The age of the turbo.

I grew up around Volvo, Saab and SVO turbos, so naturally I got infected. I can't imagine not owning a turbocar; I'd be forever wondering what it would be like with a turbo. Which is not to say I don't appreciate a fine NA car.

Restraint and research is always the key. As you raise the boost, or raise the static CR, you walk an increasingly narrow balance beam between safety and shattered dreams. It doesn't help that some manufacturers gave us grossly overbuilt bottom ends with paltry boost levels that led to legendary tales of "I doubled the stock boost and look at 'er go!" Sometimes this works, and sometimes you ventilate your block. You've got to understand the stress limits of your engine as well as the capabilities of the engine management system. Overstress the motor with too many 'torques' and you get bent or broken rods, damaged bearings. Run too lean and you'll blow headgaskets, shatter pistons and damage heads. But keep it on the good side and it's all smiles!

Keith wrote: The 80's may have been the "age of the turbo", but technology has marched on. Another 25-30 years of development has made them more responsive, more efficient and longer-lived. The combination of better turbo tech and programmable engine management have made a big difference.

I actually kind of disagree with some of that. I think the turbo designs themselves have gotten much better, yes, but as far as engine management goes, I think almost all of the same stuff was in the boxes already - you just couldn't see it or alter it because we had no way to get to it in the 80's. I can't speak for all brands, but I know the old-school 2.3t Ford computers have knock sensors that pull timing/boost, as well as electronic boost regulation (which it changes under different circumstances) and switchable timing tables to run different octanes. If you know how to get into one of those computers, you can make the thing do whatever you want. The tools are available to do that now, but they sure weren't back when those cars were new.

The amount of development work that went into those computers is pretty impressive, and they are absolutely capable units. To think that people toss those in the garbage to go with an MS system is just crazy to me - you just have to know how to use it. IOW - most people don't actually know how to use the stuff they've been given. Who's surprised that their stuff blows up?

IMO - Data logging is key. You need to collect info. Lots of it. If you do that, you'll know how close you are to 'the line' at all times.

We've never blown, broken or even injured a motor while tuning (most of the time at 20+ psi on stock motors and pump gas) because while we're making a pull, we're watching key parameters to make sure everything is safe. That's not to say that we haven't broken our fair share of things, but we can look back and say, "Uh yeah, that was a bad idea", which = user error.

I've been watching the same car evolve for 20 years now, and there's been a big change in the quality of the engine management. Even the turbo version of the same engine that came out in the 80's (the 323 GTX) has positively stone-age engine management compared to what we're seeing today. Yes, the basics like knock sensors and a couple of engine maps are there, but the newer cars are running closed-loop far more often and the quality of sensors has gone up - wideband O2 sensors, for example. MAP or MAF sensors instead of "flapper door" setups. Individual cylinder trim for fuel and timing instead of a distributor. Basically, there's more processing power available so the ECU is able to do more between combustion events.

The stock computers have a lot of development work - a friend who used to do engine mapping for the OEs said it was about five man-years for each one, and that was when he was still working on the Range Rover Sport - but they're also handicapped by compromise. The stock computer program for the 2004-05 Mazdaspeed MX-5, for example, has some well-known driveability problems including the tendency to starve the engine on the threshold of boost. I suspect this is emissions-related and it just makes the car feel laggy when stock. Once you open up the intake you discover just what's going on.

My pet peeve with the 80s (I was there) that turbos became a way of getting power without extensive engine development. Look at one of my favorite engines, the Mopar 2.2. Not only did it only have 8 valves it didn't have a cross-flow head. Mopar did work on such projects, such as the Hans Hermann head, but the 2.2 did not get a modern head until the Turbo III in the Spirit R/T and IROC Daytona (and that head, developed by Lotus, has cracking problems). The Neon's 2.0 (either version) was what the 2.2 should have been, but no turbo surfaced until the 2.4 on the SRT-4. A turbo Gen I Neon could have been one of the great pocket rockets of all time.

Ford also dropped the ball following the turbo 2.3.

Keith wrote: Yes, the basics like knock sensors and a couple of engine maps are there, but the newer cars are running closed-loop far more often and the quality of sensors has gone up - wideband O2 sensors, for example. MAP or MAF sensors instead of "flapper door" setups. Individual cylinder trim for fuel and timing instead of a distributor.

I understand that there will be a hard-limit at some point, but all the stuff you mentioned there with the exception of the individual cylinder adjustments (it's a batch-fire setup, I think) can be done with the 80's Ford (and probably other brand) computers. This is what I was getting at - the stuff is in the box, you just have to know how to tweak it. My current 2.3t car has a '05+ style Mass Air meter on it - no more flapper door! Factory computer with a chip.

I know that the newer stuff is advanced. I'm just saying that the general population is further behind the OEMs with some of this stuff than most realize. Which, when you consider the resources each have, makes sense.

Like Moparman said, Ford DID drop the ball with the 2.3t, and I'm one of those foil-hat types who thinks it's because they'd never show up their V8 Mustang with a turbo 4-banger Mustang. It was all there, ready to go, already built - they didn't need one more piece of hardware to make the turbo 4 cars (especially the SVOs) destroy the GT's of the same year - just a different tune.

But they never did it.

Amen on the poor engine development.

My 301 breathes like crap but bolting a turbo on it brings it within 15hp of the 400 it replaced. Turn the boostup, ditch the EGR, cooler thermostat and more timing and it'll leave a 400 behind.

Imagine what better flowing heads and a better cam would do.

The turbo Buicks are a great example of what more engine development can gain. From a 140 hp drawthru 2-barrel to the fire-breather GNX in 10 years.

Shawn

Even today turbos, blowers and nitrous oxide are often used in place of engine development instead of in conjunction with engine development. Home tuners cram 20+ pounds of boost into an essentially stock engine and think they are all high tech.

Heck, if you can generate enough thrust one can get a boulder to fly. That doesn't mean aircraft should be shaped like boulders. Jus because 20 ounds of boost in a Chrylser 2,2 will push an Omni into the 12s does not mean that should be the avenue automotive performance should take.

I like boost. Boost is good. However, design an efficient engine and maybe we can get to high power levels without copious amounts of boost. Engines would be more reliable that way. At least design engines to withstand such large amounts of boost.

I'm surprised more people don't boost older 70's V8's. Low compression motors that should handle boost well as most were over-built.

I'm being simplistic here but you get my meaning.

I think the biggest advancement in management of engines is the sampling rate of the ECU for gathering data. Turbo life has grown longer, and our ability to push them harder has also grown, with the ability to throw the car into safe mode more rapidly should you say.. get a bad load of gas.

We've seen that when we moved from the Link ECU to the Hydra. The extra processing power not only lets us run more stuff (such as a separate map to run a solenoid for water injection and more sophisticated safe modes), but has also unlocked more horsepower.

I think ford also dropped the ball when yamaha delivered a 3.0L sho V6 with 300hp and ford had them detune it for production so it wouldnt be faster then the mustang gt. At least thats what "they" say. Why does Ford Of Oz get the turbo inline 6 cylinder and we dont? Not to worry, the new twin turbo SHO will be here soon.

Moparman wrote: My pet peeve with the 80s (I was there) that turbos became a way of getting power without extensive engine development. Look at one of my favorite engines, the Mopar 2.2. Not only did it only have 8 valves it didn't have a cross-flow head. Mopar did work on such projects, such as the Hans Hermann head, but the 2.2 did not get a modern head until the Turbo III in the Spirit R/T and IROC Daytona (and that head, developed by Lotus, has cracking problems). The Neon's 2.0 (either version) was what the 2.2 should have been, but no turbo surfaced until the 2.4 on the SRT-4. A turbo Gen I Neon could have been one of the great pocket rockets of all time. Ford also dropped the ball following the turbo 2.3.

Ah, but the work on the Lotus/Cosworth/Maserati/Hermann heads all went into the 2.0. They didn't need to build a turbo 2.0 to meet their goals, they had 150hp out of the box. Besides, the costs needed to get a turbo to pass the more stringent emissions controls introduced in 95/96 meant that the economy car + turbo would have been much more expensive. It wasn't until the PT came along that they could turbo the 2.0/2.4 and that was only because the PT was considered a "truck". Eventually the technology and development costs were paid off with the PT and they could get the Neon SRT produced.

fiat22turbo wrote: Ah, but the work on the Lotus/Cosworth/Maserati/Hermann heads all went into the 2.0. They didn't need to build a turbo 2.0 to meet their goals, they had 150hp out of the box.

The 1969 Datsun Roadster with the 2.0 liter put out the same... though without the emissions stuff.

...and was based on a Mercedes design and typically they measured HP as Gross (without accessories) and later as Net, so that likely isn't as comparable as you think. Since the eighties, the focus on engine development has been emissions, the fact that they make 150hp while passing the emissions tests wasn't an easy process. Can you imagine what the output of that Datsun would be if it had to meet those same emissions requirements?

I was trying to point out that the the 2.2L turbocharged SOHC motors made 150hp (sans intercooler) and the newer smaller, 2.0L SOHC/DOHC motors made essentially the same power simply by being more efficient. They were building fun, economy cars, they didn't need more than that. The fact is the turbochargers wouldn't pass emissions. If you notice, there weren't a lot of turbo cars in the early to mid-90's as OBDI/II came on in the market and the ones that were available were sold on higher end cars.

fiat22turbo wrote:

Moparman wrote: My pet peeve with the 80s (I was there) that turbos became a way of getting power without extensive engine development. Look at one of my favorite engines, the Mopar 2.2. Not only did it only have 8 valves it didn't have a cross-flow head. Mopar did work on such projects, such as the Hans Hermann head, but the 2.2 did not get a modern head until the Turbo III in the Spirit R/T and IROC Daytona (and that head, developed by Lotus, has cracking problems). The Neon's 2.0 (either version) was what the 2.2 should have been, but no turbo surfaced until the 2.4 on the SRT-4. A turbo Gen I Neon could have been one of the great pocket rockets of all time. Ford also dropped the ball following the turbo 2.3.

Ah, but the work on the Lotus/Cosworth/Maserati/Hermann heads all went into the 2.0. They didn't need to build a turbo 2.0 to meet their goals, they had 150hp out of the box. Besides, the costs needed to get a turbo to pass the more stringent emissions controls introduced in 95/96 meant that the economy car + turbo would have been much more expensive. It wasn't until the PT came along that they could turbo the 2.0/2.4 and that was only because the PT was considered a "truck". Eventually the technology and development costs were paid off with the PT and they could get the Neon SRT produced.

Agreed (I noted earlier that the 2.0 got the doch cross flow head), but the Gen I Neon went without a turbo. Yes the PT and then Gen II Neon (soory SRT-4 owners, you own a Neon no matter what Chrysler says), but they were soft and heavy. A lighter Gen I with a 2,0 DOHC turbo would have been fantastic, Chrysler could have sold a turbo Neon for $16K - 17K in the mid 90s.

In reply to Keith:

I have to agree with Keith here. I had a BEGi turbo bolted to my 1991 Miata 1.6, a BIG disco potato turbo, and was generating 245 RWHP and the car ran like a clock. Once the engine management was up and running, it was as reliable as prior to the turbo install. Mind you, this car also had nearly 100,000 miles prior to boost, and was NOT babied. As a matter of fact, the car is still running and driving (no longer with me...) and has not had any problems. The trick was planning properly and adding the correct fuel capacity along with the turbo, and not exceeding reasonable limits. When you talk about a car that went from 120 stock HP to at least double that (probably close to 275 @ the crank) and remains reliable- it's pretty hard to beat. In order to build a NA 1.6 miata engine that makes that kind of power... well lets say idling may not even be an option, and I guarantee you would need to be getting your arms greasy during a track day.

DILYSI Dave wrote: Still, this years challenge car is to be powered by 8 cylinders of boner producing SBC. Maybe with zoomies.

on first read-through i though it was going to be with zombies. that would be sweet. in your shoes, i'd look at running a pair of cheap headers mounted upside-down. engine will probably run better than with zoomies.

Im not sure I can anything of importance here, but Ive got allot of love for turbo charging. I remember clearly when sticking a turbo on a honda was "the next big thing." I also remember clearly watching those same folks granade their engines because they hadnt a clue about compression reduction and head gasket stresses that turbo required, not to mention fuel delivery and timing.

things have come a long, long way since then. there enough info out there now where any back yard grease monkey can achieve moderate success without blowing the top end off their motor if they go about it carefully, even me. BUT I am still undecided if i want to go this route with my n/a audi 2.0 engine in my 924.

I've got just about all the parts i need, minus some tubing and a blowoff valve, but like everything else, despite what we know, at some point we are going to want to push the big red button that says dont push, and over do it. then id have to start all over again after i mop up all the oil... for now im keeping the n/a ,an n/a and building toward reliability. luckily i have another thats a factory turbo ill be able to play with again once i put it all back together. thatll have to hold me for now..but who knows for how long. turbos are just too much fun to dismiss completely

poopshovel wrote:

sachilles wrote: I think the perceived problems with the turbo cars is "dial a death" syndrome. Folks realize they can change the boost level and get a little more power, then they can't help themselves but turn the dial up a little more every time until eventually they hear bad noises. Some people just can't help themselves.

my name is teh poo, and I am one of "these people." This is one of the reasons I'll probably never own a "nice" car. Build cheap, fast E36 M3. Break cheap fast E36 M3, and have fun in the process. Repeat as necessary/as funds allow. I have no qualms about ventilating the block of a 200,000 mile boosted/nitrous fed honda motor on stock internals, laughing my ass off all the way, knowing I have free or next to free spares scattered throughout the basement. I have a feeling sending a rod sailing on a high compression, high dollar, fully built V/8 N/A monster would hurt a little. I wouldn't know.

So uhmmm... are you my long lost twin or something?

I'm not satisfied with the relatively insane power i'm given from my FWD truck-powered turbo E36 M3box. I want more. I will have more. Yes, i realize i'm already pushing the limits of the motor, but i couldn't give a E36 M3. Boost is addicting. When that guage swings past 20psi, i giggle like a schoolgirl. But it's never enough.

For that matter, i do the same thing, turbo or n/a. There's a good chance that i'll be able to illustrate what i mean when/if i get a Honda again soon. (13.5:1 motor street driven? Absolutely!)

Obviously, if i were actually competitive, i wouldn't dream of pushing the envelope that much. Two different scenarios. It's likely the MX6 will end up as a dedicated drag car anyways... People hit a wall in the high 11s with these cars. I want to obliterate that.

canoe canoer

Canoe invasion!!!!!