Slight tangent, but since it keeps coming up... I find that these "pie in the sky" projects are some of the best learning experiences out there. Whether or not the project comes to fruition, you still learn a lot from all the research put into it. It's the same reason why companies put so much work into money-losing halo cars. And if it all of this does become a reality, then there will be a couple monstrous twin-turbo V12 Astons running around, and who doesn't want to see that happen?

 

Exactly!!!

 

Going in next week to the shop to have them plug in to the ECU and see if they can work with it. They are familiar with these ford ECU units. I'll report back.

 

Look at this guys. Someone has already done this ten years ago! Aston v12 twin turbo!

http://jimroal.com/cars/aston.htm

 

I wouldn't be surprised if AMG doesn't do this when they take control of the engines. They love the Turbos and I sure they are drooling over the V12's.

 

Remember to tell them that it's a master/slave configuration with each ECU running one bank of cylinders independently.!

Also ask if they can access the slip parameters in the traction control and adjust that as well. In addition, are they able to flow the MAFs to see how much power they can support.

Let us know what you find out.

 

Didn't someone say it was impossible earlier?

 

If you mean me, never said impossible, just cost prohibitive. There is a world of difference under the hood between a DB7 and DB9/S, space wise. Good luck trying to find room for any of this stuff.

Still much better to go with remote rear TCs for these cars...you'd never know they were there thus keeping the stock look you want. Since I don't hear anyone planning to lower compression, you are going to run low boost and don't need lag-free highly responsive turbos since you've got normal torque response any way. Rear turbos would make your packaging job infinitely easier.

 

There is more room in the DB9/S engine compartment.

The static compression ratio is not the prohibitive aspect. The dynamic compression is more important as is the thermal management of the system. The boost pressure is not a good measure of effective forced induction, a much mor accurate number is density ratio as you are using air mass numbers. Again, mass X or air plus mass Y of fuel is the determining factor you are after. Heat management is the most important parameter. Turbines need heat, motor needs to breathe cold air as it is more dense ergo more air molecules ergo more fuel ergo more power can be made at less pressure.

The Laminova units are >90% effective and reduce packaging space.

If GT35's are too big then GT28's will fit. They can be used for 400hp per bank. I prefer the GT35 as you don't have to spin the turbines as high a speed.

In any event, this is all calculable before installing anything by examining the flow maps of the compressors and the AR ratio.

Rear mount turbos are less efficient due to the heat loss and velocity loss that the exhaust gasses have to travel. In addition, there is more plumbing which makes the intake losses more than a system closer the the engine.

There is also less space for turbos in the rear of a DB9/S.

Anton may be able to do it for his budget if the ECU can be properly hacked. A good supra fabricator can do the exhaust manifold fab. As long as the intercoolers are precision machined it will be fine.

I have all CAD files for Laminova units and can share with him if needed.

The rest is just some wiring and tuning the ECU with a laptop and some dyno runs as well as road tuning.

Only the increased load points need adjustment in the ECU, the start, warmup and low load points can stay the same. That's the excellent thing about using the stock system, you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

 

There is huge room for twin turbos in the back of DB9/S. You package the twin turbos, in space, to be a direct replacement for the rear box. Then run rectangular section tubing up to the front, along each side, directly in contact with the belly panels, changing to round cross section to the MAFs.

This has the effect of cooling the intake charge on its long route from back to front. You may not even need intercoolers. Even though you lose energy going to the rear, if you are not concerned too much with lag (which I don't think you would be since the engine maintains its normal high compression), then this is a good way to provide torque to fill the drop off at high rpm thereby allowing HP to continue climbing to redline instead of dropping off.

Any way, this would be my first choice since it would be far less work to fabricate and should not require engine removal to package, which would be required to mount turbos up front.

Squires Turbo Systems (before they went out of business) appeared to have many advocates of their rear-mount systems, especially for big block motors. No reason anyone can't duplicate their architecture.

 

Will do!

 

Wow i think we are winning you over XJRS

 

The engine doesn't have to come out to do the headers. You can measure the space and make a wooden mock up, and bolt the bits back in. The turbine exit can be easily plumbed with V band clamps to connect to a race cat plumbed for lambda pre and post cat, and attached to the stock exhaust system.

I don't agree with your understanding of the systems for many scientific reasons which are too many to list here.

With that said, a rear mount is a possibility. However, a properly engineered system requires the turbine wheels closer to the exhaust ports than on a rear mount setup per the current engineering principles of turbocharging.

As before, you're definitely entitled to your opinion, and it encourages debate even if not about the facts of forced induction science.

In any event, removing the rear silencer encourages additional visual inspection when it comes to emission testing as a casual look at the rear will disclose many things that will not be apparent with a system with turbos closer to the heads.

Best Regards

 

Why not just build a high hp NA car. If you want a twin turbo just wait a year or two until the MB V12TT comes directly from the factory.

I also agree with many of the forum owners sentiment, what's the point of more power if you cannot get any of it to the ground... It will actually end up making you slower.

You can easily get 600hp with just bolt on mods. That's the way to go on the V12s.

 

There is no MB V12 TT coming. Don't know where you heard this. The only MB TT is supposedly the V8. There are rumors that the 12 will get TT, but it's the AM motor.