Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, they are less efficient. But way easier to put on a V8 than the plumbing nightmare of a turbo (well, we put one on each side, but still could have used a plumber, and then maintenance, to get to the rest of the motor, is horrible).
I will admit that intercooling is a problem with a CV device.
I guess, why need to make up for a displacement deficit, if you start out good-sized from the get-go (9.4 liters), and THEN add boost?
If you start playing with turbos/supers, then you are no longer at K-Mart, and the simplest way is to start out with as many cubic inches as you can.
On a 572, with just headers, fuel injection and a cam, we could squeak out over 900HP, without playing any games or boost or anything.
I don't care what you do, but a chain-saw motor is not going to put out what this does (and this is a crate motor):
The issue is heat, turbo is operating on exhaust and unless you are reading the temp at the turbo you have no clue what the temp is when you shut it off..
Then if you shut it off hot, you cook the oil that is LAYING there unless you have a aftermarket pump that pressurizes the system for 1 minute after shut down.. Cooked oil creates hardening, which creates blockages. . . .which kills the turbo bearings and why the turbine blades contact the housing and cost lots of money.
Yes driving easy the last mile will cool it, but it won't kill you to let the vehicle idle another 40 seconds to a minute...
Unless you don't care in which it's your money to waste on a new turbo. OR Get a pyro gauge and watch it
I guess taking a small-displacement motor and turboing it is just like taking Viagra. An attempt to make up for a lot of shortcomings. JMHO
That 572 is a nice engine, and I'd like to have one in my 69 nova since it was avaliable with a big block when it was new...but on the other hand, the 572 is a thirsty beast. Might be ok for a weekend driver like my Nova, but not practical for many of todays vehicles that are trying to be fuel economical. Turboing can give you the same advantage of a powerful engine but not having the power kick in until needed. That saves you gas (until you spool up the turbo) and still keeps it streetable with the ability to go to animal in no time flat.
I suppose you could call the turbo V6 in my T type a baby engine trying to make up for short comings....only thing is similar engines have propelled mid sized G body GM cars into the 9's (and faster) in the 1/4 and the same car was driven to the track, and then driven home, with the a/c going and the overdrive working and no trailer needed.
I've been driving cars/trucks with turbos for 25+ years and never had a turbo problem. I drove my last Saab 9000T 180K miles without a hiccup.
I'm not sure how all of them work, but at least with some, the turbo never kicks in until you hit 2500 rpm or so. Either way, I never worry about it when arriving home, since I'm basically idling the last 5-6 blocks to my home (20 mph). Around town it's about the same, as the speed limit in my town is 25 on most streets and 35 on main streets.
On the road, if I stop at a rest area, I let the engine in my F250 (7.3 turbo diesel) run for a couple minutes or never turn it off. With my Saabs and turbo Porsches I simply slowed down a little the last mile before turning off the interstate.
Yes, they are less efficient. But way easier to put on a V8 than the plumbing nightmare of a turbo (well, we put one on each side, but still could have used a plumber, and then maintenance, to get to the rest of the motor, is horrible).
I will admit that intercooling is a problem with a CV device.
I guess, why need to make up for a displacement deficit, if you start out good-sized from the get-go (9.4 liters), and THEN add boost?
If you start playing with turbos/supers, then you are no longer at K-Mart, and the simplest way is to start out with as many cubic inches as you can.
On a 572, with just headers, fuel injection and a cam, we could squeak out over 900HP, without playing any games or boost or anything.
I don't care what you do, but a chain-saw motor is not going to put out what this does (and this is a crate motor):
I guess taking a small-displacement motor and turboing it is just like taking Viagra. An attempt to make up for a lot of shortcomings. JMHO
Sorry, I thought we were discussing everyday passenger vehicles, not bulldozers, semis, and drag cars.
Start with 2.0 liters in an econobox, or 3.0+ liters in something with some performance, then put FI on it to up the power economically. Why aren't blowers used for that purpose?
Sorry, I thought we were discussing everyday passenger vehicles, not bulldozers, semis, and drag cars.
Start with 2.0 liters in an econobox, or 3.0+ liters in something with some performance, then put FI on it to up the power economically. Why aren't blowers used for that purpose?
We are talking everyday passenger vehicles, and not bulldozers, semis, and drag cars. A new mustang (Shelby) has 550HP. A new 'vette has over 500HP, and those aren't even blown. Technology has changed a lot since when I was a kid.
Starting with a 2.0/3.0 liter motor will take a lot of tricks on my end (and expense) to take a simple large-displacement normally-aspirated motor to beat. Low-end torque on a brute will swamp any small-displacement motor. The very first blown motor I built would put out 140 HP at idle speed, at WOT (on a dyno).
I understand that people want both fuel economy and performance, but to achieve both is not a simple feat.
Quote:"Why aren't blowers used for that purpose?"
Simple. Cost-effectiveness. (well, numerous manufacturers use blowers but come on, they were invented in 1868, and the first car to have one was in the early 1900's). If you are a car manufacturer, you realize that cost is critical. While they still have to meet CAFE, it is WAY easier to put in a large-displacement motor than playing with all the tweaks and twiddling to get a small displacement motor to (reliably) put out high horsepower (actually, we should be talking torque instead, as you can take a little motor and spin it at ridiculous rpm's). Of course in any case they have to meet emissions.
Maybe I am a guy that is "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", but simple technology (well, let's not go into ignition/transmission programming on this thread, but it too is sort of cake), will often swamp (IMHO) super-tweaky quasi-reliable technology, designed to get a few more MPG (which, in the grand scheme of things, who cares?)
Quote:"then put FI on it to up the power economically"
I have been out of it for a couple of years, but I can't recall any factory car here in the US that doesn't have FI. Correct me if I am wrong.
We are talking everyday passenger vehicles, and not bulldozers, semis, and drag cars. A new mustang (Shelby) has 550HP. A new 'vette has over 500HP, and those aren't even blown. Technology has changed a lot since when I was a kid.
.
That 572 is a nice engine, and I'd like to have one in my 69 nova since it was avaliable with a big block when it was new...but on the other hand, the 572 is a thirsty beast. Might be ok for a weekend driver like my Nova, but not practical for many of todays vehicles that are trying to be fuel economical. Turboing can give you the same advantage of a powerful engine but not having the power kick in until needed. That saves you gas (until you spool up the turbo) and still keeps it streetable with the ability to go to animal in no time flat.
That big block in a '69 Nova would virtually make it fly! My second car, when I was in college, was a '73 Nova I got from a little old lady (not exactly sure why she wanted a 350 in it), but after some playing around with headers, mikuni side-drafts, cam, high-nickel block/crank caps and a 4-71 roots, that thing scared me, as to how fast it was. (though I was on the highway, and some guy came up to me in a '68-'70 Dodge Dart, and he ran away from me like I was standing still I didn't stand a chance. Me thinks a built 440 in his grandma-mobile).
I suppose you could call the turbo V6 in my T type a baby engine trying to make up for short comings....only thing is similar engines have propelled mid sized G body GM cars into the 9's (and faster) in the 1/4 and the same car was driven to the track, and then driven home, with the a/c going and the overdrive working and no trailer needed.
If you are meaning the GN/T-Type Buicks, then it will take a lot of tweaking and mods to get them anywhere near that fast, and I would question reliablility (and I hope you have your race license for those times).
Mine are all daily street drivers. I can't be the driver at the track, as I don't have my race license. I build 'em, I don't drive 'em. (IQ test).
My second car, when I was in college, was a '73 Nova I got from a little old lady (not exactly sure why she wanted a 350 in it), but after some playing around with headers, mikuni side-drafts, cam, high-nickel block/crank caps and a 4-71 roots, that thing scared me, as to how fast it was. (though I was on the highway, and some guy came up to me in a '68-'70 Dodge Dart, and he ran away from me like I was standing still I didn't stand a chance. Me thinks a built 440 in his grandma-mobile).
Granny probably wanted something with a little more, but not too much grunt, and thought a 165 hp 350 would be the ticket. As for the Dart...it could have been a centrifugal s/c or he could have had better gearing...who knows...I had a 4th gen LT1 Camaro run away from my Nova once, we were both 350 powered cars, but he had the advantage of better gearing as mine is not really geared for hard acceleration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSparkle928
If you are meaning the GN/T-Type Buicks, then it will take a lot of tweaking and mods to get them anywhere near that fast, and I would question reliablility (and I hope you have your race license for those times).
Yes I was referring to the GN's/T types, especially the intercooled ones. Yes some mods are required to run 9's , reliability is good as long as you don't detonate the engine. Some have done minor mods like a slightly larger turbo, fuel pump, chip/bigger injectors, etc....and ran in the 11's in the 1/4 w/o even opening the block or removing the heads.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An attempt to make up for a lot of shortcomings. JMHO
Last years had 550
I didn't stand a chance. Me thinks a built 440 in his grandma-mobile).
, reliability is good as long as you don't detonate the engine. Some have done minor mods like a slightly larger turbo, fuel pump, chip/bigger injectors, etc....and ran in the 11's in the 1/4 w/o even opening the block or removing the heads. 
