Antonov Pursuing Dual-Speed Supercharging as Enabler for Downsizing
07 May 2008
 |
| Antonov dual-speed supercharger. Click to enlarge. |
Antonov Automotive Technologies is recommending a simple dual-speed supercharger for downsizing engines to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. Antonov currently offers a dual-speed supercharger, first shown at the Engine Expo in 2006 and currently on sale for the tuner market. (Earlier post.)
In a presentation on a panel on engine downsizing technologies at the Engine Expo 2008 in Stuttgart (6-8 May), Chris Baylis, operations director for UK-based Antonov, said that the dual-speed approach could enable a 25-50% reduction in engine size for road vehicles, with an accompanying reduction in fuel consumption and carbon emissions.
Car makers are increasingly looking at superchargers to enhance the performance of small engines. Unlike turbochargers there are no heat issues to manage, and the study of exhaust gases can then be assigned to energy recovery systems. Two speeds are better than one, and two speeds are enough—particularly when considering the cost, weight, packaging and vehicle refinement implications for high volume car production.
Improved fuel economy is fundamentally achieved through using a small displacement engine—with a dual-speed supercharger allowing it to run more often at low rpm. The two speeds allow us to spread the charge of air from the supercharger to the engine over a wide engine speed range.
Essentially we’re able to create a better match between the supercharger and its host engine—by running the supercharger faster at low engine speeds and slower at high engine speeds. The benefit is predictable low speed engine torque that is always available for enhanced drivability and performance. The change between drive ratios is smooth and virtually imperceptible to the driver.
—Chris Baylis
In the dual-speed supercharger, an Antonov Mechanical Module two-speed drives a Rotrex centrifugal pump supercharger faster at low engine speeds, thereby delivering a higher boost ratio to provide additional low speed engine torque.
As engine speed rises, the unit—essentially a tiny automatic gearbox—automatically shifts up to enable the supercharger to continue to operate effectively at higher engine speeds. The device controls the shift with the use of centrifugal force and axial thrust generated by helical gears under load. Therefore, it can work as autonomous self-adapting modules without the need for hydraulic actuation or electronic control.
The centrifugal pump supercharger is more compact, less complex and less expensive than a positive displacement supercharger, but cannot offer the same torque output at low engine revs.
The Antonov drive system, however, extends the engine torque curve supported by the centrifugal pump supercharger to exceed even the performance of a positive displacement blower. In addition, the torque curve can be tuned so that a smaller displacement engine matches exactly the performance of a much larger naturally aspirated unit.
Antonov is current pursuing three dual-speed supercharger studies. This includes an engine downsizing application for a typical family car, an aftermarket application already in production for high performance vehicles and a performance enhancement application for off-road vehicles with relatively poor class performance, which is also in production.
Will this wonderful mechanic be suffissant to keep a dying species alive for another decade or more?
Will electrified vehicles need complex transmissions?
Posted by: Harvey D | 07 May 2008 at 08:14 AM
@Harvey D -
to paraphrase Mark Twain, "reports of the death of the internal combustion engine are exaggerated". On the other hand, why go for a mechanical supercharger to improve fuel economy at all? Modern turbos are simpler, cheaper and more effective in that regard.
Btw, electric vehicles do require fancy transmissions - though of the solid state variety. They're called power converters and are used to translate between the DC grid the batteries are attached to and the three-phase AC the motors require at just the right frequency. In series hybrid setup like the GM Volt, you also need a second converter for the genset.
Posted by: | 07 May 2008 at 08:29 AM
Turbos and hybrids kind of go together. The 1.4l I4 would make a good candidate for just such an effort here in the U.S. I know turbos and hybrid costs, but so does fuel. I would be willing to trade hardware for energy. It is an upfront expense that really pays off.
That brings up my favorite topic of retrofits. Would someone pay $5000-$6000 to retrofit a 5 year old car to get 30% better mileage? If they average 20 mpg combined, is 26 mpg good enough? Is a 5 year payback at $4 per gallon too long? I just thought I would throw the topic out for discussion. I am interested in what people have to say. - Thanks
Posted by: SJC | 07 May 2008 at 09:40 AM
SJC, I've thought about retrofit myself. I think it's difficult to get people to put $5k in an old car than runs fine. Older cars average fewer miles per year, so the payoff tends to be longer. The logistics of retrofit are also tough due to all the belt-driven accessories.
Retrofit might be good for cars with blown engines or transmissions, in which case the owner is looking at a few grand anyway. If you can offer a 30% MPG gain for $5k vs. same old MPG for $3k, you might get some takers.
How do you get 5 year payoff, though? At $4/gal 26 mpg vs. 20 only saves about 5 cents/mile. If 12k miles/year is typical for a used car that's only $600/year. More like an 8-10 year payoff.
Posted by: doggydogworld | 07 May 2008 at 10:19 AM
@ SJC,
How old is "old?" If a car is out of warranty (typically 3-6 years for drivetrain) it may be pretty far down the depreciation curve as well.
If you went for the cheapest retrofit you could, with just a rip-and-replace of the rear axle and breaks, a battery pack in the trunk, and some controls...that still seems like major brain surgery for the car. Since the original engine is still there, this seems like a mild hybrid...what 15% fuel savings? I guess it's not worth it doing it by halves. You'd have to go full PHEV to have a chance at recouping the the labor costs.
5 years (60,000 miles) at 5 cents/mile savings is $3K payback...maybe it would make sense for minivans and 2-wheel-drive SUVs, where the base mileage is poorest, and the per-mile savings might be higher. Dunno.
Posted by: Healthy Breaze | 07 May 2008 at 10:49 AM
I go on the 30k miles per year here in S. Cal. People are commuter crazy here. They buy houses way out in the suburbs and commute more than 100 miles every work day. Those are the folks that I am targeting. I also think $5 gas is coming in a few years. Analysts have projected $200 oil in two years.
Thanks for your response. I think you are right. Most people would not want to put a lot more money into and old car when they can buy a new one. People here can put 100,000 miles on a car in 3 1/2 years so by the time 5 years rolls around it may have 140,000 miles on it. Time for a new one.
Posted by: SJC | 07 May 2008 at 10:53 AM
SJC, retrofits should not cost $5-6k, if they do they need to gain 40-50% mpg. Let me put it this way, a piggyback computer will cost you $300-500 which with some smart tuning will already get you to 26mpg from 20mpg. We're being screwed with this horrible tuning from OEMs. Can you imagine a smart car getting worst mpg than a crx 20 years ago? CRX WAS FASTER TOO!
Posted by: Viktor | 07 May 2008 at 10:56 AM
Maybe it is better to discuss what you get for what you spend. Maybe the car is newer or older than 5 years. I picked that because it is usually paid off by then. I do not care if it is a reflash of the computer memory at $50 or a mild hybrid at $5000. What ever works and is cost effective. Even if hybrid sales go to 1 million units per year, at the end of ten years you might have 15 million hybrids out there or 10% of the cars getting 40% better mileage.
You do the math, but that will not get us that far even after 10 years. Who knows what the price of oil and gasoline will be then. So I figured if we can double the amount of fuel saving cars by offering people a lower cost alternative to buying a $25,000-$30,000 new hybrid, we might have more of them in service. I was kind of hoping that the mild hybrid would be easier on the engine and make it last longer, but that might just be wishful thinking on my part. Thanks for everyones response, it gives me a bit of a reality check.
Posted by: SJC | 07 May 2008 at 11:17 AM
SJC:
A $5K (MIRA type retrofit) may be worthwhile to many who would enjoy converting a good low mileage 4-year vehicle into a 4WD PHEV with modular lithium battery packs.
Since this type of retrofit would contribute to reduced liquid fuel consumption, oil imports and GHG; governments could offset most (at least 50%) of the conversion cost with a generous incentive program. To double the positive effects, the conversion incentive program could be financed with a progressive fuel tax (5 cents/month/gal would be sufficient).
Posted by: Harvey D | 07 May 2008 at 11:58 AM
Sounds good to me. I would say if the up side is better than any projected down side we should consider it. I just keep thinking that we are going to need a big effort in the next few years if they are right about $200 oil in 6 months to 2 years. I have not done the math on it but I would think that $200 oil comes close to $5 gasoline.
This is going to be a cruncher. Economies will slow to lower growth in the developed nations. Shortages could occur and I remember the effect that had in the 70s. I do not want to be alarmist if that is not warranted, but anything we can do to make it better would help.
Posted by: SJC | 07 May 2008 at 12:07 PM
Switch to a manual steering rack and toss the A/C...that should be good for 5-10% better fuel mileage.
Posted by: Patrick | 07 May 2008 at 12:20 PM
They make electric power steering and AC on hybrids. With all the electrical power it make sense. I never quite understood a complex hydraulic power steering anyway. I guess when cars are bigger and heavier, everything has to scale up and then they are even bigger and heavier.
Posted by: SJC | 07 May 2008 at 12:27 PM
I am reminded of an old cliche, "Everything old is new again."
The idea of a mechanically driven (rather than by an exhaust gas turbine) centrifugal supercharging element, was utilized during World War II on the Packard-Rolls Royce Merlin engine used in the Spitfire and everyone's favorite WWII fighter, the P-51D Mustang.
Two-speed mechanically driven centrifugal superchargers were also used in piston engine airliners.
Therefore, what Mr. Antonov is doing is reviving an old configuration.
Posted by: Alex Kovnat | 07 May 2008 at 12:50 PM
SJC:
High octane gas has already gone up to $5.25 per USA gal. in many Canadian cites in the last few days. Regular lower octane gas in getting very close to $5/gal. If this trend continues, we may see $6/gal before the end of the year or by this time next year.
This may be what is required to convince many more of us that improved Hybrids, PHEVs and BEVs are worth the added investment.
Posted by: Harvey D | 07 May 2008 at 01:10 PM
I look at 10% of the cars getting 40% better mileage as 4% less gasoline. E10 as maybe 8% less? Work on trucks and planes and trains, before you know it we might be using 10% less oil even if consumption increases at maybe 1% per year.
This is going to be a challenge. It may sound dramatic, but one not unlike the WWII mobilization of industry for tanks and planes. It can be done, but a sense of urgency may be required and unless I miss my guess, that is about to happen.
Posted by: SJC | 07 May 2008 at 01:15 PM
IME, the most cost effective alterations with an older vehicle are to the driver, and then to gearing/aerodynamics/rolling resistance, the order of which depends on the route.
Posted by: yesplease | 07 May 2008 at 08:14 PM
I think what this dual-speed supercharger does is make it possible to accomplish what Volkswagen did with its 1.4-liter TSI TwinCharger engine but at much less mechanical complexity, since we avoid the complication of the combination supercharger/turbocharger setup Volkswagen uses. In short, a 1.5-liter I-4 gasoline engine with this supercharger could produce as much as 185 bhp; it would be the equivalent of the power of the Honda K24 I-4 engine in its 2008 Accord sedan tune but with the same fuel efficiency as the Honda R18 engine in the current Honda Civic models.
Posted by: Raymond | 07 May 2008 at 08:21 PM
the 25-50% seems way optimitic to me, the downsizing in itself can't bring that much improvement, you need to count also on direct injection, or variable compression or Atkinson to reach that type of improvement
Posted by: treehugger | 07 May 2008 at 09:23 PM
I think they just mean a 25-50% reduction in engine size - eg using a 1-litre supercharged instead of a 2-litre naturally aspirated engine.
Posted by: clett | 08 May 2008 at 07:21 AM
I could see them going from a 2.2l to a 1.4l but I do not know where they are going to fit this. If you look at the Scion TC blower, they had to run a shaft across the motor from the belt side to the intake side. This looks like one big unit.
Posted by: SJC | 08 May 2008 at 09:07 AM
SJC,
If they use an intercooler they are likely to have piping go across the engine bay anyways (well in top mount of front mount configurations). Intake and supercharger on accessory belt side, output to front or top mount intercooler, intercooler output on opposite side of engine bay to go to throttle body. Other front mount intercooler systems I've seen with turbocharged engines had a ton of intake piping going across the engine bay and introducing extra bends...this would potentially shorten the piping distance and reduce number of sharp radii (in front mount intercooler installations).
Posted by: Patrick | 08 May 2008 at 10:59 AM
I might like the package better if it included a motor/alternator for a BAS+ kind of arrangement. It should earn its keep on the belt by providing boost, power and torque for mild hybrid start/stop, regenrative braking and acceleration.
Posted by: SJC | 08 May 2008 at 11:14 AM
Antonov has the future technology of today for fuel reduction, new supurb supercharger technology and the supurb six-speed automatic transmission technology who is better than de Dual Clutch technology. Antonov automatic six-speeds are cheaper, smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient and many more.
Read it all:
Http://www.antonovat.com
Http://www.antonov-clubsite.nl
Posted by: Warren2 | 08 May 2008 at 01:50 PM
More:
Of discus about the technology at:
Http://www.antonovforum.com
Go to http://www.google.com and fill in. “antonov supercharger antonov six-speed automatic transmission” and you will find many links about it.
Posted by: Warren2 | 08 May 2008 at 01:53 PM
See some movies with the antonov dual speed supercharger.
Movie Antonov dual speed in full action:
http://www.antonov-clubsite.nl/000000962f000d411/00000099fb002b61b/index.html
Antonov supercharger laungh at SEMA: http://video.stangtv.com/video_detail.php?mId=4223
Posted by: Warren2 | 08 May 2008 at 01:55 PM