turbo kits 101

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anonymous
  • Start date Start date
Very interesting reading.

The T3 Turbo is really nice. I have that on my Volvo. Makes a 2.3L 5 cylinder engine pull almost 250 BHP. That's fun against unsuspecting cars. No one likes loosing to a Volvo.

Slade
 
hahahah yep , fun to drive a volvo with turbo !!i,m stil driving it , did thought many time,s to sel it and get a better gas milage car , but al the times i drive it , i think :: what a great car !! it,s realy a great car to drive !! and fast !!
i got a 850 glT 2,5 liter 20 V full options ! after my audi 90 quatro the finisht car i did own ,d !!

btw turbo , i almost finish my turbo project for the 6 ! wil try to instal it next week , with a dubble dellorto 48 carb on it ! suck trough system ! must remove the battery to the trunk to get more space for the carbs , i,m waiting on my battery trunk kit to do the swap !
just a little welding on the 6 tubes for the header and i,m ready ! from 6 to 2 to 1 attaching the turbo flense !
 
Heh heh, looks like I know who to E-mail when my turbo project gets started! :D (or atleast after my mustang get's started :P)
 
With our carb cars, what do we do about fuel during boost? Is there something we can use to get more fual in while under boost or is it nothin to worry bout??? I really am serious bout doin this hopefully soon so what do I need?
Matt
 
Get a copy of MacInnes' book Turbochargers he goes into carbretor turbo controls in great detail.

The short answer id that with a draw thru, youi don't need to do anything about fuel supply pressure, with a blowthru it has to be boost referenced. He shows you how.
 
Problem with Draw thru, especially on a Turbo is that turbos heat up the charge air more the superchargers. Now imagine there is fuel in there. And you also can't use an intercooler with it, and most turbo systems should have an intercooler.

Slade
 
Actually turbos heat the air EXACTLY the same as a centrifugal supercharger with the same A/R and substantially less than most positive displacement blowers.

Draw-throughs have the advantage of a much simpler installation but the limit on boost that is imposed by the absence of the intercooler. If you're only going to 6 PSI, there's little reason to deal with the complexity of a blow-through; at 14 PSI a draw-through won't cut it.
 
so on a stock motor, wanting to run 6-7psi, a drawthrough would be perfect wouldn't it, especially with a later model head that has a thicker head gasket; the cast pistons are safe to that amount of boost arent they
 
Just make sure you use a turbo that has seals set up for a wet-flow/draw-thru system. Otherwise the fuel-air mixture in the compressor could wipe out the lube on the turbo bearings & toast the whole thing. Way ugly! IIRC MacInnes' book covers that aspect also.

J.R.
 
On an early mustang, say mine, where would be the best place to put it??? Im thinkin to put it on the drivers side but where????
Matt
 
why would you put it on the driver's side?

quick thoughts on why you shouldn't (these are just top of my head, for some reason unknown to me, it might be a good idea, anyways):
heat, you've got the fuel pump, the dist. and wires over there
clearance, what i put above, as well as steering system, and brake cylinder
simplicity, you'll have to run more pipe, which means more welding, which means more $$$$$

if you keep it over on the passenger side, you won't have to worry about all the above
keep it simple, there should be more than enough room to slide a turbo in next to the block and the fender
 
Well, I know one thing. the66mustang's conversion will work, because he's a master machinist who can make anything work!

I've seen a 1967 Holden 186 I6, in Hugh MacInnes' early version of Turbochargers, and it had a 45 DCOE Weber carb running 14 pounds per square. Power went up 2.32 times the original. Can't remember the exact figures, but from 75 rwhp as a stock 1-bbl non-turbo to 174 rwhp as a 14 psi turbo rings a bell.

The real issue with High-hp turbos as draw throughs is lack of charge cooling, fuel drop out, and even ignition of the fuel charge in some instances. The LeMans Triumph TR8 Turbo had very serious problems with the draw through charge burning up before the intake manifold. Ooops.

Every one should learn the lesson of the first Olds JetFires. The F85 was well executed, but nobody wanted to use the anti-detonation injection, even though it did 800 mpg. And the early turbos had carbon deposites, more from oil quality and using anti-freeze rather than the alcohol blends GM intended. Running a 10.5:1 compression ratio was a bit daring too! The grunty little 215 engine was a good thing, but invested too much faith in its drivers adherance to service and maintenance schedules.

Also, some carbs, notibly #4150 Holleys, have been renown for fuel puddling causing deposites. The are perfect for a drag car, but I've not seen one favourable report for on the road use. Ak Miller Enterprises had a mod to heat up the area before the turbo housing, running water through it. It seams to me that the bigger 2-bbl and 4-bbl Holley isn't a bad carb, just needs a manifold which can stop the fuel dropping out.

Holley Webers have worked well in low boost draw throughs. So have the 2CG Rochester and 4M Rochester Q'Jet. The pre-EFI Rear wheel drive 3.8 Buick turbo set-up, where the carb sit over to the left of the engine bay in Cutlasses, would be perfect for a lower boost 200 cuber with lots of bonnet space. The turbo could sit where the carby sits, and as long as you have a 1.75" hole log head, you could run up to 15 psi with little mixture distribution problems. The Rochester QJet could sit above the left side of the engine, away from the exhast heat. I've seen some wicked nitrous set ups for these draw throughs.

Renown turbo freak, Mike Vine in Brisbane, refused to sell Holley carbed Turbo cross-flows. He did quite a few draw throughs with twin CD 175's bored out to 1.875", and got 350 hp easily with methonol/water injection and 12 pounds boost and 8:1 compression through a machined head. Remeber, this is a power supply of 2.67 times that of the stock 9.35:1 compression 250 cross-flow's 131 hp! Some twin turbo EFI's got up to 383 hp.

If you follow the rules on how to keep the fuel in suspension, find some method of stopping detonation, and build a 'one-size fits all' ductile iron exhast manifold for anything from a 144 to US 250's and Aussie 250 2V, not a argon back-purged special that will crack and let you down, then you'll get power without hassles.

In Australia, Holden sixes got a semi-factory SL/T 3300 Torana which could do high 15 second quarters with 180 hp, an aftermarket Commodore Turbo, with the same power as a 5.0 liter V8, and these cars were quite good conversions. The growing V8 resurgence from the fuel glutt in 1982 killed them. So did the Nissan 3.0 Turbo Holden used. Ford Turbos were factory run as test cars, but the old boys network, led by Max Gransden, the person who killed the Cleveland V8, the local C4, the Cortina, the local six cylinder 250 Bronco, lost the plot, and gave no aftermarket backing to Ford Turbo projects. Best example was the Mazda GLC/323 based Ford Lazer Turbo. It had an Austrailain Bensons Turbo induction set up, with a Mazda 323 Turbo unit. It was a night mare. Put Ford Aussie out of locally made turbo cars for 20 years. All the Aussie market Ford Turbos were Mazdas until 2003!
 
well, asa, Im running headers right now, dual out, and Im not getting rid of them. i just go the blasted things and would like to hold on to them for a while. I figure Ill run pipe under the motor to the passenger side and run the turbo from there. Unless someone can figure out how to do it otherwise, thats what I think Im gonna try to do. Heat will be a problem to concider, but one question I have real quick. DO turbos make alot more heat than a supercharger, or what I should as is do superchargers not make that muh heat, cause in MM that stang had his charger on the drivers side no problem. If a turbo can be put on the driver's side Im gonna do it that way unless a better way comes up.
Matt
 
The longer the runs from exhaust port to turbine and from compressor to intake port, the greater the turbo lag. You want, actually you NEED, to keep the runs as short as is humanly possible. Putting the turbo on the driver's side guarantees more lag than you'll want. Turbos and long tube headers may not be compatible technologies in your vehicle. Someone posted some pix of an old Ak Miller 200 turbo setup. Search and see if you can find them.
 
Is it a good ida to run the turbo straight off the stock exhaust manifold, or would it be better to rig a shorty-style tubular set-up like the pics posted in the "How to fab turbo headers" thread?

For free exhaust flow, my guess is the headers. however, I'm not sure how much gain there is for the effort involed?

thoughts?

--mikey
 
Heres my idea, thought Ide throw it out there and let it get eaten up by you guys, or maybe itll work, either way here goes. Keep the headers, Y pipe to 1 tube that goes under the motor to the turbo on the driver's side. From the turbo out a 2-3 inch exhaust pipe, to an intercooler which then goes to the carb in the stock possition. Now, to deal with turbo lag, I could either run a Y that exits to 3 inches and then down to 2 as it enters the turbo (forcing the air into it?????) or I could run a T3 or other small turbo that spools quicker and helps get rid of the lag. Thing is, I dont wanna get rid of the head after I just got it, and I figure it might help a little to have it, but if truely there is no possible wayt that it can be done, then I guess Ill have to go back to the stock manifold. ANy ideas either way???? Anyone wanna make me a turbo header, lol
Matt
 
Back
Top