I need a book about turbocharging.

Is the Corky Bell book still a relevant book? It only 20 years old or so. Anything newer that gets a thumbs up? Bonus points if its on Amazon Prime.

Nothing's changed much since the book was written except specific period era parts, car computer options and the low grade eBay parts that have come to market. I would recommend it over the newer books I have come across. They usually tend to paraphrase maximum boost (and sometimes quote directly).

Thanks for the insight.

RossD wrote: Is the Corky Bell book still a relevant book? It only 20 years old or so. Anything newer that gets a thumbs up? Bonus points if its on Amazon Prime.

Only for the very basic information, but that was never a good book. He's opinionated and just plain wrong on a number of important things. There are far better options out there.

In reply to Zomby Woof:

Recommendations then?

Five year old thread is still relevant

A far, far better choice than Maximum boost

Better to find a forum that applies to the model and read up there.

Or here.... we even have a Shart!

The biggest thing is to choose your hardware carefully and even though it has been done successfully a carb'd setup (draw through or blow through) is a poor choice. Your easiest route to success is intercooled with port injection.

In fact read up on the Shart, to avoid the pitfalls he is digging himself out of.

Make sure your fuel pump and injectors are big enough for your power levels. You will need something to control spark timing and if making big boost you will need water injection (50/50%).

If you are making big boost make sure your bottom end is up to the task (it sucks when rods fold up). Elevated power levels necessitate larger ring gaps, the heat generated will cause the rings to expand and butt the ends if the gap is too small for the power level. This is invariably a catastrophic failure. You will know when you have reached this point when the top half of your piston comes off and the blowby pumps all your oil out the valve cover.

Corky's book still has a bunch of good information in it, but the bits on engine control are very dated by this point.

I have a copy of maximum boost. I'll send it to you media mail if you want (or pick it up if you ever come down to Chicago).

I bet your local library could get a copy though.

It's a fast read, and in my mind worth it. Gives you the basics, but like folks say,he is dang proud of his twin turbo NSX and that shows through in the book.

Corky is one of those engineers who builds the first thing he thinks of instead of refining the design for elegance, and you'll never be able to tell him otherwise. There's some stuff in Maximum Boost that's just plain wrong, like intercooler design.

Read it by all means, but it's best for a high level understanding of the concepts only.

Boosting motors is as much personal taste as it is tech. A lot of folks don't care what is under the curve and only want max power. A 1.6 liter motor with a giant Holset from a Cummins that makes nothing until it suddenly builds 20 psi from 5-6500RPM is awesome to them. Some folks will build that same 1.6 with a tiny GT15 that is spooling just off idle and love the supercharger-like low end grunt.

Had I listened to everything the "experts" told me I would have had a 12 psi 843cc with a T3 that made big power from 5K to 6K and still had to propel the car with <30lb/ft of torque around town. I opted for a motor with less peak power but was making 60lb/ft by 3K and am glad I did.

Still rounding up parts for you BTW

In reply to Zomby Woof:

Mark Warners other book Street Rotary is also excellent

Thanks everyone. I order Corky's book but should probably get the other HPBook. Matt's book on fuel injection is already being read.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

Not trying to fire of some touchy debate but what specifically is he wrong about with intercooler design? There is a whole chapter on it and all.

In reply to Jumper K. Balls:

I liked the realistic approach of max boost too. I remember bells recommendation on where you want your turbo hitting full boost as being mid rev range. Too many other "gurus" out there pushing drag race setup as ideal.

But I guess everyone takes different things away from the same text

I read maximum boost back in the day. I would say it is useful, especially if you're coming from nothing.

I think one thing people frequently get wrong about intercoolers is that there are two rates of transfer (how quick it soaks heat, and how quick it sheds it) and it's not always important that they be the same or even close. Some cars need more thermal mass more than they need better ducting/airflow. I think people should think of it as a heat sink. Using the different term seems helpful in getting people to think of them differently.

I'm also highly distrustful of anyone who tells you that a turbo runs on heat. An engine runs on heat. A turbo does not. There are any number of very smart people out there who will disagree with me on that... and I don't trust any of them.

Yes, all engines run on heat, but remember that a turbo is an engine. It's expanding hot, pressurized gas and using it to do work -- spinning a compressor to feed the otto cycle engine. It's the same principle as a jet turbine that's spinning the rotor shaft in a helicopter.

In Corky's book, he suggests that if you have a rectangular intercooler where one side is significantly longer than the other, then it's better to put the end tanks on the long ends, rather than the short ends. I think the idea is that it presents less restriction to flow, but it turns out that in practice it's usually better to do it the other way because that maximizes heat transfer and the short end is usually not all that restrictive anyway.

For example, this is a BEGI-designed intercooler from a late-90s Miata turbo kit:

In reply to Vigo:

I'm also highly distrustful of anyone who tells you that a turbo runs on heat. An engine runs on heat. A turbo does not. There are any number of very smart people out there who will disagree with me on that... and I don't trust any of them.

I wouldn't say they run entirely on heat, but the heat energy in the exhaust gasses are a huge contributor of how a turbo works. Remove that energy, and all you are left with is a mechanically driven supercharger that is spun by engine compression instead of a belt. With an exhaust restriction thrown on top. Turbos are more efficient than superchargers because they also capture some of the energy wasted as heat to drive the turbine. That is why the same size turbo is more responsive if mounted closer to the engine if everything is equal.

RossD wrote: Thanks everyone. I order Corky's book

When you read the chapter where he says the stock cam is best for a turbo application, either black it out, or cut it out of the book so you don't start believing it. That (completely incorrect and nonsensical) information cost a lot of people some serious, and very easy, horsepower

I like Mark Warner's book. He also has a pretty kickass bugeye with turbo rotary.

Remove that energy, and all you are left with is a mechanically driven supercharger that is spun by engine compression instead of a belt.

You're kind of making my point by talking about removing heat from the engine. The engine runs on heat. A turbo is better thought of (imo) as running off of a pressure differential because you can have a pressure differential with no heat and still spin a turbo, but you cant have heat and no pressure differential or your turbo will spin 0.00 rpm. It's all some form of energy and heat lost is energy lost but there are people out there who will tell you (for example) that rear mounted turbos can't work worth a E36 M3, or leave 95% of the forum population behind talking about enthalpy while people with more 'rudimentary' understandings somehow manage to build fast, working turbo cars. There are also tons of people who talk about bigger turbos making more power on the same boost pressure because of heat differences (greater adiabatic effeciency) on the compressor side and completely ignore or are ignorant of the effect of the turbine on exhaust stroke pumping losses etc. So to me it's not that heat has no place in the discussion, but it's aggravating that people talk about it in half-ass ways that drown out discussion of equally or MORE important aspects of how the system works.

codrus wrote: In Corky's book, he suggests that if you have a rectangular intercooler where one side is significantly longer than the other, then it's better to put the end tanks on the long ends, rather than the short ends. I think the idea is that it presents less restriction to flow, but it turns out that in practice it's usually better to do it the other way because that maximizes heat transfer and the short end is usually not all that restrictive anyway. For example, this is a BEGI-designed intercooler from a late-90s Miata turbo kit:

Here's a more current BEGi intercooler for the same car, which is built contrary to what's in the book. That chapter was wrong, but the book never got updated.

Vigo wrote: You're kind of making my point by talking about removing heat from the engine. The engine runs on heat. A turbo is better thought of (imo) as running off of a pressure differential because you can have a pressure differential with no heat and still spin a turbo, but you cant have heat and no pressure differential or your turbo will spin 0.00 rpm.

Heat and pressure are effectively the same thing, by the ideal gas law PV=NRT. If you were to run a turbo off a tank of compressed air, the air coming out of the turbine would be lower temperature than the air going on, because it cools as it expands.

What you're reacting to is that an otto-cycle is an internal combustion engine (it's burning fuel inside of it), and a turbo is not (it's using the heat/pressure generated by the otto cycle engine it's connected to). Look at a steam engine -- it's an external combustion engine and you could it that off a tank of compressed air, but it's definitely an engine, and it runs on heat. It is, in fact, what the field of "thermodynamics" was invented for.

You can make a turbo into an internal combustion engine, once you do that it's called a jet turbine. There are a bunch of videos on youtube of people doing exactly that.

In reply to Vigo:

I'm kinda lost on what you point was. I though you were saying that people who say turbos are designed to capture the energy in the heat to help drive the turbine are wrong, and the pressure alone, not the heat drives the turbine. Yes, you could drive a turbo with pressure alone, and you can mount a turbo far away from the heat and drive it with pressure alone. It will make boost and the car will make more power than n/a, but it will not work as well as a properly designed turbo system. You get a rear mounted supercharger without a belt. If you literally meant that turbos don't run on heat alone, you are correct, but I don't think anyone would ever say that and you are misunderstanding what they are actually saying.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

In theory, tanks on the long sides should be a better design for the same core size. The cores have the same mass, and should be able to absorb and shed the same amount of heat. The air should spend an equal amount of time in either core. Small side end tanks have a longer core, but the air travels through it more quickly. The air charge in a long side end tank I/C would have a shorter path to get through the core. But the charge moves through it more slowly, so it should take the air charge the same time to get from tank to tank in both I/C's, and they should both have the same opportunity to give up their heat. The difference is that the long tank I/C should have less pressure drop because the air charge is moving more slowly over a shorter distance through the core. But the reality of it is that the end tanks of the long side I/C are harder to design in a way that allows more equal distribution of the air charge through the core. They also are usually orientated "wrong" on the front of a car, requiring an extra 90 degree turn in and out- take a look at the pictures you posted, you will see what I mean. To be apples and apples, the first I/C would need to be mounted 90 degrees. And it would then stick out the hood of the Miata, which demonstrates why the short side method usually works better in the real world on most cars. But that's not the same thing as the original principal being wrong. It's just harder to execute, and not really that big a deal overall.

Sign me up as interested .I have a cold air turbo tester btw.