Twinturbo and BiTurbo: difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter XenoN
  • 51 comments
  • 4,711 views
XenoN

XenoN

Messages
370
Ok guys , I need help explaining one guy what is the difference between twinturbo and biturbo engines. I know there are some differences but I don't know exactly what differences (I've heard that biturbo engine has 2 turbos but one is smaller and it is used to spool up the bigger one?)

So any help would be appreciated.. And some links with this kind of info would be nice too. :)


Thanks in advance
 
Monster is correct.

Here is how a Sequential Twin Turbo works.

Sequential - it must have been explained in the engineeing/technical, but here is the short version.
One small and large turbo, or two of similar size are used, when the air requirements are low the small turbo or one turbo works and when the air requirements are high the large turbo or both turbos works. The exhaust flow into the turbochargers are controlled by valves as well as airflow from the compressors. Boostpressure are controlled by wastegates.
 
I think at last year's Nurburgring 24 Hour race, there was a bi-turbo Porsche 911. Car put out maybe 700 hps. I think one problem is trying to cool not one, but both engines down. They were almost as powerful and cool looking as the Le Mans-winning Porsche GT1 of 1998, just not crossing the $1,000,000 mark. So, there is an example for you.

(NOTE: IF YOU DISLIKE TUNER CARS, DISREGARD THE NEXT PARAGRAPH AND GO TO THE NEXT.)

There was an Audi TT-R that was equipped with two turbo engines and put out 800 horsepower total. Along the way (by the way, this comes courtesy of then TNN show "Super 2NRTV"), one of the engines stalled, so it was pretty cool to see an Audi hopped up with two engines, 800hp, Autobahn-butchering speeds, and a bug splatter on the roof cam of the car. Then a funny caption came on saying "He died for Super 2NRTV."

Well, those were two turbocharged examples for you. Just want to get them noticed.
 
Originally posted by JohnBM01
I think at last year's Nurburgring 24 Hour race, there was a bi-turbo Porsche 911. Car put out maybe 700 hps. I think one problem is trying to cool not one, but both engines down.
Click to expand...

what do you mean cool both engines down?
 
Well, I would think the car would heat up too easy if you have two engines in it, much less two turbos. If this doesn't solve anything, disregard the last sentence you quoted from me.
 
I saw a twin engine Smart Roadster on tv a while ago. It normally has a 3 cylinder 700cc turbo. With the addition of the second engine it became a 1.4l V6 twin-turbo. 0-60 = 5.5 sec and around 150mph top speed.
 
Twin Turbo basically means the engine was CRAP to begin with and needed some extra RICE to get it off the line in under 18 seconds. Take any of those engines with a twin turbo and take the turbo out, and you got a slowa$$ piece of crap. Buy a car with a real engine to begin with, like a Camaro or God forbid a Mustang. Now you got the same speed for the same price. Then put a turbo on that and your untouchable.

Stop polishing those turds guys, no matter how much you rub (adding turbo or nitrous) you still got a piddly little 1.7 liter 4 cylinder. Bwaahaahahahaha, 1.7 liters??? That's how I like my beer, not my engines. Such a joke.
 
F-Body is a little upset, the reason? The main reason is that the performance numbers of his car from almost 2 decades ago are comparable to a minivan of today.

Don't sing it - Bring it.
 
Originally posted by F-Body
Twin Turbo basically means the engine was CRAP to begin with and needed some extra RICE to get it off the line in under 18 seconds. Take any of those engines with a twin turbo and take the turbo out, and you got a slowa$$ piece of crap. Buy a car with a real engine to begin with, like a Camaro or God forbid a Mustang. Now you got the same speed for the same price. Then put a turbo on that and your untouchable.

Stop polishing those turds guys, no matter how much you rub (adding turbo or nitrous) you still got a piddly little 1.7 liter 4 cylinder. Bwaahaahahahaha, 1.7 liters??? That's how I like my beer, not my engines. Such a joke.
Click to expand...

I had it with this guy. :lol: All he do is diss imports, as much as i would like to respect his opinion on cars, if he dont respect mine, why should I respect his? To me he sound like a typical white kid in my school who only like american made car.

F-Body should grow up. You can get anything from a 4 cylinder to a V8 these days in a Import. Such as Lexus, go check it out if you dont believe that Japanese import dont have V8s.

He seems to think all import has 1.7L 4 Cylinder FWD beancan or whatever the hell people call it. Im basically sick of it.


He seems to think any force induction car that comes out of the factory sucks. Ok what about the Mustang Cobra? Its supercharged V8. If you take off the supercharger im sure it wont be as fast either.

:mad: I had enough of this fool. All he is doing is pissing me off.
 
Originally posted by DQuaN
I saw a twin engine Smart Roadster on tv a while ago. It normally has a 3 cylinder 700cc turbo. With the addition of the second engine it became a 1.4l V6 twin-turbo. 0-60 = 5.5 sec and around 150mph top speed.
Click to expand...
It's the Brabus Smart V6, it's not a twin engine design, it's two engines mated together and they've become 1 engine, like the two inline six's put together to make the V12 in the TVR Speed 12.
 
Originally posted by eliseracer
I think the full name is MTM Bimoto. Maybe I'm wrong.

I know it had 4 Turbo's! 2 Tachs! 2 starter buttons!
Click to expand...

Yeah, MTM do mad stuff. They're the people who think that the Audi RS6 is a wee bit short on puff.

There's a heavily bastardised version of a Lotus 7 out there somewhere, with two bike engines in it, one engine powering each axle. It holds the world 0-60 record, I believe.
 
The Tiger Z100, it holds the 0-60 record for a production car around 2.8 seconds.
 
Originally posted by GilesGuthrie
Yeah, MTM do mad stuff. They're the people who think that the Audi RS6 is a wee bit short on puff.

There's a heavily bastardised version of a Lotus 7 out there somewhere, with two bike engines in it, one engine powering each axle. It holds the world 0-60 record, I believe.
Click to expand...

That would be the Tiger Z100WR, fitted with two 1200cc Kawasaki ZX12 engines (each pushing out about 190bhp).

They got a 0-60 time of 2.8 seconds out of it back in 2001 (with Tiff Needel I believe), but if my memory serves me right they did not get the world record because you need two consecutive runs and Tiff blew the gearbox on it.

They may have got it in a later run, but I can remember watching the one with Tiff on TV.
 

Attachments

  • z100_b.jpg
    z100_b.jpg
    3.9 KB · Views: 85
I didn't know about it needing 2 runs, fast as hell though.
 
Originally posted by F-Body
Twin Turbo basically means the engine was CRAP to begin with and needed some extra RICE to get it off the line in under 18 seconds. Take any of those engines with a twin turbo and take the turbo out, and you got a slowa$$ piece of crap. Buy a car with a real engine to begin with, like a Camaro or God forbid a Mustang. Now you got the same speed for the same price. Then put a turbo on that and your untouchable.

Stop polishing those turds guys, no matter how much you rub (adding turbo or nitrous) you still got a piddly little 1.7 liter 4 cylinder. Bwaahaahahahaha, 1.7 liters??? That's how I like my beer, not my engines. Such a joke.
Click to expand...

I did start a reply to this, but on the whole could not be bothered. I will instead just name one 1.8 litre NA 4 cylinder car and give him a picture of it.

Caterham R500 Superlight
 

Attachments

  • 59333128.jpg
    59333128.jpg
    16.5 KB · Views: 81
Originally posted by live4speed
I didn't know about it needing 2 runs, fast as hell though.
Click to expand...

Yep one in each direction apparently. To ensure wind speed and the road surface don't aid the attempt, personally don't care 2.8seconds, record or not is as fast as hell.
 
Originally posted by F-Body
Twin Turbo basically means the engine was CRAP to begin with and needed some extra RICE to get it off the line in under 18 seconds. Take any of those engines with a twin turbo and take the turbo out, and you got a slowa$$ piece of crap. Buy a car with a real engine to begin with, like a Camaro or God forbid a Mustang. Now you got the same speed for the same price. Then put a turbo on that and your untouchable.

Stop polishing those turds guys, no matter how much you rub (adding turbo or nitrous) you still got a piddly little 1.7 liter 4 cylinder. Bwaahaahahahaha, 1.7 liters??? That's how I like my beer, not my engines. Such a joke.
Click to expand...
GET TO **** as they would say round my way. You don't know much about cars do you, not everyone want's a Camaro or Mustang which have bigger engines because they were designed a different way, some people use different mehods to make a cars engine more powerful, using a larger displacement isn't always best.
 
Originally posted by Scaff
I did start a reply to this, but on the whole could not be bothered. I will instead just name one 1.8 litre NA 4 cylinder car and give him a picture of it.

Caterham R500 Superlight
Click to expand...

How about a 1.8 litre turbo 4 cylinder?

We can start off slowly with the Audi TT (which I hate, but it is a turbo 4 cylinder 1.8)...

audi-tt-front.jpg

225hp, 0-60mph in 6.3s, 151mph

Then get really warm with an S1 Lotus Exige (another 1.8 litre NA 4 cylinder)

exige.jpg

S1 - 192hp, 0-60mph in 4.6s
S2 - 189hp, 0-60mph in 5.2s

And go hot with the Ford RS200 Evolution (1.8 litre turbo, 4cyl)

rs200sil.jpg

550hp, 0-60mph in 3.06s (official world record for production road car), 185mph (although the gearing was adjustable from 145-210mph).


I cordially invite F-Body to ssssssssssuck it.
 
Originally posted by Famine



I cordially invite F-Body to ssssssssssuck it.[/color][/b] [/B]
Click to expand...

I second that

It reminds me of last years Bathurst 24hrs, when two Celica hammered everything in there class, including V8 Holdens by nine laps.

Not bad for road legal cars with 1.8 4 pots.
 

Attachments

  • 03_31 - toyota celica sx.jpg
    03_31 - toyota celica sx.jpg
    3.1 KB · Views: 72
Ahem...

BMW in Formula One 1982 - 1987

Sport Director: Dieter Stappert (Austria)
Technical Director: Ing. Paul Rosche (Germany)

Engine
1499.8 cc
max 1,500 bhp at 11,000 rpm
turbo: KKK (Germany), later Garrett (USA)
block: cast steel (production based)

1,000bhp per litre from 4 cylinders. Boo yeah!
 
Here we go, time to teach the riceboys all a lesson. Taking notes?

check out www.riceboypage.com for some good pointers guys, lolololol

Rollazn --- The Mustang is CRAP for putting a turbo in their car. TO begin with it's a piece of crap engine, a tiny little v-8, 4.6 liter. In the 80's and 90's the called em 5.0's, but they were always 4.6 liters. Mustangs suck, almost as much as every Honda ever made. I hate Mustangs, but still better than front wheel drive anything.

Famine --- The TT, ok, wow, it's got 225 HP, but how much Torque? 115? Not really sure but I bet the torque is WAY under the HP rating. And how much does it cost? It took them 17 years to get just a tit over my 1987 naturally aspirated 5.0 liter tuned port injection, and beat my 1987 by .5 on the 0-60. Now I fully realize that on the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times that half a second is an eternity. But my car cost like 11k brand new or something close to it, I paid 2500 for it. How much does that Audi cost? It's not a sports car at all, not whatsoever. It's a peppy little business mans car. And the Lotus, come on, that's a 100k plus car. For 50k I can get a Corvette with 450 HP, and nearly 500 ft/lbs torque. It would DESTROY your little TT and Lotus.

As far as that Ford goes, is that really a ford? Looks like a Honda. If it really is a Ford, which I believe you on, what year is it, and it must not have been released here in America. And it does not look stock at all, no headlights even.

I'd take a 2002 stock Z-28 in a race over anything Japan has to offer stock.
 

Latest Posts

Back