Looking at pictures of the Lotus 2-Eleven engine,
I was wondering whose supercharger they are using?
It it better than the supercharger used in the 240r and 220s?
Is it the setup used in the original GT3 race car?
Is it sold in a kit form?
Will it fit a standard N/A Exige?
What sort of money would it cost?
Who fits them?
I am guessing you are talking about it in ref to the Exige?
Same set-up as the 255 cup and therefore same SC as 240R/240 cup/Exige S just the intercooler is fitted where a boot would be. Plans will sell you a 250R kit and you could bin the boot and fit the intercooler there - would help with the heat soke, just have to work on getting a decent airflow to the cooler from either the roof scoop or side scoopes.
In addition to what Jamie said, to answer some of the other questions:
I was wondering whose supercharger they are using?
It’s an Eaton M62
What sort of money would it cost?
I believe it’s �8K or more, depending what other parts you want fitted with it (accusump etc)
In addition, I was under the impression that the 2-eleven used a charge-cooler like the Bemani’s do instead of an air-air based intercooler as found in the 240R/Exige-S? Am I wrong in that assumption?
From Lotus website
Engine 2ZZ-GE engine, Metal Matrix Composite (MMC) and aluminium, light weight and compact construction.
Chain driven Double Over-Head Camshafts (DOHC) exploiting a Variable Valve Timing & Lift - intelligent (VVTL-i) system.
Lotus T4e engine management system, multi-point sequential fuel injection, electronic ignition and electronic throttle control.
Lotus Sport developed supercharger installation with unique rear mounted air to air intercooler
You could also do what Komo Tec do and fit a water jacket to the Lotus intercooler and cool the water at the front of the car.
Its funny thogh, had Lotus left the intercooler where it is on the S/240/cup etc it would be sitting up in the airflow on the 211 and would probably work very well, incorporated into a rollbar cover (like on the original concept sketches) it could have looked and worked quite good.
“it could have worked quite good.”
what as an air brake 
you are right of course, but i guess anytime a radiator or intercooler are working correctly they are gonna cause drag although in some circumstances not…
On the Exige S Lotus has optimized the intercooler position to reduce intercooler drag to a minimum…by making the intercooler intake ludicrously small and by locating it in a less than ideal place
However, ideal is to locate the intake in understurbed flow making the intake as small as possible to get the required volume of air, after the intake the “chamber” should open up to reduce the velocity of the airflow thereby minimizing the drag of the cooler itself, after the cooler the “chamber” should reduce to increase the air flow velocity back up the ambient air velocity. If correctly done it is possible in certain circumstances to actually get thrust from a cooling system as the air is energized from the cooler. The P51 Mustang cooling is apparently an example of this…anorak off!
Thanks Jamie, I stand corrected!
Bruh_la,
On the Exige S Lotus has optimized the intercooler position to reduce intercooler drag to a minimum…by making the intercooler intake ludicrously small and by locating it in a less than ideal place
However, ideal is to locate the intake in understurbed flow making the intake as small as possible to get the required volume of air, after the intake the “chamber” should open up to reduce the velocity of the airflow thereby minimizing the drag of the cooler itself, after the cooler the “chamber” should reduce to increase the air flow velocity back up the ambient air velocity. If correctly done it is possible in certain circumstances to actually get thrust from a cooling system as the air is energized from the cooler. The P51 Mustang cooling is apparently an example of this…anorak off!
As far as the Exige-S solution being optimized… I’m sure you are aware that the intake was a fake from the beginning and didn’t do much, besides giving it a nice visual touch…
Also, “after the cooler the “chamber” should reduce to increase the air flow velocity back up the ambient air velocity” doesn’t quite work well as reducing the chamber not only enhances drag, it doesn’t increase air flow either. What goes through an empty tunnel can’t come out more at the back! Not without help of other parts anyway.
I am surprised that Lotus did not just stick the SC on the Exige less the intercooler just look at the Hondas with 300hp - you would think you could get 220 from the Exige
Thanks Jamie, I stand corrected!
Bruh_la,
On the Exige S Lotus has optimized the intercooler position to reduce intercooler drag to a minimum…by making the intercooler intake ludicrously small and by locating it in a less than ideal place
However, ideal is to locate the intake in understurbed flow making the intake as small as possible to get the required volume of air, after the intake the “chamber” should open up to reduce the velocity of the airflow thereby minimizing the drag of the cooler itself, after the cooler the “chamber” should reduce to increase the air flow velocity back up the ambient air velocity. If correctly done it is possible in certain circumstances to actually get thrust from a cooling system as the air is energized from the cooler. The P51 Mustang cooling is apparently an example of this…anorak off!
As far as the Exige-S solution being optimized… I’m sure you are aware that the intake was a fake from the beginning and didn’t do much, besides giving it a nice visual touch…
Also, “after the cooler the “chamber” should reduce to increase the air flow velocity back up the ambient air velocity” doesn’t quite work well as reducing the chamber not only enhances drag, it doesn’t increase air flow either. What goes through an empty tunnel can’t come out more at the back! Not without help of other parts anyway.
You lost me a bit there…i was joking about the S cooler intake, also i was not claiming that the reduction in chamber size incres�sed flow, i was saying it speeded up the flow.
Thats why the cross section of the intake and exhaust of a F1 side pod are significantly smaller than the cross section of the cooler itself. You allow the volume of air you need in, slow it down, pass it through the rad, speed it back up and exhaust it.
In some cases the exiting air can actually travel faster than the incoming air which would result in thrust from the cooling system. But this does not happen often…or at all in real life cooling systems.
You lost me a bit there…i was joking about the S cooler intake, also i was not claiming that the reduction in chamber size incres�sed flow, i was saying it speeded up the flow.
Thats why the cross section of the intake and exhaust of a F1 side pod are significantly smaller than the cross section of the cooler itself. You allow the volume of air you need in, slow it down, pass it through the rad, speed it back up and exhaust it.
In some cases the exiting air can actually travel faster than the incoming air which would result in thrust from the cooling system. But this does not happen often…or at all in real life cooling systems.
Yeah, you’re right. I missed that
About the reduction in chamber size:
I’m still not sure I agree. Speaking physics, what goes in comes out one way or the other. Reducing the air towards the end of a tunnel or channel increases drag - the “speeded up” air-flow you are refering too, wouldn’t make up for the added drag it’s causing in the first place. I’m not even sure it would make any difference at all, except for causing even more drag. And if you’re causing more drag… then why do it in the first place?
It’s a bit akin to doing an experiment using a funnel and water. The funnel will act as drag in this case, which is why the water leaving it is less than the water you are filling in at the top. If it’s simply a tunnel that the water travels through, there wouldn’t be drag.
In the case of a F1 car - as I understand it - the large air-intakes work because it is sucked in by the engine, which burn it. It’s not air coming in and air coming out at the back. Given that it’s ignited together with fuel, the pressures before and after the combustion engine is different which means that the sizes obviously differ as well…
Since we are using this in an example to improve air-flow through an intercooler which is nothing but air passing through an intercooler (drag), I’m not sure how such an airflow could be benefited by adding even more drag by reducing the size of the tunnel towards the end. More drag = less air that can go through the intercooler.
Or am I missing something completely here?
You lost me a bit there…i was joking about the S cooler intake, also i was not claiming that the reduction in chamber size incres�sed flow, i was saying it speeded up the flow.
Thats why the cross section of the intake and exhaust of a F1 side pod are significantly smaller than the cross section of the cooler itself. You allow the volume of air you need in, slow it down, pass it through the rad, speed it back up and exhaust it.
In some cases the exiting air can actually travel faster than the incoming air which would result in thrust from the cooling system. But this does not happen often…or at all in real life cooling systems.
Yeah, you’re right. I missed that
About the reduction in chamber size:
I’m still not sure I agree. Speaking physics, what goes in comes out one way or the other. Reducing the air towards the end of a tunnel or channel > increases drag > - the “speeded up” air-flow you are refering too, wouldn’t make up for the added drag it’s causing in the first place. I’m not even sure it would make any difference at all, except for causing even more drag. And if you’re causing more drag… then why do it in the first place?It’s a bit akin to doing an experiment using a funnel and water. The funnel will act as drag in this case, which is why the water leaving it is less than the water you are filling in at the top. If it’s simply a tunnel that the water travels through, there wouldn’t be drag.
In the case of a F1 car - as I understand it - the large air-intakes work because it is sucked in by the engine, which burn it. It’s not air coming in and air coming out at the back. Given that it’s ignited together with fuel, the pressures before and after the combustion engine is different which means that the sizes obviously differ as well…
Since we are using this in an example to improve air-flow through an intercooler which is nothing but air passing through an intercooler (drag), I’m not sure how such an airflow could be benefited by adding even more drag by reducing the size of the tunnel towards the end. More drag = less air that can go through the intercooler.
Or am I missing something completely here?
I am afraid you are missing something, the F1 example i gave is referring to cooling air, not engine intake air. Look at the side pods of an F1 car and you can see the intake and exhaust (of the cooling system ) are much smaller than the radiators themselves. In some cases the exhaust is smaller than the intake.
The point is to pass the air through the radiator as slow as possible(to reduce drag) this is done by letting a small amount of air in the intake and then slowing it down by opening up the volume of the chamber directly after the intake. If this slow moving air was allowed to exit the cooling system at its reduced speed it would cause more drag than if it was travelling at the same speed as the ambient air. Therefore the chamber is reduced to accelerate the air. Also, remember that the radiator puts energy (in the form of heat) into the air leaving the cooling system. This energy causes the air to expand (in the same way igniting the air/fuel mixture in a jet engine does) which like i said before, can, in some instances, give thrust and certainly will go some way to offset the induced drag of the cooling system.
This is quite interesting actually. I’m helping a company at the moment develop a coling system for a new sports car. I’ve been working with their aero guy quite closely. I’ll ask him what he thinks.
I am afraid you are missing something, the F1 example i gave is referring to cooling air, not engine intake air. Look at the side pods of an F1 car and you can see the intake and exhaust (of the cooling system ) are much smaller than the radiators themselves. In some cases the exhaust is smaller than the intake.
The point is to pass the air through the radiator as slow as possible(to reduce drag) this is done by letting a small amount of air in the intake and then slowing it down by opening up the volume of the chamber directly after the intake. If this slow moving air was allowed to exit the cooling system at its reduced speed it would cause more drag than if it was travelling at the same speed as the ambient air. Therefore the chamber is reduced to accelerate the air. Also, remember that the radiator puts energy (in the form of heat) into the air leaving the cooling system. This energy causes the air to expand (in the same way igniting the air/fuel mixture in a jet engine does) which like i said before, can, in some instances, give thrust and certainly will go some way to offset the induced drag of the cooling system.
Gotcha this time. I still stand by what I said though. The side pods forms has AFAIK more to do with downforce / aerodynamics, rather than “giving thrust”. Perhaps it’s even got a bit to do with the form of a F1 car - if the chamber of the side pods didn’t reduce, then the air would go straight into the back wheels, perhaps even causing more drag because of the swirls/burble of the air hitting the back tyres. By redirecting the airflow to the center of the car, this is more or less avoided, adding some drag as a result, but gaining a better cw-value in total.
I’m fortunate enough to know people who work in one of the F1 teams. I’ll be sure to find out more as it is quite an interesting topic and may settle this discussion!
You can look at any number of similar instances if you feel the F1 is a bad example. Look at the underfuselage cooling on a p51 mustang for example. Or look at a jet engine, its the same principle, after the air is heated (by the combustion process) the diameter of the nozzle reduces to accelerate the exitting air.
Also, i am not claiming that a F1 car gets thrust from its cooling system, i am only saying that in theory and in cirtain circumstances a cooling system COULD give thrust. I was trying to illustrate the point that the heat energy put into the air energizes it.
now i know all about thermal physics i can conduct a test:
take my s1 exige on a hot day for a full speed test, cabin temperature getting on for 50 degrees, selecting full heat on the heater and then modulating the window openings until a positive thrust situation is found and then see how mush faster one can travel.
( possibly i will need to redirect the lateral window thrust rearwards with some window thrust ducting. ( the drag from which will most probably negate any increases in forward propulsion from the cabin thruster system.)
hmm… back to the drawing board…
interesting post though.