WRX Electric turbo
 

I think this will be very interesting, could this be the next colt car in 2013?
If nothing else it will be quick.


http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/e...430-1xuo6.html

Its coming out the end of next year? I thought they are coming the end of this year.

According to this article its next year... but hey if it turns out this year great!

The dates are wrong. The WRX refresh is for 2014 MY or so the NASIOC community has posted about many times already. 2013 MY is supposed to carry over the 2012 MY style and have only minor mechanical bumps. 2014MY is supposed to be the WRX to watch out for.

I also read 2015, which would also make sense, but we'll see.

(This part is all my opinion, don't get offended and rage out because I don't like something you like) They've slowly been taking their designs in an awful direction. They destroyed the Legacy. 2005 2.5 GT wagon/sedan was such an awesome car. 2004-2005 WRX, 2006 WRX all pretty nice. Then the hatchback happened. It's gotten more "subaru-like" since then, but the rest of their line has been starting to take a devastatingly ugly path. The BRZ is a welcome design change for them though.

I imagine that by the fall we'll know more about the WRX refresh. I'm curious to see if they'll handle two rumors:

1) This one, the electric Turbo
2) Using the BRZ frame as the basis for the redesign of the chassis.

If it's electrically powered, what differentiates a turbo from a supercharger? I'm used to turbos being exhaust driven and superchargers being belt or gear driven. Someone educate me please.

I'm sort of wondering the same thing. I think because it's still exhaust driven, just uses the exhaust to charge a generator vs spin a fan.

seems like a lot of new cars are using electric engines as ways to get more power,

new bmw, rumor about the new gtr

it says electrically powered turbo which doesnt make sense but if it was a turbo powered electric motor...

Heres my understanding of the electric powered turbo...which im about 90% sure is correct...

Okay so normally a turbo setup takes the exhaust to spin the turbine, then the tubine blows/compresses air into the engine.

With the electric turbo what happens is there is one turbo and an electric motor. The electric motor blows air into the engine instead of a turbo. But of course that takes electricity. Here comes the turbo, it's still hooked up to the exhaust but instead somehow is modified to generate electricity. The electricity is fed into the battery to make up for the electricity used to power the electric motor.

The benefit of this setup is that the electric motor isn't connected to the turbo. The motor doesn't have to wait for exhaust gasses to build so there is pretty much no turbo lag. Also the electric motor is suppose to make the power much more efficiently. The back pressure is also suppose to be electrically controlled so it's always optimized.

Sounds interesting to me.

Absolutely nothing.

The full, proper, scientific name for a turbo is a "turbosupercharger". That is to say that it's a turbine driven supercharger. If the turbine and compressor aren't on a common shaft then it's no longer actually a turbocharger. In that case what you would have is an electrically driven supercharger (electrocharger anyone?) and a turbogenerator.

Or, possibly a turbo alternator, aka T.A. Which brings back all kinds of horrible memories of my last job setting up instrumentation on a steam propulsion plant including T.A.'s.

But I digress, this all gonna get buried when it gets moved to the correct sub forum.

That design makes no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, I read this on MotorTrend a while back. I think in the coming years we are finally going to get some innovation with turbochargers to minimize turbo lag and maximize efficiency. With nearly every form of racing, even F1, going to turbochargers, there's bound to be some neat new techniques coming that can be used on road cars.

I read up on how BMW plans to do an electric turbo and here is what I know from a year ago. You have a regular turbo setup. Everything is piped the same. The difference is the turbo housing has an electric motor built onto it. At low rpms and off boost, and electric motor will spin the compressor. Once pressure builds, a clutch will disengage the motor and let the turbo run normally from the exhaust gasses. That's it.

This deal looks more like an electric generator in the exhaust system used to provide power to an electric centrifugal compressor, basically an electric supercharger.

If I had to have one or the other, I'd like the BMW method proposed.

To me, this isn't a turbo Subaru wants. But, I like the idea for a different reason. If they can generate a great deal of electric power efficiently, then they could theoretically get rid of the alternator and keep the car battery and electric supercharger run by this system. You get rid of a heavy part, reduce engine load, and open up space in the engine bay for the supercharger.

WTF does this have to do with the FR-S? There is no mention of it in that article or is this thread just posted in the wrong section. Unless the OP has some info about that engine finding it's way into the toyobaru twins, I suggest this be moved to the other vehicles section of the forum.

From what I understand of electrified drivetrains and reading from this article ( http://jalopnik.com/5855317/will-bmw...-end-turbo-lag), I believe Genomaxter basically explained it. Now some of what I will state is my speculation. Not trying to be disrespectful, but would like to be a little more precise. I am little nitpicky.

More precisely, when car is told to quickly accelerate (ex. 0 mph and stepping on the gas all the way down) while the turbine is at low RPMs and boost is at a negligible psi, the electric motor quickly brings the turbine to required RPMs. This is done until boost is at proper pressure. This is extremely fast compared to a conventional turbo as you do not have to wait for it to spool from the low pressure exhaust. So a sense of lag is removed. At this point, the electric motor is no longer powered by the electrical storage device (e.g. battery, super capacitor, etc) and instead acts like a generator to recharge it. At proper boost levels, the exhaust is now spinning the turbines at high RPMs which in turn spins the generator. After the battery is charged to a certain state of charge, the generator/motor is disengaged from the turbine as Genomaxter stated. This is to increase efficiency.

Some of it is speculation so if I am wrong, please correct me.

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's like an anti-lag system without the flames coming out of your exhaust. :P

That's exciting.

And yeah, this thread doesn't belong in the main FR-S forum.

so wind turbines and hydro electricity make no sense? :bonk:


turbo setups as we know it use the force of the exhaust to drive a mechanically connected compressor that sucks in air.

what they have come up with is a way to generate enough electricity from the exhaust system to power an air compressor that feeds the engine.

this way you can mount the compressor anywhere you want and not have to worry about heat (since you're only worried about the heat generated from air compression).

this will mean more efficient exhaust design, more efficient intake design, reduced heat, reduced weight, reduced wear and tear.

awesome.





you guys know what this is, right?

http://img.tootoo.com/mytootoo/uploa...676fd1600e.jpg

Toyota has been working on a system like this since 2007 or earlier. I had a whitepaper on this, I have to dig it up.

Don't try to be a condescending ass. I understand exactly what kage described and the principle on which it works. It makes no sense set up as described for **that** application. It would certainly not be very efficient at all.

Certainly? Please explain where your certainty comes from. Do you have access to their patent, are you a subaru engineer?

There was a time steam engines were all the rage you know.. i guess the concept of technological progress eludes you.

The concept is most certainly a step forward, why are you so negative about a possible breakthrough in it's actual application?

It's an interesting concept but the article is riddled with errors so I don't know what to make from it. how is the exhaust heat converted to electricity? is there going to be a steam motor to spin a turbine to charge a battery? I'm not trying to be condescending, I just don't know how you go from heat straight to electricity without an intermediary step.

it's not really heat as it is the exhaust gases, a force that currently moves (spins) a turbine

this spinning turbine has a mechanical link to a compressor

but it could be linked to a generator and create electricity, which could then be used to power a compressor.

this hasn't been done because no one figured a way to do it efficiently as far as i'm aware, and i most certainly do not follow any scientific journals and what not.

but perhaps Subaru had a eureka moment, or laid to light some sort of hidden project they kept hush about.. who knows?

What happened to this?
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/attac...4&d=1322698094

the definition of a turbo is by having a turbine wheel extract mechanical energy from the flow of the working fluid (ie. exhaust gases). i'm not sure how heat is being converted into electricity (usually it is done the other way around) but it sounds like there is no turbine. the way i see it, this is more of an electric motor powering a compressor wheel. i'm not sure if you could call that a supercharger though...

Yeah it's really interesting to me since this is being advertised as a "turbo" in terms of the scope of the project, yet functionality sounds more like a supercharger. From what I've read the system would trap the heat generated by the exhaust rather than rely on it for pressure to generate the electricity needed to spin the turbine, thus removing the reliance and lag created by requiring the turbine to function purely from exhaust gases.

So I'm picturing something that traps heat, and then provides enough power to spin a turbine to provide the same type of boost a turbo would provide, only through electricity. But that sounds like a super charger.

My head hurts right now... I'll let people with science degrees hash this part out, I just think it's cool they're trying to innovate in this space.

A turbo doesn't do any heat conversion, it only picks up pressure left in the exhaust. Specifically on an Otto cycle gasoline engine, you have a little bit of extra pressure left in the cylinder when the exhaust valve opens, and this little burst of exhaust gas flow is where the energy is, and what a turbo aims to capture. This is why you can get more boost pressure than backpressure.

A regular turbocharger relies 100% on the exhaust gas stream to power the compressor, so it has a lot of backpressure designed into it so that it spools up more quickly among other things, however this saps power from the engine as you probably know. When you separate this turbocharger unit into a supercharger and a turbo-generator, you no longer care what the turbine is doing relative to the supercharger, so it can be more optimized to collect the otherwise wasted blowdown energy. Also might I mention the turbine's speed is very important to how efficiently it operates.

A side benefit is that the primary reason the exhaust is so loud without a muffler is because of the rush of high pressure gas out into the exhaust system with every exhaust valve opening event, if you have a turbine in the way capturing this energy, your noise is automatically reduced significantly.

Might I also mention that arguably the optimal method of controlling this stuff is electrically, and to be creating large amounts of power from the turbine in the form of electricity would require a substantial electrical power storage system, and a way to use all that electricity, perhaps an electric motor of some sort :) Might I mention another thing rumored is that Subaru has developed a proprietary hybrid system...

BRZ STI...



Heh...

wow, omg...

Please fellas, please look up turbine blades. Heat is very much so used in the process of converting the energy in the working fluid into mechanical energy. That mechanical energy is then used to turn something, in this case it'll be an electrical motor and/or a centrifugal compressor.

From what I've seen of these types of designs most companies working on it are trying to incorporate an electrical motor into the tradition "turbo" so that the motor can be used to drive the compressor when the exhaust gases can't. And when the exhaust gases have enough energy to drive the turbo too fast, the motor will then be used in a regenerative cycle to generate electricity.

The biggest hurdle is trying to spin a motor fast enough, while making sufficient torque to drive the compressor with only 14 volts. There have been petitions for quite a while to move to 48v electrical systems in cars, this is one reason why. I'd speculate that turbo manufacturers are working on larger, slower moving/hopefully more energy efficient compressors, but I haven't seen much about that. With the advent of capacitors larger enough to start a car, I'm surprised they haven't side stepped the voltage regulations by making a small voltage quadrupler to run in concert with the regen turbo.

The steam plant I used to work on had steam entering the turbine at ~800 def F/600 PSIG and leaving, after being condensed, at 96 deg F/1 PSIA. Due to the relatively low pressure in that system, the blades were designed to get most of it's energy from heat, roughly 60:40. That plant generated 21,000 shaft HP at 108 RPM.

It's enthalpy. Calling it pressure is just as wrong as calling it heat because enthalpy for the exhaust gas is a function of both pressure and temperature (internal energy).

That's right, sorry about my often poor word choice.

One thing that is being researched is true exhaust waste heat recovery, with a heat exchanger in the exhaust stream but it seems at least a few years off.

Shit, Smokey Yunick did that 30 years ago... sort of. ;)

i understand how a turbo works, i was simply puzzled how the author of the article (if you read it, you'd know) explains how exhaust gases are trapped and using the heat to power an electric turbocharger.

a single-stage turbine, like in automotive vehicles cannot be compared to a steam turbine, which have multiple turbine stages, when it comes to power generation. automotive turbochargers are primarily powered by the kinetic energy (fluid momentum) of the exhaust flow. there is no significant difference in pressure and temperature before and after the turbo. however, in a steam turbine, there are multiple turbine blade stages (think of the compressor blades in a jet engine) designed to exploit the expansion of the flowing steam from high enthalpy (high pressure & high temperature) to the outlet at a much lower enthalpy (pressure & lower temperature) as it passes through the turbine. the flow through steam turbines are also much slower when compared to automotive turbochargers. so what i'm trying to say is, automotive turbochargers do not rely on 'heat' as a primary source for mechanical power.

but back to the offtopic discussion on turbo-generator/electric-compressor idea, i don't think it'll work. generators require torque that exhaust-driven turbines simply cannot provide because there are internal rotors (magnets) that have much higher inertial-resistance than lightweight compressor wheels. as an alternative, keep the electric-compressor, just upgrade the alternator.

Sure about that?
http://turbobygarrett.com/turbobygar...-1&2&3turb.jpg

Cult car?

what you posted is the pressure ratio of the compressor outlet to the compressor inlet. not the turbine.

I disagree. This is the compressor map.
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob...-1&2&3comp.jpg

That was the turbine map that old greg posted. If you look at the PDF, it's more clear.
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob..._700382-12.pdf

I don't think we'll see it until they need it to pass emissions without enough exhaust energy loss to hinder performance.
Cold start emissions are the problem and have been. So the composite FTP and/or ETC, pending regulation, is largely what would drive this in my opinion.
Actually the CAFE standards for CO2 emissions/fuel economy would drive it too.

I'm going to venture and guess that the next generation will be the FA16DIT with traditional turbo, as posted above.

Hmmm? How will it help emissions? Because they'll be able to tuck the turbine closer to the block?

This sort of setup would definitely help fuel economy though, that's for sure, however due to all the other electrical bits required to really make it worthwhile, I'd guess that until they start putting integrated motor-generator-starters on everything (which I can't see happening before 2016) they'll be sticking to traditional turbos.

i believe i was wrong then. thanks for posting. i learned something new today.

It would aid in having a catalyitc converter tucked close to the head wouldn't hurt performance like it does on a turbocharged system. The turbine could also be collecting energy all the time, stooring up for when you actuallly need it...assuming they wouldn't decouple it in certain areas of the map. Current turbos bring pumping losses with no benefit currently at low and light loads. In this case, the turbine 'generator' would still be storing power in these conditions. This power increase would/could be used to run more boost at lower RPM and improve Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC), since the turbo is 'spooled' by an electric motor.
They could even get a bit nutty and use this as the alternator for the car and then you loose the drag on the crankshaft from the alternator. This would really need some engineering time and testing to see if it would be worthwhile to do though...just spouting an idea.

An elementary case and point would be flooring the car at 2000 RPM:

current situation: fueling is added and timing is increased. Ignition starts early, more energy is lost in surface area to cooling (poor thermal efficiency), more pressure is building above the piston for a longer period (because of the advanced timing necessary, so loss of power). Overall, higher emissions, less power and poor BSFC.

potential situation: boost is added, via electric energy stored in light load conditions, and fueling is increased and timing is dialed back. This moves MBT closer to TDC and delivering a higher % of combustion energy into rotation (as opposed to building above and pushing the piston down as it approached TDC) and thermal efficiency is increased by having lower surface area for combustion. Essentially more of the fuel energy is converted to rotational energy via force from combustion and reducing energy expelled to the cooling system.

So, the better the BSFC usually indicates lower brake specific hydro-carbons, NOx, CO, COx, all those things that the EPA and CARB has us looking at :)