mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

GM Considering Twincharged Engine With Turbo And Supercharger

Although GM is dead set on transitioning to all-electric powertrains, with plans to eliminate tailpipe emissions from its light-duty vehicle lineup by 2035, The General isn’t abandoning internal combustion engines quite yet. In fact, GM President Mark Reuss characterized GM’s ICE portfolio as “critically important,” especially when it comes to investing in GM’s EV future. Now, we’re hearing rumblings that GM is considering a new twincharged engine that combines forced induction from both a turbocharger and a supercharger.

GM signage at the Renaissance Center in Detroit.

Details on the possible new GM twincharged engine are few and far between, but according to our sources, such a configuration is definitely on the table. For those readers who may be unaware, twincharging essentially combines an exhaust-driven turbocharger and a mechanically driven supercharger to create complementary induction systems, smoothing over some of the drawbacks and enhancing some of the benefits for both systems. For example, a twincharged engine could potentially offer both the sharp throttle response of a supercharged engine with the high boost potential of a turbocharged engine, yielding an exceptionally power-dense motor.

GM isn’t the first automaker to consider a twincharged ICE engine. Volvo, for example, offered twincharged powerplants in a variety of different models under its T6 and T8 model designations, while Volkswagen offered its twincharged 1.4 TSI engine. As one might expect, a twincharged engine can provide some pretty impressive power numbers – for example, the 2022 Volvo XC90 Recharge Plug-In Hybrid T8 eAWD PHEV produced 400 horsepower and 472 pound-feet of torque from a twincharged, electrified 2.0L four-cylinder. Twincharged engines have found use in motorsport as well, including the legendary Lancia Delta S4, considered the first true example of twincharged technology and belting out upwards of 500 horsepower from its 1.8L four-cylinder.

Naturally, there are a few drawbacks to twincharged engines, namely increased complexity and more weight. With all the components needed to make a supercharger and turbocharger work in unison, an engine can get pretty complicated, and as we all know, that means more opportunities for something to go wrong. Add in the extra heft of these systems, and one has to wonder if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Either way, the idea of a new twincharged engine from GM is certainly worth keeping an eye on, and we’ll be doing exactly that, so make sure to subscribe to GM Authority for more GM technology news, GM business news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.

Jonathan is an automotive journalist based out of Southern California. He loves anything and everything on four wheels.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Old GM should have some data on this concept from it’s Detroit Diesel and EMD days. It will be interesting to see if the supercharger will be serpentine belt driven like a 3.8 or integrated into the timing chain.

    Reply
  2. How about a hybrid half ton truck that Ruess said in 2018 they don’t need because of their rapid EV rollout. Large EVs don’t make sense and their rollout has not been rapid. Hybrids in any class of vehicle are more enviro friendly. And trucks stand the most to gain, a 20% fuel efficiency increase in a truck is MEGA.

    Reply
    1. Hybrid are good ideas. The problem is the people that brought hybrids in the past are buying EVs now. GM made their two mode hybrid trucks years ago and they were ignored by the buying public. They cost more and gas was relatively cheap. The technology was sound and basically morphed into the Chevy Volt powertrain.

      Few manufacturers are going to go the hybrid route unless they are already heavily invested in it like Toyota. And even Toyota is having to charge their plans to be more electric.

      Reply
      1. To be frank, youre wrong on all accounts. The first gen volt was vastly different than the hyrbid trucks. The hybrid trucks in the past were limited availability both in numbers and geographic market, and were marketed like crap much like alot of promising GM products at that time. I know someone that had a hybrid Tahoe and LOVED it, and that seems to be the case with a lot of people that got their hands on them.

        And also not true about hybrid to EV conquest buyers. The truck segment is a different animal than any other segment.

        Ford just made the F150 powerboost the same price as the standard 3.5 EcoBoost for the updated 2024. And I would be money they are going to roll out a hyrbid 2.7 powerboost. They also have a PHEV Ranger inbound. Ram will also have a hybrid 1500 and things are pointing to a hybrid Dakota too.

        GM would be foolish to think their EV trucks can meet the needs of truck buyers for the next decade while solid state and mega-watt charging is screwed around with and viably rolled out en masse.

        Reply
        1. Hybrids are in my opinion the better way to go, turbo charging and even supercharging would be a great addition to some the less powerful hybrids. I am not a fan of an EV, until they can get more range, more infrastructure and how to handle putting out fires from lithium Ion batteries. So far none of this is happening. But we have an administration that doesn’t care about the facts, just push the EVs on us, like it or not.

          Reply
      2. Tundra set no records, hyrbid or otherwise

        Reply
  3. Whatever became of Ford’s E-turbo where an electric motor would spin the turbo at low RPM. I think I saw some clip of a mustang with one and it looked really promising. I’ve had a couple cars with superchargers and love the off the line power. Downside is constant load means mileage penalty. The E-turbo seemed like a great idea, although complexity may have made it impossible to manufacture. Anyone know what happened to it?

    Reply
    1. Most superchargers have a bypass valve (vacuum or electronic) that makes them run unloaded using less than 1 hp until needed. Even the ancient MP118/121 for carbureted engines have this feature, and it works well.
      Running Holley Sniper on it makes it infinitely tunable and seemless for me.
      I’m sure GM’s engineers can easily incorporate this with turbochargers.

      Reply
    2. Man thats frustrating to hear another company thinking of that idea. I ‘invented’ lots of automotive technology as a teen a few years back, just for them to end up being created or patented later. Electrically-spooled turbos was one idea. To completely eliminate turbo lag (patented by ferrari recently). I also came up with coumpound turbo’ing (before i knew it existed). Or electronically adjustable window tint (now invented & used by mclaren & lambo). I came up with the idea of weaving titanium strands into carbon monocoques for more strength, less weight, shatter resistance etc (now carbo-tanium, invented by Pagani for the Cinque). And also had ideas about magnetic suspension (before i knew of mag ride shocks). 😅😭😭😭. So frustrating. I need to be a automotive engineer (and shouldve been born 10yrs earlier)😂

      Reply
      1. You sound Abe Simpson, do you also shout at clouds?

        BMW patented a type of electric turbo like 15 years ago, and I’m sure someone else had a different design 15 years before that.
        Same goes for electrochromic glass, it’s been around a long time, implementing it for a vehicle application doesn’t mean jack, sorry to say.

        Reply
        1. Im probably not old enough to get your reference. But that’s why I put “invented” in quotations. I had come up with all these ideas when I was like 15, before knowing of their existence. Now I know some of this was already created beforehand, like mag-ride, or compound turbo’ing in Group B rally. But its still frustrating to come up with all these ideas, to later find out that I was onto something. And that others in the industry had already, or would later create & patent the same things.

          Reply
          1. Abe Simpson is the grandpa on The Simpson’s tv show known for making crackpot claims

            Tbh there aren’t many new ideas. You likely had influence from somewhere unknowingly or your idea as a 15 year old was thought of and designed and patented by an engineer well before you were born

            When you say you came up with an idea of titanium carbon fibre was that the start and end of the idea, just adding titanium to CF, or did you actually have the manufacturing process figured out to do so?

            Reply
  4. not gonna happen since its not a variant of an underpowered 3cyl engine

    Reply
  5. Once more GM talks out of both sides of their mouth. “All in on EV’s” indeed.

    Reply
  6. This will likely be a truck engine and with everyone else dropping V8s, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was some return of an inline 6. Considering Stellantis and Mazda have brought out variants of this engine, GM could create one that’s just as if not more powerful than Hurricane I6s with twin charging and hybrid tech.

    Reply
  7. I’ll believe it when I see a 7th Gen Camaro with a ICE engine.

    Reply
    1. Seriously. Its sad & annoying to see GM shifting towards the green agenda scam. And pretty much killing all of their ICE performance cars. Cadillac’s going full EV, killing the iconic manual, boosted v8 CTSV/Blackwings. Camaro’s are perpetually on “their final year”. And Chevy has killed the Vettes DNA w/ the C8. Becoming mid engine, auto, AWD hybrids (as if anyone wants that), they’re ridiculously heavy near 4000lb ‘sportscars’, Dual clutch only, and they killed the pushrod sprchrgd v8’s in favor of kinda crappy sounding ‘knock-off ferrari’ FPC, DOHC engines. They decided to prioritize flashy acceleration #’s, and ended-up killing the heart & soul of true driver’s cars. Like the steering feel, driver involvement, chassis balance (now 60/40😂), handling etc. And cause of that, the C8z’s handling/skidpad grip is considerably worse than c7’s were. I miss the hardcore GM that made their high performance cars manual only, with fixed roofs, stripped out interiors, etc. (Like the z/28, c6z’s, and ’17 SS & ZL1 1le’s). Or when they just made nutty creations like the 5th gen Z/28’s & manual CTSv wagons😅🤘

      Reply
      1. I definitely agree with you about the C8. The C7 was such a better looking car with way more driving character and pushrod V8 power. The LS and LT engines are what makes Chevrolet what it is not some torqueless DOHC V8 which is just a waste of engineering money. Funny how the EPA figures were better for the C7 ZR-1 than for the C8 Z06 ?? ft./715 lbs of torque vs 460. That is real progress??

        Reply
  8. More complexity when it’s time to replace the turbo or supercharger.

    Reply
  9. Another idea from GM, but it is very expensive just to save a few grams of CO2 and will probably only make sense in 2025 with e-fuels and H2!

    Now what would be better?
    My suggestion is the E-Turbo like the Mercedes-Benz AMG, a 2.0L 4 cylinder mono E-Turbo for current engines. But this e-turbo would have to be designed better for low and high speeds! Of course, there is also hybrid technology, which is now important, and that also brings weight and complexity! Does GM want that? Now why a turbo with a compressor whose technology was already too expensive, complex and heavy for Volkswagen?

    Should GM build PHEVs again?
    Or GM changes its mind and installs a good electric motor in the transmission and leaves the super good V6 and V8 petrol and diesel engines in the range. With a PHEV, GM meets all regulations and customers are happy.

    There was once the “TwoMode Hybrid” that was so good that BMW also equipped the X6 (GenE71) with GM transmissions!
    Now GM is often a trailblazer for other OEMs, but the marketing and marketing are too bad and therefore GM is worth sponsoring the competitor OEMs!!

    This is really very stupid!!!

    Reply
  10. This is so stupid. What happened to having V8 engines in trucks like it’s always been. We don’t hybrid or EV vehicles. Bring back gas powered trucks. Also we don’t need twin turbocharged V6 trucks like the Tundra and F150. You guys are pushing EVs too hard like everyone has got to have them now.

    Reply
  11. Yeah, and plus, you can’t “electric car” a farm and expect success. These rural approaches to cars are still rooted in gas. I’m telling you, stop overcomplicating. Turbo your fours if you like but stop being pedantic and going electric cuz farmhands don’t fix hybrids.
    You can’t add a turbo without that complexity, but like someone said, why are you doing 3/cyl?. Somehow you’re not thinking past the 4-Corners of your mousepad. Genuinely stop overcomplicating this. Just do it good. Do what I’m saying. Make metal as efficient as you can, add a turbo compressor to the intake, and just make a car. You want to make cars? Make sure people who make cars are happy, and make sure they don’t think their client is stupid or worthless, because you’ve killed a lot of Americans who arent. Electric vehicles aren’t cars and won’t replace them. The real problems cars solve might be somewhere they can’t go. So, just focus on getting the cars you do make efficient, because Chevy…ya ain’t. And you do it on purpose to profit the oil tycoons.

    Reply
  12. How about a large displacement Atkinson engine? Have a coworker who races Mitsubishis, and hes been through 3 engines. Their 2.0L bored and stroked to 2.5L, sequentially turboed and run an ethanol tune. By the time he’s has them build they weight over 400lbs. I keep telling him he needs to ditch them and go with a 4.3 modded to rev high. Be lighter and he wouldn’t keep blowing motors

    Forget the turbos. 7.4L Atkinson small block with a compression ratio of 15:1 and cylinder deactivation. Will weight a touch more than the 6.2 at roughly 450lbs, feature no more complexity than today’s 5.3, which already costs a fraction of what Fords Ecoboost do.

    Reply
  13. Ev autos are NOT friendly to the environment. Just think of how many factors run 24/7 365 to pimp out those precious metals for battery’s and on board electronics. Not to mention the coal usage still for mining metal for more battery and cables with copper so in reality there worse for the environment than a plan ice motor.

    Reply
  14. Adopting 2 forcing inductions will greatly improve hp and emission output. They just thought of this now. I been doing this for years and years. Great engineers….public gearheads can do better.

    Reply
  15. GM will go out of business if they don’t offer ICE options way past 2035. Folks do not want EVs at the pace the big 3 are pushing. I can see Toyota or Honda purchasing GM when they fail in a decade or so.

    Reply
  16. Steve that is WILDLY accurate. I think you should trade forex & stocks. That’s a gift my friend. Believe me, if average people had that level of common sense GM would already have been a brand known by great cars. The issue is, it isn’t.. because ppl don’t have common sense at a “gnat” or “fruit fly” level, and they’ll still do the same thing like under powering and making inefficiency a sport. Especially the midsize popular cars. I see them being nasty, nasty things if GM/muggles have anything to do with it

    Reply
  17. It’s not so bad. Examine volkswagen. I realize you may have personal convictions against that brand or think that they’re some type of poison that’s spread across every food item that you eat in America but I can tell you from a fair amount of personal experience that the turbocharger assembly replacement procedure is not inherently more difficult then replacing the catalytic converter assemblies. Please note that I’m speaking from engineering terms, and if Chevy is your brand I’m not here to tell you that they would or would not adopt the”check out how your home mechanic is equipped for tools and then build a car that the average person won’t be out back for in the event that they have to fix it” approach, ya know? But in light of having repaired a lot of Volkswagens over the years I can tell you that the removal of the exhaust manifold assembly is the exact same with turbocharging as without. You might have detected from looking at some of the technical reference materials available out there that engine out overhauls are pretty common theme with these sort of cars. The reason I want to say this is it’s important that you know that an engine out process is a absolutely VASTLY… Easier process on a volkswagen. The reason is that the common sense people in Volkswagen’s technical engineering department took a look at what is entailed and resolving common problems with these cars, and it was immediately evident that dropping the engine out on this like it was on a pallet would facilitate the ability to repair a lot of the problems. So I can see your eyes rolling as you think will you shouldn’t have to take the engine out of a car in order to replace the exhaust. We’ll guess what? Drive down main Street and four out of five of those cars are either going to have to have the engine mounts removed in the engine jacked up with the subframe out or some other complicated procedure done in order to get those manifold bolts off. That’s just the facts. At least Volkswagen provides springs between the flange bolts to ensure that in the event that the mechanic tries to remove them they won’t have to cut the exhaust assembly and hire someone with a welder to put it back on. It’s not particularly easy to do a turbo and EGR cooler and everything on the back of the engine. But I will tell you that compared to doing that same thing on a vehicle engineered by those who have no common sense it’s a walk in the park. It is an absolute cake walk. I would rather do a EGR in turbo on a Volkswagen then an alternator on most Chevys or pontiacs. I’m just being real there was, and this is a true story, a technical service bulletin for the replacement procedure on a Porsche and the steps for that went disconnect the battery place vehicle on lift, and remove engine from vehicle. I’m telling you right now on a porch, remove engine from vehicle is the third step for changing the alternator. It takes about 7 minutes. Removing the engine from the vehicle with the correct tools is literally common sense. If you think about it the only things that are actually holding the thing in are electrical wires fuel and engine mounts. Everything else they gets in your way might have to be like exhaust components and if you’re doing a turbo you’re taking those down anyway. I’m just saying it’s not that complicated. So the problem is, to kind of continue this conversation and a direction that I think it should probably go is that in the event that you have a vehicle that is old enough to require a turbo replacement, what else needs to be done in the process? Is it due for a torque converter or a clutch pack? Is the valve cover assembly leaking? Is it convenient to reach those parts while the engine is in the bay? What else can you do while the vehicle is down? And that means probably scheduled maintenance we’ll have to be adhered to on a more widespread basis. And I have said this with my own words for I don’t know how long, but you have to pay attention to schedule maintenance. The dealership has provided a very handy schedule that tells you exactly which miles you have to repair the vehicle. Where I catch people slipping all the time and I’ve educated a lot of folks to saving tens of thousands of dollars, is the fact that in the event that you follow the scheduled maintenance procedure very good things happen with the car, and you will catch things before they break. It’s well beyond preventative the maintenance that you’re doing. For instance Volkswagen forecasted that at 184,000 Miles my rear windshield wiper sprayer nozzle hose would break. They were right around 200 miles from exactly when that happened. And if you think about it if you knew that it was going to break then you would have had that addressed at the 180,000 mile service interval. That’s very common sense. If you follow the instructions then you’ll have a car that functions right and is safe. If you don’t do that, or you do literally anything other than that you’re going to be broken down on the side of the road. Now the problem that I have a lot of fear about for the Chevy drivers? They have no common sense. I have witnessed the dumbest people in possession of a chevrolet. So they might have to implement a Mercedes style service interval reminder where the car flat out will not start in the event that it’s not had scheduled maintenance correctly. I know that seems like a lot of work, but if you’re talking about electrifying cars those won’t work on the farm. So you’re not going to move me from the idea that having your vehicle in top condition is a great idea and it’s easier to maintain it than try to fix everything. Remember you can fix all of the things yourself. There’s nothing stopping you from purchasing the tools. As a matter of fact I would feel a lot better in the event that my Volkswagen were only fixed by me. I find that the value of my car is high when I have a scheduled maintenance log with receipts from every single service interval that it’s ever had. It’s never missed a stop. The reason why Chevrolet is not Volkswagen is because higher tolerance and lower cost (cost cutting) risks the biscuit way too hardcore for my taste. I just don’t believe that they shouldn’t have put a turbocharger on these things a long time ago. Now really the topic of this is about turbo supercharging. I think that it is utterly inane and fully ludicrous to even consider having a Chevrolet with a turbo-supercharger on it in stock form. You’re absolutely right it is prohibitively dumb to turbo super charge a streetcar. It’s unnecessary it places incredible burden on the mechanical components to function at both road speeds and track speeds all at the same time. And it’s asking a lot more then we have from American engineers. . Stupid idea way too expensive to buy way to top and heavy to implement, adds a requirement for low tolerance high precision which is beyond the scope of most individuals located in america, and like you said it’s prohibitive to attempt to maintain. Aside from that it makes no sense and it’s illogical that Chevrolet won’t make higher efficiency cars literally like they have the ability to do without forced induction and provide those. Why are they having to struggle between I’m either going to make 15 miles a gallon in a naturally aspirated car or I’m going to turbo supercharger? It doesn’t make any sense why won’t you just use a flat four with direct injection and a 30 to 40 mm turbo charger with a direct shift gearbox or something? Look at how Volkswagen golfer built. Look at how passat’s and Jenna’s are built. The reason why they have become the standard car across the world for efficiency is because they are incredibly well engineered. I will not put it to you that they are cheap to maintain. The failures that I have detected with Volkswagen or flat out laughable. Some of the problems that I have seen would never affect the chevrolet.

    Reply
  18. I’ll be impressed if they can make the turbocharger and supercharger one unit and optimized for the two different ways the impeller(s) are driven. The advanced engine guys have talked about this concept for at least 20 years that I know of.

    Reply
  19. It could be a premium gas engine for 2500/3500 and medium duty.
    -They’ve floated the idea of variable compression from the rotating assembly.
    -They’ve built a monster displacement 632.
    -They have hot-v experience from the LTA

    Flip the valve duties and use a center manifold to a turbo (limit extra part cost), E-supercharger for spool-up, runs low compression. At low load, part-throttle conditions, runs high compression, mostly N/A. A long-stroke low-rpm gas truck motor with duramax torque.

    All just a guess.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel