine/turbo size and I might take that over the bottle neck induced heat that needs to be managed (complexity, packaging). Also I think it would be a nice engineering accomplishment if the supercharger could be used as a counterbalancer. I'm not saying the supercharger is the best boost system but it would be good right off idle and more pleasing to look at on a naked bike.
Superchargers take power from the engine to give boost at low revs on up. Good for drag racing, large displacement engines, heavy vehicles where you need more low-end torque. They also force more gas use at the least efficient points of the torque curves. No boost lag. They take too much power on a small engine. On a road bike, they would just add power that would have to be controlled by traction control, or spin the rear wheel.
Turbos give you power from energy that would otherwise be thrown away. The best of both worlds is a compound charger that uses both systems, but they are very complex, or turbo with a pressure plenum/intercooler.
The next generation is the electric turbo, which is what F1 will use next year. The momentum of the car will generate electricity under braking/throttle off to a super capacitor, the electricity will spin up the turbo , giving super-charger like boost at low throttle without any engine power loss, then at high revs, exhaust gases spin the turbo. At throttle off, the spinning turbo (>120,000 rpm) will charge the capacitors, and this energy can be used to either spin the idle turbo back up, or drive a +100hp electric motor. The net result in a grand prix is the same speed as this year's formula, but 30% less fuel used. The drivers will be able to control how they use the recovered kinetic energy during the race, more power, or less fuel use.
KERS doesn't make too much sense on a bike, as the low rev torque boost is typically more than the rear tire can handle.
On this bike, a modern turbo would mean litre bike power, at 600cc weight, when you need it, but less fuel use during more mundane riding.
Last edited:
Turbos start in 2014.
F1 is boring because the formula relies too much on aero downforce , and this is ruined when the cars get too close to each other, so they adopted DRS, which is essentially a free pass and fake racing.
Last edited:
And lots of those turbos have been replaced around 150k... just saying.
Also, my WRX has loads of turbo lag. It also sputters and bucks around 4k when the turbo really kicks on. Dealership says that's normal behavior.
Hopefully this bike would be much smoother.
daught
Well-known member
Is it that much lighter? You have turbos, piping, IC etc.
Plenty of cars in europe need new turbos. Audis like to eat them.
Sent from the future using my GOLDEN iPhone 30 SS
Everything seems to make sense except:
No loss on turbo: I find it hard to believe something that restricts exhaust pressure has no effect on engine performance. Its almost as claiming a turbocharger is a "perpetual motion" machine.
600cc vs 1000cc: The weight difference of these 2 classes is merely 40lbs. With added plumbing, cooling & turbocharger itself, I highly doubt it will be cost effective. I think there is a reason why this idea went extinct about 20yrs ago
kwtoxman
Well-known member
Nice look. With two turbo cars, I like the concept. Reality may play different as small engines need seriously small turbo's to get rid of the lag. Then I see the weight too. Serious? My 12 year old GSXR 1000 weighed less.
And it dyno'd at conservative GTA dyno with 150 whp. Loved that bike.
Just sayin
Matthew.Tremayne
Well-known member
I'd buy this... Turbo chargers FTW!
This has to do with how the turbo is matched to the engine - and to some extent, how the control strategy operates.
If you want to make a "dyno queen" - big horsepower numbers - you size the turbo to be in an efficient operating condition high in the engine's RPM range. The problem is that lower in the RPM range -where most people actually drive! - the turbo operating conditions won't be favorable, so the turbo is laggy and the engine feels weak and boggy. If the engine is near the threshold where the turbo starts building boost, you can have a situation in which it will want to either speed up and make more boost and speed up further, or not quite be able to make it. Very annoying. Your WRX is somewhat of an example of this ... and the aftermarket has made much more extreme examples, all in the interest of big HP numbers ...
A turbo designed for a vehicle driven every day by normal drivers will be smaller, with less inertia, and will start building boost quicker at lower engine revs - giving better driveability - but ultimately it won't flow as much air, so it won't make those big HP numbers to brag about. BUT, the engine will be more pleasant to live with. Examples ... Ford Ecoboost, VW 2.0 TFSI, etc. These engines just drive like a normal car. They don't feel turbocharged.
Diesel engines are starting to use dual staged turbochargers ... a small one that builds boost quickly off idle, then a big one that delivers the airflow for making power at high revs (a flapper valve bypasses the small turbo in this condition). Current production examples ... BMW 335d six-cylinder, and the new 320d (marketed as 328d) four-cylinder, and the new Mercedes 2.1 four-cylinder diesel engine.
A turbo does impose some exhaust back pressure on the engine, but by far the most of the energy delivered to the exhaust turbine is coming from expansion of the hot gases - what would otherwise be thrown out and lost as noise and heat in the exhaust system. The power to drive the exhaust turbine is not "free" but it's energy that would have otherwise been unrecoverable.
For motorcycle applications, I do have my doubts about the cost and space effectiveness of using a turbocharger ...
This technology exists today but I assume that the cost and/or weight would hold back a motorcycle implementation.
daught
Well-known member
Check ou six stroke engines
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine
Sent from the future using my GOLDEN iPhone 30 SS
I wonder why Yamaha developed a supercharger for their 1049cc triple snowmobile instead of a turbo especially if they work that much better.
If they can't make the power from the turbo extremely linear on the bike there's going to be a lot of insurance write offs for sale.
If they can't make the power from the turbo extremely linear on the bike there's going to be a lot of insurance write offs for sale.
I'd look for a new dealer, my local one is clueless.
That looks interesting but I was thinking of using the exhaust heat as a catalyst to chemically generate electricity. Also I don't know what I'm talking about.
You're talking about a thermoelectric generator that would use the waste heat of the exhaust to generate electricity.
According to the article there is a significant weight penalty tradeoff for efficiency.
Last edited:
