Mercedes just came out with an internal (meaning inside the block itself) turbo system for their AMG GT model, and I figure it might make a great addition in the game as well, as it would offer much more engine bay room.
I don’t think they are actually inside the block (that would make servicing them a nightmare if not impossible), they are mounted in the space between the two arms of the V.
Interesting idea, although I imagine the saved space would instead be used for cooling 
It would mean a lot of new art, the Cummings engines I work with at my job have center mounted turbos. The heads are reversed compared to normal v engines with the exhaust on the inside of the v and the intake manifolds on the outside, it might be possible to pipe them in with a traditional setup but if you’re really focused on space saving reversed heads is the most compact way to do it.
Audi and BMW also uses that layout.
Latest RS6 and the latest M5.
Awww hell no. Getting the turbo piping to work on the outside of the bank is hard enough 
[quote=“RobtheFiend”]Audi and BMW also uses that layout.
Latest RS6 and the latest M5.[/quote]
This is because (in the case of BMW at least) they need pulses from both banks to be plumbed to a twin-scroll turbocharger due to the firing order of a V8 engine. The only feasible way to do this without absurdly long exhaust runners is to reverse the direction of the heads and mount the pair of twin-scrolls in the valley of the V.
So it’s actually got nothing to do with saving space at all - a more compact layout just happens to be the consequence of having to pipe specific cylinders to a given turbocharger.
As far as turbochargers actually inside the engine go, there is at least one modern F1 engine (I can’t remember whose) where the compressor and turbine are on opposite ends of the engine block and the shaft goes through the middle, but turbo compound engines are another beast entirely which will never see the light of day in Automation.
The general gist of it is that a turbocharger is mechanically driven by the engine, just like a supercharger, but it retains the turbine which extracts power from the exhaust gases. The consequence is that there is no delay in power output, while at higher RPMs the exhaust turbine actually feeds power back into the engine. This idea was of some interest in fighter engines shortly after World War II but engineers discovered that in some cases the turbine would make more power than the reciprocating engine it was connected to and gave up on the idea.
Since you aren’t allowed to run turbine engines in Formula 1 (and likely wouldn’t want to, given their very sluggish responsiveness) this is basically the next best thing.
The F1 turbo (Merchedes) is NOT a centrifugal compressor driven by the engine mecanically… it is a TURBO driven by the exhaust. And an electric engine attached to the shaft.
I’m aware of this; I went off to do something else in between discussing F1 and explaining the workings of 1940’s turbo-compound technology.
In the case of the Mercedes F1 engine you have a motor-generator unit between the compressor and turbine which can push or pull power based on the engine’s requirements. Use it as a motor, and you basically have a combination of electric supercharging and an anti-lag system; use it as a generator and you have a free source of energy to charge up the car’s KERS system which would otherwise be vented through the wastegate.
So maybe it should be categorized as some variant of hybrid-electric turbo-compound engine.
Then i’m with you.
Scania used the compound turbine system on their 11l straight 6 diesels ,as an option, starting 1991. It was dropped some years later because the recirculation of exhausts was seen as more fuel efficient.
But i wonder if a compound turbine could be used on a non forced induction engine (gasoline) as a way to increase the efficiency %?
Yes.
This was also explored during WWII; off the top of my head, they improved specific fuel consumption by about 20%. They didn’t catch on because the engineering and metallurgy of the time wasn’t capable of producing a reliable power recovery turbine (apparently also known as “parts recovery turbine”).
As far as car engines are concerned, I still don’t think standalone power recovery turbines will catch on. I would like to see a hybrid supercar with an electric supercharger and power recovery turbine linked to a generator unit, with electric motors in the front wheels.
I’m sure the Veyron from will get one at some point
Sayonara that image and description is for a cross plane, the engines I work with are v10’s and therefor flat plane so the exhaust pulses are different, each bank has it’s own turbo. wow yeah this would involve so much extra art .
[quote=“Sayonara”]
As far as turbochargers actually inside the engine go, there is at least one modern F1 engine (I can’t remember whose) where the compressor and turbine are on opposite ends of the engine block and the shaft goes through the middle, but turbo compound engines are another beast entirely which will never see the light of day in Automation.[/quote]
Its the Mercedes F1 engine that originally used the split turbo last season, although Honda’s new F1 engine uses the same sort of design. I’m not sure if anyone else has adopted it, but it is a brilliant idea.
Also that was some interesting stuff on the layout of the BMW turbo system.