Electric turbo chargers

JSWTDI09

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
TDI
2009 JSW TDI (gone but not forgotten)
I always thought that a turbocharger was (by definition) exhaust driven. I have always thought that any power source for an intake compressor other than exhaust would be considered to be a supercharger rather than a turbocharger. In my opinion (which could be wrong) an electrically driven "charger" would (or should) be called a supercharger.

I guess it really doesn't matter much what you call it, but i am curious how well it works. The advantage of an exhaust driven compressor is that it is using waste energy to drive it. The electricity to run an electric "turbocharger" is not free, and it is not waste energy. It takes engine power to generate the electricity.

Have Fun!

Don
 

Ol'Rattler

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Location
PNA
TDI
2006 BRM Jetta
They can't even call it by it's correct name, which is actually a supercharger. Just some imbecile journalist writing copy............

Electric motors are very reliable, but are there any real benefits to driving a supercharger with a motor? Probably not. The energy to run the motor has to come from somewhere.
 

nate0031

Veteran Member - TDIClub Contributor
Joined
May 14, 2012
Location
SE Ohio
TDI
96 B4 Passat
It also greatly annoys me that they refer to it as a turbocharger, when it absolutely is not. Probably a marketing thing...

Another thing though, turbochargers aren't just run off free, waste energy. This idea also annoys me. Yes, a great amount of waste energy escapes via the engine exhaust, but this isn't all magically recovered by the turbocharger's turbine. The turbine is a restriction in the exhaust system, it creates back-pressure which makes it more difficult for the pistons to expel exhaust gases on the exhaust stroke. Think about it this way, a well set up turbo has a ~1:1 drive pressure to boost ratio. So for a good system, for every PSI of boost you make, you increase exhaust back-pressure a directly proportionate amount. I doubt people would argue that restricting the exhaust on a naturally aspirated engine would have no effect on engine power output.

Just because it isn't directly coupled to the crankshaft does not mean it isn't sapping energy from it.

I'm not saying it isn't one of the more efficient ways to extract that work. For an electric supercharger, you're converting mechanical energy to electric at ~90% efficiency, then electric back to mechanical at ~90% efficiency. This is absolutely less efficient than a supercharger coupled to the crank via a belt. The efficiency gain over a standard supercharger likely comes from being able to completely decouple it when not needed. The performance probably comes from being able to have it build boost in direct relation to the pedal position, not engine speed.

I feel I'd rather a positive displacement blower such as a roots or screw type that can be decoupled via a clutched drive pulley though. Hell, I don't think it even needs to be decoupled. Most roots style blowers today have an internal bypass, and sap less than 1 HP when not using it and just cruising along. Being positive displacement blowers, these give instant boost.

Back in the day, I had two Mercury Cougars. One was a base LS, with the N/A 3.8 V6, the other was an XR7 with the supercharged 3.8 V6. It used an M90 roots style blower. It made full boost from when I pushed the pedal to when I hit redline, and the supercharged one got 2 MPG better than the N/A car. Loved the sound of that whine too, lol.
 

eric_x

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Location
Minnesota
TDI
'96 TDI Passat Wagon
I don't think that article is written correctly.. I don't see why they would completely remove the traditional turbo and replace it with an electrical "supercharger" that saps energy. This article makes it seem like the electric turbocharger is used in conjunction with traditional turbos in order to reduce spooling time, which seems like it could be useful.
 

Powder Hound

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Oct 25, 1999
Location
Under a Bridge, Crestview, FL, USA
TDI
'00 Golf 4dr White 5sp, '02 Jettachero 5sp, Wife's '03 NB Platinum Gray auto(!)
... you're converting mechanical energy to electric at ~90% efficiency,...
If they are considering the alternators that are ubiquitous on current autos, the conversion from mechanical to electricity is about 50%. With the losses of electric back to mechanical, they better have something fantastic.

Nate's arguments are spot-on however, when it comes to efficiency. Mostly. Where a turbocharged small engine really shines is when you are producing power at low levels. The turbocharged small engine might not do much better than a large naturally aspirated engine when they are both producing 150hp, but let both those engines be placed in the 20hp realm, and the small turbocharged engine will get you much farther down the road.

So in the never ending quest to produce more power, and do it more efficiently, if the conversion losses can be kept under control then it might work. Couple that with the fact that you don't really need high boost except a very small amount of the time the engine is running and it could work out to be a winning strategy. Time and lots and lots of testing will tell the tale.
 

nate0031

Veteran Member - TDIClub Contributor
Joined
May 14, 2012
Location
SE Ohio
TDI
96 B4 Passat
If they are considering the alternators that are ubiquitous on current autos, the conversion from mechanical to electricity is about 50%. With the losses of electric back to mechanical, they better have something fantastic.
You are correct. I was being optimistic and giving more of the upper limit for both, but I didn't realize automotive alternators were so low, lol.

What Eric says makes the most sense, them just using the electric blower to give instant boost until the turbo(s) can spool.
 
Top