is this such a good idea? what would the drawbacks be despite the obvious fitment issues?

 

no. For one, you'd have to run close to 40 psi, set the "idle" up to 1500 RPM +, run 100+ octane fuel... etc. Beyond that lots of $$$.

 

ok...what about the twin charger idea of having a sc and turbo at the same time?

 

Been done. Some people like it, I don't know why... you can get better and more predictable power with a single turbo and a small shot of nitrous if you're really worried about spool time... Super chargers just suck the life out of I4's for the same amount of boost, good for some power, but I'd stick with a turbo for an I4, let the v6's or v8's have the SC's.

 

Some fast Mk1 MR2's are twincharged, but the car was already designed for the S/C so...

 

Actually not too bad of an idea if you have enough cash.

Lancia Integrale anyone? h: 0-60 in 3.8 seconds on GRAVEL

Shingo

 

I can't tell if these are running in parallel or not. It looks like cylinders 1 and 3 feed one of the turbos while cyls 2 and 4 feed the other. That doesn't really make much sense to me.

Subaru used to sell a twin-turbo Legacy a few years ago, but that's a flat-4 with two banks of cylinders so it makes somewhat more sense.

Now, running two turbos sequentially (a la the Mazda RX7) could give a flatter powerband but only up to a certain point. Generally once you get into the really high output areas running more than one turbo per bank of cylinders becomes too unpredictable.

 

I could see running a parallel turbo system with 09Bs or something, but I honestly dont see how it could possibly be worth the effort in relation to a single turbo.

 

they claim that motor makes over 600 hp :eh:

 

I'm sure it does, but you can make 600 hp with a single turbo with a lot less fuss.