ok, here is what I "think" I have learned from this forum...a blow-through, EFI, EMS is more effecient and makes more power, but a draw-through w/ carbs is a lot easier to set up. Stock engines seem to work well with turbos. Turbos like a low- or no-overlap cam. (of course, no overlap on the street.....)
so here is my proposed set up. Any advice or comments at all, positive or negative, would be greatly appreciated.
*2.0L type 4, all stock internals, balanced
*stock weight flywheel, balanced
?heads-stock with P&P, or 48X38? please advise
*draw through turbo, garret (rebuildable) off
of any junkyard car in the general cc range
of my 2.0
?carbs, webers or dells? please advise
*911 cooling with 5 blade fan
*oil thermostat
*electric oil pump
*rotary fuel pump
*boost sensitive fuel pressere regulator
*6-8 lbs boost
*single exhaust, through one opening in rear
pan
*waste gate (please advise on waste gate)
dumps through other opening in rear pan
again, any advice or comments at all will be greatly appreciated
[This message has been edited by ravenshurst (edited 09-15-2001).]
advice on turbo set up, please
-
danimal
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
ravenshurst, building a turbo car based on internet advice leaves a lot to be desired.
have you had a chance to read the cb performance turbo book? better yet, how about corky bell or hugh mcinnes(sp,?)?
people are out here talking about tiny turbos, twin turbos, etc... but there is zero tech talk about exhaust back pressure with undersize turbos, or why dave perkins is the only person in the history of pra racing that ever got twin turbos down the track... and he only did it once.
i remember reading on the old clf about when mark herbert and his brother put that turbo motor in the ssb... 8 or 8.5:1 c.r., they put on a little show at the dq, shortly thereafter the motor blew up... can't remember the exact details, but mark has lots more hands-on than just about all of us, and it still screwed up.
don't try re-inventing the wheel unless you are throughly educated about the pitfalls.
guys, if you don't know much about turbos, build a low c.r. type 1 and take your pick of numerous turbo kits designed for that platform... or, start saving your money and get a used type 1 kit.
dan
oceanstreetvideo.com
have you had a chance to read the cb performance turbo book? better yet, how about corky bell or hugh mcinnes(sp,?)?
people are out here talking about tiny turbos, twin turbos, etc... but there is zero tech talk about exhaust back pressure with undersize turbos, or why dave perkins is the only person in the history of pra racing that ever got twin turbos down the track... and he only did it once.
i remember reading on the old clf about when mark herbert and his brother put that turbo motor in the ssb... 8 or 8.5:1 c.r., they put on a little show at the dq, shortly thereafter the motor blew up... can't remember the exact details, but mark has lots more hands-on than just about all of us, and it still screwed up.
don't try re-inventing the wheel unless you are throughly educated about the pitfalls.
guys, if you don't know much about turbos, build a low c.r. type 1 and take your pick of numerous turbo kits designed for that platform... or, start saving your money and get a used type 1 kit.
dan
oceanstreetvideo.com
-
ravenshurst
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
Dan,
Thanks for the advice. I already have a type 4, so the type 1 is out of the question for me. I am just trying to figure a way to make more HP without a complete performance rebuild. And you are right, I would not attempt this without a few books, and a friend on hand who knows what he is doing. I am just trying to gather some info, so when it comes time to shop for parts I will sorta know what I am talking about.
And, of course, I may not do it, I may just stay NA. We will see.
Again, thanks for the advice.
Thanks for the advice. I already have a type 4, so the type 1 is out of the question for me. I am just trying to figure a way to make more HP without a complete performance rebuild. And you are right, I would not attempt this without a few books, and a friend on hand who knows what he is doing. I am just trying to gather some info, so when it comes time to shop for parts I will sorta know what I am talking about.
And, of course, I may not do it, I may just stay NA. We will see.
Again, thanks for the advice.
-
Searoy
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
A few things.
-Read Corkey Bells "Maximum Boost" turbo book.
-Read Hugh McInnes "Turbocharged" book.
-Reading "Turbomaina" is optional, and less desireable.
Then, build an engine made for maximum low end torque. That means short duration very low overlap cam, fairly high compression (like 8-8.5:1), stock sized valves, minor porting, small runners, small carb (like a progressive).
Why? Turbos that make real power have lag. To combat the lag you simply build an engine that does not require the turbo until higher RMPs are reached. Yeah, this engine design will probably run out of breath at 4000 RPM naturally aspirated. Does it pull stumps? If it does, that's perfect.
Add a big ass turbo with a fairly high A/R. Don't know what that means? Read the books. The turbo should make ZERO boost until right before 4000 RPM, and even then only about a pound. At the moment I'm leaning toward a TS04 with 1.30 A/R. Maybe for a 2.0L a T04E would be better.
Here's the deal. The engine does it's own work down low, giving excellent drivability, cruising power, acceleration torque, everything you want in an engine. However, due to the valve size, port size, cam timing, overlap, etc, it just can't suck in enough air to make power at higher RPMS than 4000. This is where the turbo comes into it's own. Instead of the engine having to suck in it's air, the turbo forces it in. Yeah the valves aren't open for very long, but they don't have to be. There is pressure, instead of vacuum. Basically, it's like getting a bigger hammer.
With a large turbo you will get higher RPM power, extending the RPM range of the engine well past 6000 RPM. It won't heat the air too much either since there won't be an enormous amount of boost, and the turbo won't have to work very hard to get it there.
The idea of making immediate boost is misdirected. As long as you pump air you make torque, and torque at RPM is power. If it can make loads of torque without the turbo then do it, it's better that way. When it stops being able to make torque due to flow restrictions then the turbo will give it what it needs.
After a little looking and "simulating" (for what it's worth) it looks like for a turbo setup, tuned the way I mention above, a T04E with 46 trim and 1.0 or larger A/R would be the right fit. Redline at 7500 RPM, estimated 177 hp. Doesn't sound like a bunch? It's a flat power curve.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
[This message has been edited by Searoy (edited 09-16-2001).]
-Read Corkey Bells "Maximum Boost" turbo book.
-Read Hugh McInnes "Turbocharged" book.
-Reading "Turbomaina" is optional, and less desireable.
Then, build an engine made for maximum low end torque. That means short duration very low overlap cam, fairly high compression (like 8-8.5:1), stock sized valves, minor porting, small runners, small carb (like a progressive).
Why? Turbos that make real power have lag. To combat the lag you simply build an engine that does not require the turbo until higher RMPs are reached. Yeah, this engine design will probably run out of breath at 4000 RPM naturally aspirated. Does it pull stumps? If it does, that's perfect.
Add a big ass turbo with a fairly high A/R. Don't know what that means? Read the books. The turbo should make ZERO boost until right before 4000 RPM, and even then only about a pound. At the moment I'm leaning toward a TS04 with 1.30 A/R. Maybe for a 2.0L a T04E would be better.
Here's the deal. The engine does it's own work down low, giving excellent drivability, cruising power, acceleration torque, everything you want in an engine. However, due to the valve size, port size, cam timing, overlap, etc, it just can't suck in enough air to make power at higher RPMS than 4000. This is where the turbo comes into it's own. Instead of the engine having to suck in it's air, the turbo forces it in. Yeah the valves aren't open for very long, but they don't have to be. There is pressure, instead of vacuum. Basically, it's like getting a bigger hammer.
With a large turbo you will get higher RPM power, extending the RPM range of the engine well past 6000 RPM. It won't heat the air too much either since there won't be an enormous amount of boost, and the turbo won't have to work very hard to get it there.
The idea of making immediate boost is misdirected. As long as you pump air you make torque, and torque at RPM is power. If it can make loads of torque without the turbo then do it, it's better that way. When it stops being able to make torque due to flow restrictions then the turbo will give it what it needs.
After a little looking and "simulating" (for what it's worth) it looks like for a turbo setup, tuned the way I mention above, a T04E with 46 trim and 1.0 or larger A/R would be the right fit. Redline at 7500 RPM, estimated 177 hp. Doesn't sound like a bunch? It's a flat power curve.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
[This message has been edited by Searoy (edited 09-16-2001).]
-
Carsten
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
The above posting is NOT the way to go.
Why build a perfect turbo engine and then missmatch the turbo??????
A turbo shall be matched to the application.
Using a BIG turbo that "kick in" above 4000rpm is stupid engine building!
If you are bulding a street engine, a stock T-4 will most likely work. uppgrading to bigger valves is always a pluss, I would go 42X38 if i where you.( the inlet port in T-4 heads is good, the exhaust is the problem).
Forged piston is a must!!!!
use a mild cam and a matched turbo. A T-3 or similar would do fine!
Intercool the engine! Its mutch more intelligent than puting on a too big turbo...
any coments welcome!
Carsten
Why build a perfect turbo engine and then missmatch the turbo??????
A turbo shall be matched to the application.
Using a BIG turbo that "kick in" above 4000rpm is stupid engine building!
If you are bulding a street engine, a stock T-4 will most likely work. uppgrading to bigger valves is always a pluss, I would go 42X38 if i where you.( the inlet port in T-4 heads is good, the exhaust is the problem).
Forged piston is a must!!!!
use a mild cam and a matched turbo. A T-3 or similar would do fine!
Intercool the engine! Its mutch more intelligent than puting on a too big turbo...
any coments welcome!
Carsten
-
Carsten
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
BTw. my engine makes boost at 2300rpm, and still pulls to 7000 rpm...
-
Searoy
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
Easy on the stupid talk there.
Intercooling is always good, and not always simple. If you can intercool, intercool. If you can't intercool, try to intercool anyway. If you simply cannot, a larger turbo with less boost, only at higher RPMs is a good solution.
Porsche 911 turbos use a larger turbo to make horsepower at higher RPMs. I don't claim to know their secrets, but simply defend a similar idea. It's harder to build an engine that has boost off the line and keeps it than it is to build a torquer engine and add a larger turbo for top end. The larger turbo will have less heat and less back pressure than a small turbo as well. Heat is the enemy in this instance.
Using a larger exhuast valve, such as a 38, is a good thought, but it's not the valve that is restrictive. It's the port. If you keep the stock valve size and open up the exhaust port you'll get more flow than swapping valves.
A split duration cam with extra exhaust duration might be a good direction to go.
I disagree that there is only one way to build an engine successfully. I also don't think that a T3 is always the best turbo for a 2.0L engine. The size varies based on theamount of boost, and where the boost kicks in. If you build the engine so that it doesn't need the boost until higher in the RPM range a small turbo is undesirable. As I stated above with the larger turbo you get less heat and less exhuast back pressure. And since the lag is expected and accounted for it should be minimal, where with a smaller turbo relying on boost for power when you go from part throttle to full throttle you must then wait for the turbo to catch up.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
Intercooling is always good, and not always simple. If you can intercool, intercool. If you can't intercool, try to intercool anyway. If you simply cannot, a larger turbo with less boost, only at higher RPMs is a good solution.
Porsche 911 turbos use a larger turbo to make horsepower at higher RPMs. I don't claim to know their secrets, but simply defend a similar idea. It's harder to build an engine that has boost off the line and keeps it than it is to build a torquer engine and add a larger turbo for top end. The larger turbo will have less heat and less back pressure than a small turbo as well. Heat is the enemy in this instance.
Using a larger exhuast valve, such as a 38, is a good thought, but it's not the valve that is restrictive. It's the port. If you keep the stock valve size and open up the exhaust port you'll get more flow than swapping valves.
A split duration cam with extra exhaust duration might be a good direction to go.
I disagree that there is only one way to build an engine successfully. I also don't think that a T3 is always the best turbo for a 2.0L engine. The size varies based on theamount of boost, and where the boost kicks in. If you build the engine so that it doesn't need the boost until higher in the RPM range a small turbo is undesirable. As I stated above with the larger turbo you get less heat and less exhuast back pressure. And since the lag is expected and accounted for it should be minimal, where with a smaller turbo relying on boost for power when you go from part throttle to full throttle you must then wait for the turbo to catch up.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
-
ravenshurst
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
I didn't mean to get a fire fight going on here! I am building a german look canyon runner. It is not a drag car, and I am not too concerned with gut wrenching, off-the-line torque. My goal is top speed. I seem to be the only non-engineer on this forum, lol.
I had thought of adding a turbo as A way to increase HP without a total rebuild. Perhaps I was mistaken
Thanks for all of your answers and advice, I really do appreciate it.
I had thought of adding a turbo as A way to increase HP without a total rebuild. Perhaps I was mistaken
Thanks for all of your answers and advice, I really do appreciate it.
-
Carsten
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
Why rew a turbo engine to 7500 rpm, when you can make the same hp/torque at mutch lower rpm.
He wanted advice on a street engine! stock T-4 internals...
I still think the big slow turbo is stupid.
Building a matching turbo setup is difficult, yes....
All turbo engines can be intercooled!!!! Just find the space for it.
Carsten
He wanted advice on a street engine! stock T-4 internals...
I still think the big slow turbo is stupid.
Building a matching turbo setup is difficult, yes....
All turbo engines can be intercooled!!!! Just find the space for it.
Carsten
-
Steve C
- Posts: 1143
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
Hi
Im running a turbo 2.1 waserboxer in my bug, 8:1 cr and IHI RB6 turbo = TO3-TO4 cross over, water-air intercooler Autronic SMC injection etc. It makes boost from about 1500 rpm, you cant see it on the gauge but I can hear it in the intercooler, this boost at a low rpm actaully makes the inlet tract 100% efficient, my car makes serious boost at 3000 rpm and would keep going out to 7000 if I wanted to but I limit to only 6000. It will pull hard in 4th gear from 1000 rpm (3.88 final drive, 17 inch wheels and 235/40 series tyres) its like being on a bungee cord attached to jet aircraft.
Intercooling is a must, not an accessory.
Read this http://www.clubvw.org.au/illawara.htm http://www.autospeed.com/A_0084/article.html
Regards Steve C
Im running a turbo 2.1 waserboxer in my bug, 8:1 cr and IHI RB6 turbo = TO3-TO4 cross over, water-air intercooler Autronic SMC injection etc. It makes boost from about 1500 rpm, you cant see it on the gauge but I can hear it in the intercooler, this boost at a low rpm actaully makes the inlet tract 100% efficient, my car makes serious boost at 3000 rpm and would keep going out to 7000 if I wanted to but I limit to only 6000. It will pull hard in 4th gear from 1000 rpm (3.88 final drive, 17 inch wheels and 235/40 series tyres) its like being on a bungee cord attached to jet aircraft.
Intercooling is a must, not an accessory.
Read this http://www.clubvw.org.au/illawara.htm http://www.autospeed.com/A_0084/article.html
Regards Steve C
-
Searoy
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Carsten:
<B>Why rew a turbo engine to 7500 rpm, when you can make the same hp/torque at much lower rpm.
He wanted advice on a street engine! stock T-4 internals...
I still think the big slow turbo is stupid.
Building a matching turbo setup is difficult, yes....
All turbo engines can be intercooled!!!! Just find the space for it.
Carsten</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stock internals will have a hard time keeping up with serious torque and power at lower RPM. With stock internals you can add a turbo to get a little more punch, but the safest way, and the way that will introduce the least aount of heat is a larger turbo higher in the RPM range. A a stock Type 4 (I said stock) has a hard time breathing above 4500 RPM anyway. It will do it, but it ain't the greatest at it. Adding a larger turbo that will add air where the engine needs it, higher up, is more practical than slapping in a turbo at lower RPM, increasing the power in a range where it is most likely to break something.
I agree that intercooling is so important that it must be considered a part of a turbo system, not an add on. However, not everyone wants the extra complexity and cost so I suggested it could be ommitted if boost was kept low and at an RPM range where it would do the least harm.
to the origianl poster: You CAN add a turbo to a stock engine to get more power. However, it ususally is not that simple. Introducing a turbo adds complexity and stress to the engine that it was not originally inteded to handle. Add to this that a Type 4 engine is not the best choice for turbocharging for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the shttty exhaust port. I fully intend to run a turbo in my Type 4, but it will be designed to last, 100k miles or more, not the high boost at low RPM grenade others might try to sway you with. The things that make a great street engine are the same things that make a great turbo engine: Low RPM torque, quick response, smooth idle. I am simply suggesting that you take it to the extreme if you are going to build an engine, make it a massive torque monster and suppliment it's high RPM output with a large turbo, a turbo large enough that it wouldn't interfere with the engine's performance at lower RPMs, where additional boost, turbo lag, and heat would not be desirable. Who wants a street engine that takes a full second to make power from idle to full throttle? Build the engine so it's a bear off the line and comes into it's own smoothly.
If you want a street engine with increased top end, then think about what you've got already. You've got a stock Type 4, a great street engine. You want more top end? That means more RPM. The Type 4 is a great street engine becuase it doesn't have a great top end, so adding a large turbo that doens't boost until higher in the RPM range is a safe and effective way to increase your top end.
And I see you live in Arizona. That's a simple way of saying that an intercooler is not an option.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
[This message has been edited by Searoy (edited 09-17-2001).]
<B>Why rew a turbo engine to 7500 rpm, when you can make the same hp/torque at much lower rpm.
He wanted advice on a street engine! stock T-4 internals...
I still think the big slow turbo is stupid.
Building a matching turbo setup is difficult, yes....
All turbo engines can be intercooled!!!! Just find the space for it.
Carsten</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Stock internals will have a hard time keeping up with serious torque and power at lower RPM. With stock internals you can add a turbo to get a little more punch, but the safest way, and the way that will introduce the least aount of heat is a larger turbo higher in the RPM range. A a stock Type 4 (I said stock) has a hard time breathing above 4500 RPM anyway. It will do it, but it ain't the greatest at it. Adding a larger turbo that will add air where the engine needs it, higher up, is more practical than slapping in a turbo at lower RPM, increasing the power in a range where it is most likely to break something.
I agree that intercooling is so important that it must be considered a part of a turbo system, not an add on. However, not everyone wants the extra complexity and cost so I suggested it could be ommitted if boost was kept low and at an RPM range where it would do the least harm.
to the origianl poster: You CAN add a turbo to a stock engine to get more power. However, it ususally is not that simple. Introducing a turbo adds complexity and stress to the engine that it was not originally inteded to handle. Add to this that a Type 4 engine is not the best choice for turbocharging for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the shttty exhaust port. I fully intend to run a turbo in my Type 4, but it will be designed to last, 100k miles or more, not the high boost at low RPM grenade others might try to sway you with. The things that make a great street engine are the same things that make a great turbo engine: Low RPM torque, quick response, smooth idle. I am simply suggesting that you take it to the extreme if you are going to build an engine, make it a massive torque monster and suppliment it's high RPM output with a large turbo, a turbo large enough that it wouldn't interfere with the engine's performance at lower RPMs, where additional boost, turbo lag, and heat would not be desirable. Who wants a street engine that takes a full second to make power from idle to full throttle? Build the engine so it's a bear off the line and comes into it's own smoothly.
If you want a street engine with increased top end, then think about what you've got already. You've got a stock Type 4, a great street engine. You want more top end? That means more RPM. The Type 4 is a great street engine becuase it doesn't have a great top end, so adding a large turbo that doens't boost until higher in the RPM range is a safe and effective way to increase your top end.
And I see you live in Arizona. That's a simple way of saying that an intercooler is not an option.
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
[This message has been edited by Searoy (edited 09-17-2001).]
-
fastfood
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
Searoy, you spend a lot of time thinking this stuff through. That works for me. I planned, gathered bought parts for a V-8 S-10 conversion, then did the conversion in 2 weeks, from start to finish, letting the wife taking it for a test spin on the second weekend. Thinking it through thoroughly paid off in that it is her daily driver, has been since '95. I would like to hear the results from your idea. And Danimal, thanks for the other books about turbocharging, "Turbomania" just seemed like an extension of the CB Performance catalogue, call me crazy. It left a lot to be desired.
------------------
Rice, it's what's for dinner!!!
[This message has been edited by fastfood (edited 09-17-2001).]
------------------
Rice, it's what's for dinner!!!
[This message has been edited by fastfood (edited 09-17-2001).]
-
Searoy
- Posts: 2869
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
My intent is to build something once and drive it for as long as I designed it for. I try to do lots of homework, research, testing, whatever, before I spend real money on something that could EXPLODE. If it's a race car that's one thing. If I expect to drive it from Southern California to Portland Oregon, or to Tulsa Oklahoma it better be reliable.
I must admit that the ideas I've put forth are not my own, but rather are a homologation of several "expert" ideas. Mostly I look to what little I know about the Porsche turbo cars, since no one will disagree that those are marvels of engineering, even if they are comprimised by socio-political requirements of emmissions, fuel economy, safety and "non-maintenance minded owners."
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
I must admit that the ideas I've put forth are not my own, but rather are a homologation of several "expert" ideas. Mostly I look to what little I know about the Porsche turbo cars, since no one will disagree that those are marvels of engineering, even if they are comprimised by socio-political requirements of emmissions, fuel economy, safety and "non-maintenance minded owners."
------------------
*** Teach a Man to Fish ***
Searoy
-
danimal
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
>>>"Turbomania" just seemed like an extension of the CB Performance catalogue<<<
same here... but it's a decent beginner tome for people who run their stuff, and those who are just getting into turbocharging an acvw.
if you have progressed beyond that, go read the water injection thread i posted earlier... there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.
intercooling a street acvw is a pia because the engine is in the back... putting the intercooler in the engine compartment guarantees that heat soaking will be an issue, relocating it elsewhere requires too much plumbing, and there is no easy place to put it in the airstream of the car.
computerized nitrous is a better solution for the acvw for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that nitrous cools the motor better than an intercooled turbo ever will.
searoy, oversized turbos are not a good choice for street use; automotive manufacturers put smaller turbos on their cars because the lag time for spool up is much less, and the engine will live longer because the boost is limited... the object with a turbo is to make big h.p. at lower rpm's, which is easier on the engine.
even tho steve is watercooled, that is the performance level we should all be aspiring to... i do not want to turn 7k on a street engine, it's simply too hard on parts... i want the boost in early, period.
dan
oceanstreetvideo.com
same here... but it's a decent beginner tome for people who run their stuff, and those who are just getting into turbocharging an acvw.
if you have progressed beyond that, go read the water injection thread i posted earlier... there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.
intercooling a street acvw is a pia because the engine is in the back... putting the intercooler in the engine compartment guarantees that heat soaking will be an issue, relocating it elsewhere requires too much plumbing, and there is no easy place to put it in the airstream of the car.
computerized nitrous is a better solution for the acvw for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that nitrous cools the motor better than an intercooled turbo ever will.
searoy, oversized turbos are not a good choice for street use; automotive manufacturers put smaller turbos on their cars because the lag time for spool up is much less, and the engine will live longer because the boost is limited... the object with a turbo is to make big h.p. at lower rpm's, which is easier on the engine.
even tho steve is watercooled, that is the performance level we should all be aspiring to... i do not want to turn 7k on a street engine, it's simply too hard on parts... i want the boost in early, period.
dan
oceanstreetvideo.com
-
Carsten
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 12:01 am
advice on turbo set up, please
Must agree with the Turbomania book...and a thougth is that Turbochargers By Hugh Macinnes is written in 1978....
Many things have developed since then.
Today all Saab cars are turboed... looking at the new cars today tell alot of how to build a strong and reliable turbo engine.
the Saab has a flat tourque curve from almost idle... small widerange turbos.
placing the intercooler in the engine compartment is not a big problem, By placing fans to blow through it, it will cool the intake air very well. (i have tried this.)
On my current engine I have placed the intercooler in the rear luggage tray. enclosed in a sealed box with a radiator fan pulling air from above the gearbox. this gives me 30*-35* Celsius chargeair temp.
Carsten
Many things have developed since then.
Today all Saab cars are turboed... looking at the new cars today tell alot of how to build a strong and reliable turbo engine.
the Saab has a flat tourque curve from almost idle... small widerange turbos.
placing the intercooler in the engine compartment is not a big problem, By placing fans to blow through it, it will cool the intake air very well. (i have tried this.)
On my current engine I have placed the intercooler in the rear luggage tray. enclosed in a sealed box with a radiator fan pulling air from above the gearbox. this gives me 30*-35* Celsius chargeair temp.
Carsten