Twin Turbo Charge our 55's?
09-30-2006, 09:18 AM
#126
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Posts: 3,797
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2003 E55 AMG
That sounds like it will be a fun car ! Keep us updated on the progress if you can.
No problem. I will keep a list of interested parties and then once we get to a certain point in the project where we know we have a solid solution, we'll start taking deposits from the people that want one.
The whole point of keeping the blower is to have the instant throttle response and torque.. If we underdrive the blower and spin the turbos with more boost then we just end up feeding hotter air to the S/C.
Air flow path is like this: 2 turbos -> TB -> S/C -> Intercooler ->
The warmer the intake air is to the S/C the more the ECU will pull timing because of IAT. We were not planning on putting an intercooler inline with the turbos because that is way too much plumbing (unless we come up with a very compact solution for that).
Do you see the reasoning now?
As for pulling the blower completely, see my answer a few posts up..
Originally Posted by Ted Baldwin
........Vrus, how do I get on the list. I think this set up will make my G55K4 to become absolutely insane. I'm in.
Ted
Ted
Air flow path is like this: 2 turbos -> TB -> S/C -> Intercooler ->
The warmer the intake air is to the S/C the more the ECU will pull timing because of IAT. We were not planning on putting an intercooler inline with the turbos because that is way too much plumbing (unless we come up with a very compact solution for that).
Do you see the reasoning now?
As for pulling the blower completely, see my answer a few posts up..
Originally Posted by stevebez
If I were going to do a combination F/I engine I would opt for an underdrive on the S/C (with S/C permananetly engaged) and large turbo's.... I dont see why increasing the boost on the blower is going to help - it will sap too much power at the high end and is less efficient at providing boost at high rpm than turbo's.... thats why I think an underdrive pulley would be better option. It will also help spool the large turbos quickly.
Heat is going to be a nghtmare and getting the mapping to synchronise to the very variable and lumpy boost curve is going to be a major task.
The best answer in my opinion is do what stage7 did. Get rid of the blower - increase the size of the stock intercooler (think we need it) and add some decent sized turbo's.... if you are after max power then you are better off sacrificing low end torque by removing S/C to have it peak much higher in the rev range. Port the exhaust outlets.
That being said seeing a dual F/I system working would be something else ...
I dont see the point of making it a reverseable mod... Its a dramatic mod in any case so I would not worry about getting back to stock easily .. why would you? Even if you got rid of the S/C you could always put it back...
Alternatively just plug in a 65 motor and turn up the boost.....
Heat is going to be a nghtmare and getting the mapping to synchronise to the very variable and lumpy boost curve is going to be a major task.
The best answer in my opinion is do what stage7 did. Get rid of the blower - increase the size of the stock intercooler (think we need it) and add some decent sized turbo's.... if you are after max power then you are better off sacrificing low end torque by removing S/C to have it peak much higher in the rev range. Port the exhaust outlets.
That being said seeing a dual F/I system working would be something else ...
I dont see the point of making it a reverseable mod... Its a dramatic mod in any case so I would not worry about getting back to stock easily .. why would you? Even if you got rid of the S/C you could always put it back...
Alternatively just plug in a 65 motor and turn up the boost.....
09-30-2006, 10:31 AM
#127
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In a box
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W211 E55
2 barrel-type intercoolers are probably the answer. Compact and efficient. Plumb them into your evosport-upgraded reservoir, go one size up on the heat exchanger, and you're set.
Believe it or not , Single turbo would be more awkward to fit. At the bottom of the car you've got the tranny and a bunch of other stuff sitting square in the middle. 2 smaller turbos on each side with the outlets pointing straight up and pipes converging into a Y just before the TB makes it nice and clean.
09-30-2006, 11:37 AM
#128
MBWorld Fanatic!
HI Ted-
Here is where the problem lies- you'll have to ditch the 4-Matic aspect. The front differential on the 4-Matic cars is bolted to the oil pan, and the drive shaft actually passes through the engine oil pan. MB never made a V12 4-Matic car, so you'd need to fabricate a new oil pan to make this work (I've never been inside a V12, and there may not be enough room in the pan to even do this), and even then, there probably won't be enough room for everything without some significant changes to the cars frame and front subframe. Then comes the problem of how much power the transfer case and front diff can handle- I can guarantee you neither of those components would last very long, if at all. The front Diff. in those cars is small, and althogh it can take the power of a KLEEMANN kompressor (450-500 or so lb/ft. of torque), it won't be able to handle the torqe of the V12 TT engine, especially when tuned to 700+ lb/ft. of torque. You'll be snapping gear teeth, breaking chains in the transfer case, etc. It would certainly be an entertaining project, but will the cost really be worth it? I don't know- that's for you to decide...
Here is where the problem lies- you'll have to ditch the 4-Matic aspect. The front differential on the 4-Matic cars is bolted to the oil pan, and the drive shaft actually passes through the engine oil pan. MB never made a V12 4-Matic car, so you'd need to fabricate a new oil pan to make this work (I've never been inside a V12, and there may not be enough room in the pan to even do this), and even then, there probably won't be enough room for everything without some significant changes to the cars frame and front subframe. Then comes the problem of how much power the transfer case and front diff can handle- I can guarantee you neither of those components would last very long, if at all. The front Diff. in those cars is small, and althogh it can take the power of a KLEEMANN kompressor (450-500 or so lb/ft. of torque), it won't be able to handle the torqe of the V12 TT engine, especially when tuned to 700+ lb/ft. of torque. You'll be snapping gear teeth, breaking chains in the transfer case, etc. It would certainly be an entertaining project, but will the cost really be worth it? I don't know- that's for you to decide...
I dont about V12 but our MKB tuner here...from CLS500 bould CLS55 620HP with 4 matic...they had to ditch 7 speed and put 5 speed back...the whole project costed around 110.000 EURO with is apporx 135k USD +120L for the car...
09-30-2006, 02:11 PM
#129
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then you could say it's . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . totally tubular.
09-30-2006, 03:28 PM
#130
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
ALRIGHT NOW THIS IS WHAT THIS FORUM IS ALL ABOUT! I HAD NO IDEA THAT BY ASKING MY ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT ALL OF THIS WOULD COME OF IT! 
09-30-2006, 03:29 PM
#131
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
ALRIGHT NOW THIS IS WHAT THIS FORUM IS ALL ABOUT! I HAD NO IDEA THAT BY ASKING MY ORIGINAL QUESTION THAT ALL OF THIS WOULD COME OF IT!
09-30-2006, 06:18 PM
#132
MBWorld Fanatic!
I see what you mean. But if you wanted more boost in the chamber and your target is 20psi for example then you should use the most efficient way of doing this ... and to me that is getting the turbos to do more work - not less than the S/C. The turbos will also produce less heat doing this than the S/C will.
If the S/C provides lets say 6psi constant boost and get the turbos to provide the other 14 psi - you will have a much more efficient set-up in my opinion.
At the very least leave the S/C with stock boost and dont increase it. Remember the issue of traction with the K2 cars - more boost aint going to help this problem, less boost will, and - yes - the car may not be as responsive down low but will still be a beast. The turbos will kick in with more ferocity and also heave the torque up the rev range increasing overall power output - which is the ultimate goal.....
With Turbo -> TB -> S/C -> I/C arrangement I am not sure how the differential in boost will work... i.e. will the S/C pass through the boost provided by the turbo's ? Will the S/C be more or less efficient being fed "boost" (ignoring the heat issue for now) ?
If the S/C is boosting at 13psi for example and is being fed 6psi will the total be 19psi ?? I dont think it is as simple as that to merely add the two pressures...
Maybe the techies can chime in here ???
What I meant about the Intercooler was to use a fatter core (maybe mate 2 stock units together ?) - keeping the stock location. This obviously will only work with an all turbo setup.
This is an intriuging idea ... but I still think a t-turbo only version will be easier and more efficient in the end to get to the power level you want.
If the S/C provides lets say 6psi constant boost and get the turbos to provide the other 14 psi - you will have a much more efficient set-up in my opinion.
At the very least leave the S/C with stock boost and dont increase it. Remember the issue of traction with the K2 cars - more boost aint going to help this problem, less boost will, and - yes - the car may not be as responsive down low but will still be a beast. The turbos will kick in with more ferocity and also heave the torque up the rev range increasing overall power output - which is the ultimate goal.....
With Turbo -> TB -> S/C -> I/C arrangement I am not sure how the differential in boost will work... i.e. will the S/C pass through the boost provided by the turbo's ? Will the S/C be more or less efficient being fed "boost" (ignoring the heat issue for now) ?
If the S/C is boosting at 13psi for example and is being fed 6psi will the total be 19psi ?? I dont think it is as simple as that to merely add the two pressures...
Maybe the techies can chime in here ???
What I meant about the Intercooler was to use a fatter core (maybe mate 2 stock units together ?) - keeping the stock location. This obviously will only work with an all turbo setup.
This is an intriuging idea ... but I still think a t-turbo only version will be easier and more efficient in the end to get to the power level you want.
09-30-2006, 07:22 PM
#134
^Yes it is.
I've owned many highly modified cars and nothing could touch it. It had no lag and could trap in excess of 140 mph in the 1/4 mile. The downside was the cost (over $85k invested in a $30k car...not a wise investment) and the added weight and complexity. The intercooler system was really trick. The A/C was used to supercool the liquid in the IC. With a flip of the switch I could direct the A/C into the cabin or into the I/C.
I've owned many highly modified cars and nothing could touch it. It had no lag and could trap in excess of 140 mph in the 1/4 mile. The downside was the cost (over $85k invested in a $30k car...not a wise investment) and the added weight and complexity. The intercooler system was really trick. The A/C was used to supercool the liquid in the IC. With a flip of the switch I could direct the A/C into the cabin or into the I/C.
Last edited by G55K; 09-30-2006 at 07:28 PM.
09-30-2006, 07:39 PM
#135
Out Of Control!!
As far as the E55KTT... That sounds like an engineering nightmare... SO IT HAS TO BE SICK
09-30-2006, 08:03 PM
#136
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool (pun intended). Does this mean you redirected the air that passes over the AC evaporator, or you redirected the refrigerant from the evaporator to the IC system? The latter would be mega trick.
09-30-2006, 08:17 PM
#137
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In a box
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W211 E55
You need to look at the pressure in absolute.
1 bar of atmospheric plus ~.925 bar of boost (stock) equals 1.925 bar absolute.
Feed in 6 psi (~.41 bar) and you get 1.41 bar absolute times 1.925 equals 2.71 bar. Subtract atmospheric (1 bar) and you get 1.71 bar, or ~25 psi at the throttle body, baby!
Can someone check my math? Thanks.
Last edited by ChicagoX; 09-30-2006 at 08:19 PM.
10-01-2006, 11:23 AM
#138
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Posts: 3,797
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2003 E55 AMG
The barrel type intercoolers look pretty cool and might just fit back against the rear firewall of the engine compartment. I will pursue this a bit more and see if it is worthwhile to put these on to extract some more power or make the target power level more reliable.
P.S-> That EVO LOOKS WICKED COOL!!!!!!! Whoever built that car did one hell of a job!!
P.S-> That EVO LOOKS WICKED COOL!!!!!!!
Whoever built that car did one hell of a job!!
Last edited by vrus; 10-01-2006 at 11:26 AM.
10-01-2006, 11:54 AM
#139
MBWorld Fanatic!
You are compounding the boost, hence the name compound supercharging.
You need to look at the pressure in absolute.
1 bar of atmospheric plus ~.925 bar of boost (stock) equals 1.925 bar absolute.
Feed in 6 psi (~.41 bar) and you get 1.41 bar absolute times 1.925 equals 2.71 bar. Subtract atmospheric (1 bar) and you get 1.71 bar, or ~25 psi at the throttle body, baby!
Can someone check my math? Thanks.
You need to look at the pressure in absolute.
1 bar of atmospheric plus ~.925 bar of boost (stock) equals 1.925 bar absolute.
Feed in 6 psi (~.41 bar) and you get 1.41 bar absolute times 1.925 equals 2.71 bar. Subtract atmospheric (1 bar) and you get 1.71 bar, or ~25 psi at the throttle body, baby!
Can someone check my math? Thanks.
This has been done on turbo diesel engines for many years. It can also work with two turbos, a small primary for quick-spool and a large secondary for tons of cfm.
10-01-2006, 10:08 PM
#140
Are the Turbos going to be in series with the SC ? Or is everything going to be in parallel? I kind of thought they would be in parallel feeding the Engine. Could the Turbos feed in at the same place the SC does? Side by side so that at lower rpm you use the SC and as rpm increases the turbos start contributing?
10-02-2006, 04:30 AM
#141
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Diamond Bar & Anaheim, CA
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2003 C-Class Sportcoupe
Mohammad Ben Sulayem's twincharged C32
Anyone care to take a look at Ben Sulayem's twincharged setup and share some of their opinions on it? I can see a few differences from a stock C32, like the intercoolers in the foglight area, 2 cone air filters, a blowoff valve, Y-pipe, and other plumbing.
10-02-2006, 07:15 PM
#145
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Posts: 3,797
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2003 E55 AMG
The turbos are going to run in parallel.. they will be set to a pre-defined boost level with a wastegate spring (5 or 6 psi is what we guestimated to use as a starting point but that may change).
Like I said above, the turbos will feed the TB which feeds the S/C. Turbos basically supply pressurized air to the TB.. They will provide a good "whack" to the car's power band once they spool...
Everything is in the design stage, so this is our starting point.
BSP sets the standards for creative and innovative MB tuning.. I tried tracking them down because I wanted to talk to him but could never find the contact info.
He comes up with some really unique and crazy stuff and I just love it!!! I wish I could just jump on a plane and head over to Dubai to talk to this man in person. Another nice package in that C32.. Any more details on it?
The theoretical answer is: YES. But, I am not sure. We dont know what the effect of compounding the boost is going to provide YET. Also, adding boost to the S/C and removing it from the Turbos VS the other way around; we dont know what that affect will be..
Once all the testing is done, we may discover that lower S/C boost and higher Turbo boost may be the better combination. It's hard to say at this point.
Like I said above, the turbos will feed the TB which feeds the S/C. Turbos basically supply pressurized air to the TB.. They will provide a good "whack" to the car's power band once they spool...
Everything is in the design stage, so this is our starting point.
Are the Turbos going to be in series with the SC ? Or is everything going to be in parallel? I kind of thought they would be in parallel feeding the Engine. Could the Turbos feed in at the same place the SC does? Side by side so that at lower rpm you use the SC and as rpm increases the turbos start contributing?
He comes up with some really unique and crazy stuff and I just love it!!! I wish I could just jump on a plane and head over to Dubai to talk to this man in person. Another nice package in that C32.. Any more details on it?
Originally Posted by pshek
Anyone care to take a look at Ben Sulayem's twincharged setup and share some of their opinions on it? I can see a few differences from a stock C32, like the intercoolers in the foglight area, 2 cone air filters, a blowoff valve, Y-pipe, and other plumbing.
Once all the testing is done, we may discover that lower S/C boost and higher Turbo boost may be the better combination. It's hard to say at this point.
Originally Posted by BoBcanada
Victor what about people who have K2 are they gonna get more hp than the stock ones?
10-02-2006, 07:22 PM
#146
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In a box
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W211 E55
10-02-2006, 08:02 PM
#147
Super Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
LS7 powered Corvette
Wow... I mentioned this months ago and this is what I got. 
Seriously, the stock charger should be removed. I wouldn't be too concerned about having twins on it either. If space is the issue, a well designed single kit would be great. Front mount intercooler would mount in place of the factory heat exchanger.
Another option would be to build enough interest so that a company such as whipple or kenne bell would develop a larger replacement blower capable of much higher boost levels.
With either of these combinations and some fuel upgrades these cars could be capable of 600rwhp easily. The "lag" with a turbo setup is not like it used to be, plus having an automatic transmission just makes it that much better.
As far as traction... it shouldn't be a major issue with some quality tires like BFG or Mickey Thompson drag radials. Someone will just have to find the limit where too much traction starts beating up the driveline.
Seriously, the stock charger should be removed. I wouldn't be too concerned about having twins on it either. If space is the issue, a well designed single kit would be great. Front mount intercooler would mount in place of the factory heat exchanger.
Another option would be to build enough interest so that a company such as whipple or kenne bell would develop a larger replacement blower capable of much higher boost levels.
With either of these combinations and some fuel upgrades these cars could be capable of 600rwhp easily. The "lag" with a turbo setup is not like it used to be, plus having an automatic transmission just makes it that much better.
As far as traction... it shouldn't be a major issue with some quality tires like BFG or Mickey Thompson drag radials. Someone will just have to find the limit where too much traction starts beating up the driveline.
10-02-2006, 08:10 PM
#148
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Florida
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 S65, 2005 Nissan Armada
Hey David,
The main reason is that the majority of people want something that is fairly bolt-on and dont want to butcher up their car to put the turbo kit on. This way it is a straight forward bolton that can be returned to stock in case of warranty problems.
In order to do the TT without the S/C alot of electronics would have to be created in order to get around the Bypass valve and the S/C clutch engagement.. If the ECU doesnt see the S/C clutch it will think there is something wrong and will go into limp mode.
Keeping the S/C where it is and just adding turbos (which arent going under the hood by the way) keeps the car looking stock when you pop the hood. You wont even see the turbos!!!
After Stage 2, if we want more power than 800rwhp we may invent a Stage 3 and pull the S/C, put on a pair of BIG turbo, and shoot for 1000rwhp.
The main reason is that the majority of people want something that is fairly bolt-on and dont want to butcher up their car to put the turbo kit on. This way it is a straight forward bolton that can be returned to stock in case of warranty problems.
In order to do the TT without the S/C alot of electronics would have to be created in order to get around the Bypass valve and the S/C clutch engagement.. If the ECU doesnt see the S/C clutch it will think there is something wrong and will go into limp mode.
Keeping the S/C where it is and just adding turbos (which arent going under the hood by the way) keeps the car looking stock when you pop the hood. You wont even see the turbos!!!
After Stage 2, if we want more power than 800rwhp we may invent a Stage 3 and pull the S/C, put on a pair of BIG turbo, and shoot for 1000rwhp.
Hey Vrus,
If you removed the blower fabricated a new intake manifold that had a mount for the supercharger pulley on the front of it and a similar allowance for the bypass valve. Couldn't you just mount the pulley to the new manifold and let the clutch do its thing even though it wouldn't be doing anything. You would be able to keep the same serpentine belt and everything. Would this fool the computer?
I certainly understand the keep it simple idea but I too would prefer a TT setup without the SC and have it put down 800hp.
Regardless keep up the good work and thanks for doing this!
10-02-2006, 11:21 PM
#149
Banned
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Posts: 3,797
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2003 E55 AMG
Sometimes timing is everything.. Don't take it personally.. The stars probably weren't aligned when you mentioned it a few months ago.. LOL.. 
I agree that the car would make more power with just the turbos, but, we are approaching it this way for now and will see what happens. For simplicity of install & uninstall, I think this is a better approach as option #1.
Besides, the twin-charger approach may just surprise you and the rest of us and be a perfect combination.
That's a pretty good idea, and may be Option #2 if Option #1 doesn't work out for us. I think we are pretty much set on what we are going to try first.
I agree that the car would make more power with just the turbos, but, we are approaching it this way for now and will see what happens. For simplicity of install & uninstall, I think this is a better approach as option #1.
Besides, the twin-charger approach may just surprise you and the rest of us and be a perfect combination.
Wow... I mentioned this months ago and this is what I got.
Seriously, the stock charger should be removed. I wouldn't be too concerned about having twins on it either. If space is the issue, a well designed single kit would be great. Front mount intercooler would mount in place of the factory heat exchanger.
Another option would be to build enough interest so that a company such as whipple or kenne bell would develop a larger replacement blower capable of much higher boost levels.
With either of these combinations and some fuel upgrades these cars could be capable of 600rwhp easily. The "lag" with a turbo setup is not like it used to be, plus having an automatic transmission just makes it that much better.
As far as traction... it shouldn't be a major issue with some quality tires like BFG or Mickey Thompson drag radials. Someone will just have to find the limit where too much traction starts beating up the driveline.
Seriously, the stock charger should be removed. I wouldn't be too concerned about having twins on it either. If space is the issue, a well designed single kit would be great. Front mount intercooler would mount in place of the factory heat exchanger.
Another option would be to build enough interest so that a company such as whipple or kenne bell would develop a larger replacement blower capable of much higher boost levels.
With either of these combinations and some fuel upgrades these cars could be capable of 600rwhp easily. The "lag" with a turbo setup is not like it used to be, plus having an automatic transmission just makes it that much better.
As far as traction... it shouldn't be a major issue with some quality tires like BFG or Mickey Thompson drag radials. Someone will just have to find the limit where too much traction starts beating up the driveline.
Originally Posted by pas
Hey Vrus,
If you removed the blower fabricated a new intake manifold that had a mount for the supercharger pulley on the front of it and a similar allowance for the bypass valve. Couldn't you just mount the pulley to the new manifold and let the clutch do its thing even though it wouldn't be doing anything. You would be able to keep the same serpentine belt and everything. Would this fool the computer?
I certainly understand the keep it simple idea but I too would prefer a TT setup without the SC and have it put down 800hp.
Regardless keep up the good work and thanks for doing this!
If you removed the blower fabricated a new intake manifold that had a mount for the supercharger pulley on the front of it and a similar allowance for the bypass valve. Couldn't you just mount the pulley to the new manifold and let the clutch do its thing even though it wouldn't be doing anything. You would be able to keep the same serpentine belt and everything. Would this fool the computer?
I certainly understand the keep it simple idea but I too would prefer a TT setup without the SC and have it put down 800hp.
Regardless keep up the good work and thanks for doing this!
