legacycentral bbs

Thought y'all might enjoy this article about an electric supercharger that Visteon is developing for Euro markets. This ain't the rip-off sold on eBay; 50,000 RPM and 2000W fan !


European auto makers are encouraging Visteon Corp. to develop an electrically powered supercharging system that will improve performance of small engines. The supercharger is needed because internal combustion engine/electric hybrids — and the 42-volt systems that will power them — for the most part remain just out of reach.

Visteon engineers are working with customers on engine projects for 2005-2006 that will use the Visteon Torque Enhancement System, or VTES, with a 12/14-volt electrical system.

It would be easy to adapt the VTES system to a 36/42-volt system, says Visteon engineer Jeff Brown, but the costs and complexity of such systems mean manufacturers are sticking with 12/14-volt systems longer than was thought a few years ago.

And they are looking for ways to improve fuel efficiency to meet the coming 2008 European goal of 140 grams of CO2 per km, the equivalent of about 41 mpg (5.7L/100 km).

Visteon views VTES as a transitional system between today's engines and future gas or diesel/electric hybrid systems, but it predicts that hybrids will have less than 5% of the market in 2010.

The VTES system, as with a turbocharger, generates greater power by forcing more air into the combustion chamber. Traditionally, turbocharging has been the favored approach. But the problem is the annoying “turbo lag” that is inevitable, because the turbo compressor is powered by the exhaust gases.

In the VTES system, the compressor is powered by a brushless electric motor that turns an aluminum alloy compressor at 50,000 rpm — just 330 milliseconds after the driver demands acceleration.

Visteon has a dozen patents on aspects of its supercharger system, which has been in development for three years.

“We have patents on the motor, the application, electrical system management and the central interface, among others,” says a Visteon spokesman.

“The motor-compressor is about 30% of it, but integration is the difficult part. The competition might have a motor but not the integration.”

The motor requires 2kW of electric power in operation, so Visteon needs to manage the vehicle's entire electric network in order to stay within the limits of a 12/14-volt system.

Among other things, engineers packaged the battery next to the motor to reduce losses in the wiring and regulate output of the intelligent alternator. Boost pressure is 5.1 to 5.8 psi (0.35 to 0.4 bar), depending on the application.

To demonstrate the system, Visteon installed VTES in a naturally aspirated 1.2L Fiat Auto SpA engine and a 1.9L Renault SA turbodiesel. In the diesel, the airflow from the VTES is directed through the turbocharger, boosting the intake pressure faster than the turbo alone.

Ultimately, auto makers are interested in reducing the size of their engines if they can get the same performance, because fuel consumption will be lower. Reducing performance is not a marketable option.

Potential benefits are greatest in small- displacement engines. Brown says applications are impractical on engines larger than a 3L turbodiesel or a 2.3L naturally aspirated engine, because larger engines require more air than a 12-volt supercharger can deliver.

Thus, Visteon developed its program with Europe in mind, where engines are smaller than in the U.S. Most European car buyers express interest in enhancing performance, rather than downsizing, says Visteon, and there is more interest in enhancing turbodiesel engines than in boosting gasoline engines.

In a 1.9L diesel, torque is increased about 10% for engine speeds from 1,000 to 2,500 rpm, but there is some benefit even at top speed.

More dramatic results are possible with small gasoline engines. A 1.2L engine with the VTES system performs nearly as well as a 1.8L without VTES, yet fuel economy is 27% better.

Compared to a 1.2L engine without VTES, the more powerful VTES engine's fuel economy is unchanged at 39 mpg (6L/100 km).

“In everyday driving, you use only 30% of the torque available in your engine 90% of the time,” says Brown. “You pay a large penalty in fuel economy to have the extra power available that you rarely use.”

Compared to the 1.8L engine, drivers using a 1.2L VTES would save about $1,500 in fuel cost over 36,000 miles (58,000 km), with typical European fuel prices.

That's uncalled for. Just because it's driven by electricity doesn't mean it's a piece of shit, or worthless. Not everything that is powerful has to be mechanically powered. Everyone is so quick to call electrical stuff poop, that they dont even care to try to understand it.

My view on it is, Sounds cool, but lets see some real numbers and then we'll see how well it performs.

Hardy - I'm not rolling my eyes because it's electric. I'm rolling my eyes because it's been done before, and it hasn't worked before. The cost seriously outweighs the benefits.

oh okay. I still say, lets see some numbers before we judge

It has been done, and it didnt work well then,

Thats one of the things that seperate us from the animals, we can learn from others' mistakes. I think i might have mentioned this in Flip X's Wheel thread too.

Let me tell you a little story.

I used to be a member of an Eclipse owners forum. This was in the days before my Legacy Central days. I was very interested in getting a Galant VR4. The forum happened to be for ALL generations of DSM and the 3rd gen Eclipse. Plenty of N/A guys, just like here on the BBS.

A maker of these E-SC's registered and was talking up his bit. No one believed it, and he was unable to field even the simplest questions (such as the concerns of Fuel Management on an N/A ECU for the boosted period of time.)

It was finally to the point that he had promised to ship said E-SC to the administrator of the forum (who happened to drive a 3rd Gen Eclipse, 4-cyl).

Months passed, no word from the guy, no E-SC for the admin.

In the short, they don't work. In the long, they work, as long as you have all of the extensive supporting equipment. The costs GREATLY outweigh other options.

Havent heard of these guys have you yet? They use the same supercharger I am using but with three starter solenoids running it.


http://www.boosthead.com/home.php

Visteon is a big "real" company. If they are actually developing it, it's no hoax. http://visteon.com/technology/automotive/vtes.shtml

Even if it works, what's the point?

It'll cost more to adapt an electric supercharger to most cars, for significantly less of a power gain, at a SIGNIFICANTLY higher weight, than doing a turbo kit or a REAL S/C.

Double post. Won't let me delete

what do you mean by REAL Supercharger? If it is compressing air and force feeding it into an engine, how is it not real? The way I see it electrical losses are less than mechanical losses. Also don't forget that rotational mass is more of an issue than just mass in general. Who says it wont give the same amount of power? And yes it might cost more initially but all things do.

THAWA wrote:what do you mean by REAL Supercharger? If it is compressing air and force feeding it into an engine, how is it not real? The way I see it electrical losses are less than mechanical losses. Also don't forget that rotational mass is more of an issue than just mass in general. Who says it wont give the same amount of power? And yes it might cost more initially but all things do.

By real, I mean directly powered by the crank.

Electrical losses are less than mechanical losses? What's giving the Electrics the power?

Rotational mass? The same amount of mass is going to be spinning for both a conventional SC and this E-SC. It's still gotta spin a compressor of decent size to make more boost than the air it's blocking.

5.1 to 5.8 psi? Is that REALLY worth all of the cost? That's HARDLY worth it, and that's HIGHLY dependent on circumstances, the ability of the engine to flow said PSI, and doesn't even address the fact that N/A engines are NOT optimized for boost applications.

You are running boost to a compression ratio, and cam profile, optimized to the conditions that the engine will never be on-boost. The ECU freaking out and dumping all the fuel it can to the engine will negate most of what that 5.1psi is going to do.

50,000 RPM is fine, but at max RPM, electric motors produce zero torque, so getting it to stay at that high of an RPM for any extended period of time, is going to require LARGE quantities of power, likely a dedicated battery, and boost-life is going to be short lived. You'll have all this extra weight, not doing anything but slowing you down Off-boost.

Also, off-boost, the turbine is STILL an obstruction in the intake tract. It simply gets in the way.

I just don't buy it. Even if it DOES increase a minute amount of power, it's still never going to compare, in any way, to other, more conventional methods. I've got 100,000 miles on my stock turbo. When I see an E-Charger run 100,000 miles of off-and-on boost, in every condition from dirt, mud, and dust to snow, rain, and ice. THEN I'll be slightly more impressed. Until then, I'll pass.

Whatever happened to the hydrocharger idea, too?

Steve

Steve, care to elaborate?

Run a turbine off of the coolant system?

you dont need super mad boost on a high compression engine to make power. 5 psi should be more than enough. If they are using this as a oem setup i'm almost positive they will have the correct compression ratio cams and ecu to handle this kind of thing. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is all experimental anyway right? When was the last time you saw someone put together a complete package that was experimental? I'm sure there were and still are tons of people that think the same way about a turbo charger as you do about one of these. This obviously isnt marketed twords you. But that's okay, electricity is the future whether you agree or not gas/deisel/whatever is just ineffcient. If you disagree, let me link you to a nice supercar: http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm

and this is just the beginning. How many supercars of the past could do this in experimental stage (read: late 1800's/early 1900's when internal combustion was starting to get big)

so to summarize. It might start out a lil ineffcient now, but it's still comparable to a mechanical unit, and that is without much experience in this.

I'm not saying that electricity is inefficient. I'm saying that it IS in this case.

A turbo uses what would otherwise be wasted (exhaust) to make power.

This device requires power, to make power.

I don't see how this competes in any way to a mechanical unit. They are saying that you "pay the price for power you don't always use". That's just not true if the conditions are the same between the two cars.

I'll give you an example.

Steve (evoloutionmovement) is running a turbo engine as N/A in his car. He says he gets around 23mpg on the highway with this setup, compared to the 30mpg on the highway with his N/A setup.

Now compare Steve to me. Off-boost, I get 23mpg on the highway. But I have all of this extra power at my fingertips. I press the gas and I'm gone. Even running all out redlines at the F&S for 70 miles, I got 22mpg on that tank of gas. It's all relative to the conditions of the test engines. I get the same gas mileage as Steve if I want to, and I have much more power to play with when I want to.

My engine's also freshly cleaned and pressed.

The hydrocharger was supposed to run off the cooling system and could be put anywhere. Basically the same idea as a supercharger where you'd suck power to make power, but installation would be easier and it may be more efficient depending on SC comparos and conditions.

The thing about these deals that makes me suspicious is that energy cannot be created, so you can't get something for nothing - these things have to create parasitic drag to work. As Phil said, a turbo uses what is already waste, while these systems require more power to run. I guess it would be like being able to eat your own shit vs. having to grow your own food and process it to eat. Not that I'm saying I want to eat my own shit, but I had rabbits as a kid who did that and I don't mind if my car does it too.

Screw electric cars - give me steam!

Steve

evolutionmovement wrote:Not that I'm saying I want to eat my own shit, but I had rabbits as a kid who did that and I don't mind if my car does it too.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA holy shit, that was funny.

I just want me a Turbo Diesel Hybrid.

Did any of you actually look at this? It answers all your questions on how to power the supercharger AND make it work.

http://www.boosthead.com/home.php

I gotta get in on this action.

Echarger is a good idea.

1 you don't have to be powering the SC all the time as you do with a normal charger, you can cut charging to it under WOT

2 yes, zero torque at peak rpm, but then thats why we have gears. You can gear it to whatever you want.

3 the ecu can have total control over boosting. This means that it will never need to dump fuel because of an unexpected boost spike, it can run off crappo gas and reduce boost, they can keep compression high, etc...

4 in normal driving conditions, how often do you need to floor it? I know tons of people who almost never do, and they would have a SC system with no parastitic drag, but retain the power. For them, this is more power with no cost beyond initial manufacture.
normal driving you might spend 10% of the time floored

the price will never come very far down. Parts cost money to make.

1) I'm never powering my turbo. It's running off of what would otherwise be waste.

2) Doesn't work like that. Why do you think boats are direct drive? Because with such low load, you are making higher RPM, not torque. High RPM doesn't mean high torque. Electric motors make all of their torque at 0RPM and make NONE of their torque at MAX RPM. The turbine could spin at 1,000,000 RPM, and it still doesn't have enough torque to KEEP spinning at that RPM.

3) For an aftermarket application, you'd have to go to full standalone for the ECU to know how to do that. No one, and that means NO ONE, is going to spend $2k + labor and tuning, to get 5psi that they can NEVER upgrade.

4) Same goes with a turbo. I get the same gas mileage as Steve, and I've got a lot more power under my right foot. Not to mention that in order to run for that 10% of the time, you'd have to charge the system for the other 90% of the time. And charging a 2000w system is an intense feat for a 12v electrical system. The amount that an alternator would have to pump would be horrible for the life of the alternator.

You talk about no-drag, but that's a COMPLETE fallacy. SOMETHING has to convert mechanical energy into electrical energy. You are taking a wasted step. With a standard SC or Turbo, you are feeding DIRECTLY off of what the engine is doing. With the E-Charger, you are feeding off of what the engine is doing, converting that energy to another form, then pumping that back out. All within the confines of a 12v system. Only so much you can do with 12v.

Eaton Roots Blowers have a clutch style bypass. Off-boost (cruising, etc), they require less than 3/4 of 1hp to spin. On the dyno, a fly could fart and cause a 3/4hp variance.

The E-charger would need to be charging, taking, maybe, 3 to 5hp from the engine as a parasitic draw. If you know the efficiency of capacators, you'll have to continuously charge the system to have it at the ready all of the time.

As it stands, and as it looks, the E-charger will not outweigh the more conventional methods as an aftermarket product. It is simply, less efficient.

I'm sure you all noticed the parameters under which this program is being run. Basically for fuel efficiency and packaging efficiency, i.e. being able to get a little more grunt out of a very small engine, without building a new engine plant, or significantly increasing the package size of the engine bay.

The e-charger definitely has some advantages, namely being able to place it nearly at will, not just where a belt is able to drive it,

Using STORED energy, such that the parasitic loss need not be greatest when you spin up the charger (in fact likely programmed to be least when you need boost)

Full integration into the engine management

Virtually no losses when not in use

There is no question there are losses converting mechanical energy to electrical, storing it, then re-converting to mechanical. probably 30%. Also note that with 14 volts you can't push enough air to feed engines over 2.2L. But there are some convincing reasons to press on: engines will be 36 volts very soon, so then you could push 10-15 psi; gas / electric hybrid engines, with a little gas engine and an electric motor built right on (combo starter motor / generator / torque machine) would still benefit from a little compresssor.

Pretty soon the whole damn car will be electrically controlled, regardless of the efficiency thereof, surely a cable is more efficient than a "drive by wire" system, but control is everything.

An electric valve sure seems silly until you relize it can do your bidding as far as lift, duration, curve, etc at any time, unrestrained by mechanical considerations or where the camshaft happens to be.

And I can assure you after being in several of Visteon's facilities that they are no jokers.

I'm still not convinced. Phil is pretty much right on as far as I'm concerned. It's too complicated, too inefficient, and too expensive to warrant the R&D.

BAC5.2 wrote:
3) For an aftermarket application, you'd have to go to full standalone for the ECU to know how to do that. No one, and that means NO ONE, is going to spend $2k + labor and tuning, to get 5psi that they can NEVER upgrade.

The way I read the initial post is that this company is developing a system. They are not putting together an aftermarket kit. They are taking a fresh look at developing a SYSTEM: An engine, including this electric SC, and management- all developed together for OEM applications. Either they are speculatively funding it, or some portion of the automotive industry is giving them development money. If you are looking at this as an aftermarket way to add some power, I think you are missing the point. I don't think anyone intends to put this on their car and run out to the local drag strip to see how many tenths they've knocked off their last run.

Now, let me be clear. I am not attempting to address the issues with how or if this will even work. Automotive engineering is not my area of expertise. I look at this in the same way I look at NASA developing the scram jet, or large scale parachute based recovery systems. If someone out there can apply enough brain power, money, and technology to a problem, they just might come up with something that will be useful.

It seems that they are not trying to make a high performance application, but rather attempting to maintain a performance level that the market is accustomed to, while increasing fuel efficiency. More power to them. In the same market sector, look at how effective the hybrid power cars have become. Things like this only reach the market when the MONEY aspect of it makes sense.

I look forward to seeing what they come up with. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. I'm certainly glad to know that someone is applying some effort in that direction. Someday this idea, or a variation of it, may reach the market. Your little sister may be driving a very fuel efficient car powered by this system when she goes off to college in a few years.

Or not.