[slartibartfast]

Americans were the only Allied power to use turbosuperchargers. Britain and Germany used only mechanical superchargers in their production aircraft.

P-38, P-47, B-17 and B-24 used GE turbos. All other production craft used mechanical superchargers. Spitfire and Mustang got their high-altitude goodness from two-stage, two-speed, intercooled superchargers. B-29 used turbo-compounded R-3360s.

Germany was exclusive user of nitrous boost, Allies used methanol/water.

 

[slartibartfast]

superchargers and turbos need regulation according to engine speed?

Change "engine speed" to "engine load" and you're spot on.

 

[slartibartfast]

That kind of boogers the elegant simplicity of a turbo. First, VVT, now an electric assist???

 

[slartibartfast]

Decrease gas mileage? You bet. Decrease engine life? Maybe so, maybe no.

 

[slartibartfast]

88 acro is making blanket statements that arent supported by history. For example, my brother borrowed my Dakota in exchange for his WRX STi. That little jewel is turboed like nobody's business and Subaru expects as long a life from it as they do their non-turbo engines. I used to own a Dodge Shelby Charger Turbo and it was expected to last as long as normally-aspirated 2.2s, that is, the 70,000 miles required by the EPA.

I would agree that NOS and turbos TEND to shorten engine life since it's very easy to overboost and hurt your engine, and people who tend to buy turbos or boost engines tend to be lead-foots. However, one can't say turbos and NOS always shorten engine life.

 

[slartibartfast]

[removed satisfying but inflammatory reply]

You say I'm taking your statements out of context. PLEASE define your context as it's not obvious to me. It appears that you're trying to speak in absolutes. The world doesn't work that way. Gimme that Honda engine, I'll break it off just as nastily as I could a turbo or NOS engine.

If one builds an engine from the outset to deal with the stresses expected, it will last a LONG time, turbo or whatever.

 

[slartibartfast]

As long as you can increase VE more than you increase parasitic power loss, you should do okay.

Still, I can't understand why anyone would comprimise the inherent simplicity of a turbosupercharger by piggy-backing a heavy electric motor onto it with the attendant wiring complexity issues.

If instant boost is the goal without using nitrous or a mechanical supercharger, look WAY out of the box. As all things, balanced comprimise is the driver and, in my opinion, this aint the way to get it. Low-rpm nitrous seems the best to me.

Of course, this could just be an amusing engineering exercise, like solar-powered racers. Precisely stated goal, precisely stated techologies to use, totally unusable as a replacement passenger vehicle for use by the masses. There will be some useful automotive technology that trickles out of the program but I think it's headed the wrong direction.