Hi all. New to the forum. Recently purchased a Volvo c30 1.6d 2007 To challenge the mighty bearataur with his wise knowledge. As it's turbo charged already, why couldn't I pop the turbo off and slap a eaton m45 on it instead? I'm open to suggestions? Also as the R-design options exist for the 1.6d could I drop the same exhaust kit on it?
your'd have to replace the exhaust system as a supercharger only uses the intake side of the engine i'm always curious why people buy the smaller engined cars out of the range, then try & get more power
Why not use the eaton ti compound charge the turbo? ;) there'd be some serious live mapping involved as the newer cars can't cope with just dropping a bigger blower in but it'd be interesting to watch your progress. Welcome to the forum by the way. Pics please :)
Wow two replies and I hadn't even refreshed the page. Sure will post pics of the car. Coming from previous car (bmw mini r53) I hankered for the sc as opposed to the turbo, I kinda miss that whine. I have a spare sc, (as you do) Manifold should be easy to get built, my question was if the sc and turbo put out same psi, would the current map take the change, then in due course crank it up as funds allow.
When it comes to automotive engines, i doubt the benefits of having a supercharger on a diesel over a turbo.
I only revisited the idea after seeing the new volvos seem to have a supercharger in the lineup from factory
Aren't the new "E" engines compound charged?
[QUOTE=LiamT4;748886]Aren't the new "E" engines compound charged?[/QUOTE] I've got the '07 version of the c30 it's the 1.6d, I think the new "e" versions are just better emissions
The newest volvo engines have 2 turbos, supported by an electric turbine.
[QUOTE=M-R-P;748893]The newest volvo engines have 2 turbos, supported by an electric turbine.[/QUOTE] You mean those horrid fan things off eBay?? Twin charging I can understand, but the electric fan I don't get?? On a outside the box thought, twin charging ie sc and turbo, but going for economy instead of brute power, can that be done? Can that setup actually be more efficient?
It's more than the crap fan, like the newer Dyson stuff, the fan can hit 20000 rpm.
Producing 450bhp from a 2.0 4-pot
[QUOTE=Carpathia;748892]I've got the '07 version of the c30 it's the 1.6d, I think the new "e" versions are just better emissions[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the new "E drive" cars. On the triple charged cars, i think the electric turbine is to power the other two turbo's. The main problem with superchargers is that they need power from the engine to work, while turbo's use wasted energy in the form of exhaust gasses, so the turbo is more efficient.
[QUOTE=Carpathia;748870]Hi all. New to the forum. Recently purchased a Volvo c30 1.6d 2007 To challenge the mighty bearataur with his wise knowledge. As it's turbo charged already, why couldn't I pop the turbo off and slap a eaton m45 on it instead? I'm open to suggestions? Also as the R-design options exist for the 1.6d could I drop the same exhaust kit on it?[/QUOTE] :welcome: it would probably work but you need to find a way to stop the charger boosting at idle/low revs....your previous car had a by-pass valve and an electronic clutch on the pulley to achieve this IIRC Claymore may have the answer! ps the Bearatraur doesn't have opposable thumbs so he's ££££ed as far as working on a car is concerned edit is that you, Rob?? Nice to see you have a grown up Volvo 480 now!
I dont see the point of buying a 1.6 diesel then spending silly amounts on a super charger plus mapping... It's hardly going to be economically viable with a constantly running super charger.
[QUOTE=jamesy12345;748923]:welcome: it would probably work but you need to find a way to stop the charger boosting at idle/low revs....your previous car had a by-pass valve and an electronic clutch on the pulley to achieve this IIRC Claymore may have the answer! ps the Bearatraur doesn't have opposable thumbs so he's ££££ed as far as working on a car is concerned edit is that you, Rob?? Nice to see you have a grown up Volvo 480 now![/QUOTE] Would the sc really generate that much boost at idle? From a basic level, the car being "charged" would see no different, albeit possibly more boost at sub 3.5k (or whatever the c30's turbo starts producing usable boost at) The idea is more from why not than hell bent on doing it, but I like superchargers (yep I know should have gone petrol) but if twin charging is an option then it maybe worth that pain. Would you recommend a twin ic setup for it? Ala delta s4. One question is if the compound charge route is viable it still needs to loose the boost somewhere until the turbo comes online
[QUOTE=Carpathia;749138]Would the sc really generate that much boost at idle? From a basic level, the car being "charged" would see no different, albeit possibly more boost at sub 3.5k (or whatever the c30's turbo starts producing usable boost at) The idea is more from why not than hell bent on doing it, but I like superchargers (yep I know should have gone petrol) but if twin charging is an option then it maybe worth that pain. Would you recommend a twin ic setup for it? Ala delta s4. One question is if the compound charge route is viable it still needs to loose the boost somewhere until the turbo comes online[/QUOTE] an sc would develop constant boost across the rev range would it not?? I may be talking ££££££££, but.... Say Eaton M45 displacement is 626.8 cc per revolution and your engine consumes 546 cc per rev (guessing at volumetric efficiency of 0.7 and a gear ratio 1.5...charger spinning 1.5 times faster than crank) then that would be a constant boost of 10.6 psi at any revs example 1000 rpm engine is consuming 546,000 cc per minute, charger is putting out 940,185 cc per min....one minus the other is 394,185, divide that by 546,000 & multiply by 14.7 that is 10.6 psi. I don't know what the standard boost is for your diesel is, but if you twincharge it sequentially that is a whole lot of boost and heat!! If your standard turbo boosts at around 6 psi then sticking a 10.6 psi sc in front of it means over 20 psi boost... I would think a twin intercooler set up would be a must unless you use it very very gently, which sort of defeats the purpose
The 1.6 diesel is the Gemini DV6 (PSA/Ford). It's not exactly the "best" engine out there, plenty of evidence found if you look up the 1.6 hdi gti 206. If you went for power then you'd end up with having to look at improving the DMF, then the subsequent vibration damping solution if you did away with the DMF, the injectors often leak and cause problems with diesel in the oil and that can then cause issues with the turbo etc etc. Then you have the EGR and DPF issues on top if you fiddle too much with the engine. The reality is that the 1.6 DV6 engine was made to meet Euro 4/5 standards and reduce CO2 emissions (hence higher MPG in theory, lower VED as a result). Although Volvo seemed to make better use of the engine, in terms of reliability and such, it's still more of an economy engine than a performance engine. Because of that, you'd find that by the time you tried to get the 1.6D to anywhere near the power or spec of the D5, you'd have spent far more than a D5 would cost and would have less economy and reliability. I'm finding it relatively easy to get 60+ mpg from my D5, and it sounds and goes like extremely well.
Indeed, all valid points. I'm not going for all out power to be a D5, it was mainly to understand what would need to be modified to make it work. The SC could be over/under boosted to match the current boost level of the fitted turbo. I'm aware of the parasitic loss the sc gives over a turbo. The current map is "forced-induction" so it would merely be a change of forced method It's more a why not, as there are no sc'd diesels unless they are the biiiig engined ones
[QUOTE=Carpathia;751104]Indeed, all valid points. I'm not going for all out power to be a D5, it was mainly to understand what would need to be modified to make it work. The SC could be over/under boosted to match the current boost level of the fitted turbo. I'm aware of the parasitic loss the sc gives over a turbo. The current map is "forced-induction" so it would merely be a change of forced method It's more a why not, as there are no sc'd diesels unless they are the biiiig engined ones[/QUOTE] Assuming I get the mounting alignment of the SC and the plumbing to and from aligned to current OEM parts in situ. In a perfect world I see the sc replacing the turbo, I can get pulleys machined to match the current boost. The only issue I do for see is at low boost the ignition and injection would run lean as the map would be set for no boost with it being a turbo map kicking in at 2750 or so with boost
Didn't Mazda do a supercharged 626 diesel...for about 6 months in '94 http://www.mazdabg.com/ftp-uploads/Mazda/626/AdjustmentData/MAZDA62620ComprexDRF-CX.pdf
[QUOTE=jamesy12345;752847]Didn't Mazda do a supercharged 626 diesel...for about 6 months in '94 http://www.mazdabg.com/ftp-uploads/Mazda/626/AdjustmentData/MAZDA62620ComprexDRF-CX.pdf[/QUOTE] Yeah I remember that, although that was the early days of fuel injection, not sure how it would work with the Miriam of sensors the cars have now. Looking at the design of the Mazda unit it's a mix between the screw type sc and a turbo, it's almost a comprex. I find the turbo on the 1.6d sluggish below 2000, but after it does pickup.
The turbo will kick in mid way through 2000, quite similar to the 2L
[QUOTE=Carpathia;765668]...with the Miriam of sensors the cars have now...[/QUOTE] I like the fact that 'Miriam' is the collective noun for a number of sensors. :mischievo