So Were not rich but we arent stupid

since i figured you three needed a outside opinion, ill throw in mine...

If a engine can be turbo'ed with a junkyard turbo and intercooler it sounds like a great idea, but its still not a budget deal, high dollar pistons, a billet crank, and heavy-duty H-Beam rods, along with aftermarket heads to flow the extra air and since high boost stresses everything a aftermarket block is also probably in order. If CC could make this a low boost engine and use a stock block with very budget minded pistons that are ceramic coated along with a cheap set of H-Beam rods and cheap steel forging along with heavily ported cheap heads, but if your really aiming this at the average hot rodder, most of them probably get confounded at the site of a carb, little lone a EFI setup, especially a DIY setup, i say keep it carb'ed even though there is many more benefits to the EFI. What i dont know though if its going to be kept to a low boost are you defeating the point of a turbo charger?

"What i dont know though if its going to be kept to a low boost are you defeating the point of a turbo charger?"

No more self defeating than a low boost roots supercharger. I believe that if they use a blow through carb and JY turbos it'd be cheaper than a roots supercharger from summit/JEGS/PAW...

Joe

"[I]ts still not a budget deal, high dollar pistons, a billet crank, and heavy-duty H-Beam rods, along with aftermarket heads to flow the extra air and since high boost stresses everything a aftermarket block is also probably in order."

Sure, for a 1000+ hp pushrod small block. But there are plenty of folks making serious power with off-the-shelf pistons, cast cranks and factory short blocks (not to mention some with STOCK short blocks) 

Example 1: Powerhouse Performance, Midwest City, OK:  Stock 5.0 Mustang with Aluminum Heads, Cobra Intake, A9L Computer with extender with a PTK Fox Street Kit and a Precision T-64E Turbo: 539 hp; 658 lbs/ft torque. See the dyno sheet: 

http://www.proturbokits.com/gallery/pic.asp?iCat=11&iPic=63&offset=

Example 2: Crazy Joe's JY 351W Mustang

 1972 351W short block, bored .030, crank cut .010/.020, line honed, zero decked.
     Sealed power hyperutectic pistons with 0.190" deep dish (8.5:1 CR)
     Resized 351W truck connecting rods.
     Crane Cam 228/228 @ .050" .512/.512" lift.
     Crane valve springs.
     Gasket matched lower intake manifold  

     Oil pan and pickup from a 351W Crown Vic.
     GT-40 iron cylinder heads all stock (produces 8.0 to 1 CR.).
     2 - Garret TO3s from 85-86 Tbird TCs, .63 exhaust A/R.
     Custom Upper Intake
     1990 Ford truck EFI lower intake
     75 mm throttle body 
     Electromotive TEC-II DFI system
     24x9x3" air - air custom intercooler
     8 - 54 lb/hr low impedance injectors.
     1.5" shorty headers, flipped upside-down and elongated bolt holes to align with exhaust port.
     Two fuel pumps routed in parallel - one in-tank (255 L/hr), one in-line (~100 L/hr).

10.38 @ 133.45 MPH (not bad for a cast-piston 351W with tiny heads and a mild cam)

  http://www.toohighpsi.com/DadTT/dadTTtimeslips.htm  

For Chevy fans, here's a JY twin turbo Camaro using a production block and cast crank http://www.camarotwinturbo.com/tech.html

And with more modern production V8s, the limits are proving higher.  As to the limits of production big blocks, who really knows? 

It's odd that few raise the "race block and billet" claim when criticizing centrifugal or roots superchargers (both of which put much greater loads on the crank because of the supercharger drive system). . . .  And that's why CC needs to do this story!

BTW, some will remember  HRM did a boost shootout between blowers and turbos (no intercooling) two or three years back.  Of course the turbo won . . . .  Maybe we need an "affordable" shootout in CC?

 "I was told that there could be reliability problems with diesel turbos because they were designed with a colder operating temperature in mind. I guess my source was wrong."

I doubt this is completely wrong. I suspect if one is building a LeMans endurance racer or a maybe a Champ Car that sees high EGTs for long periods of time, the turbine wheel alloys used are better than JY diesel turbo turbines. But with reasonable EGTs, the diesel turbos seem hold up in "sprint" type applications.

Of course enough EGT will kill any turbo.  Perhaps some of the failures attributed to "diesel turbos" are really tuning failures.

Note: the shaft seals on many if not most diesel turbos are incompatible with "draw-through" systems (fuel/air mixed before the compressor).

"Turbos are based off of technology developed for the diesel industry, turbo era F1 and rally racing; not GM passenger cars."

Dr511scj's got to disagree slightly.  The technology has evolved over the course of nearly a century from many sources, including GM. Turbocharging was first developed by General Electric as an aircraft technology (see below). After WWII, it was then downsized for diesels (including diesel race cars in the Indy 500!).  GM, using TRW turbos, first applied turbocharging to production autos in 1962.   Turbos were then widely adapted to Indy cars in the late 60s.  Porsche began to dominate international sports car racing with turbos in 1970. BMW, Saab and Porsche sparked renewed interest in turbocharged production cars in the mid-70s.  

Here's a little American flag waiving vignette that many turbo fans aren't aware of: http://www.geae.com/ourcommitment/heritage.html

"In 1888, a 16-year-old mechanic, who was later to become one of the "giants" on whose shoulders General Electric Company would build in the 1920s, '30s and '40s, had an idea that if fuel could be burned in compressed air, the energy output would be increased tremendously.

"Dr. Sanford A. Moss would see his idea come to life several years later. Judged to be "worth nothing at all" by a university professor in 1918, the turbosupercharger nevertheless launched GE into an entirely new business...aviation."

At the same time British, French and German inventors were struggling with the development of practical and effecient gas turbines, Dr. Moss began developing a turbosupercharger to allow pilots to fly higher than ever before. Dr. Moss built and first tested his now famous turbosupercharger on Pikes Peak (elevation 14,109 feet). GE had officially entered aviation when testing began on a Liberty aircraft engine equipped with GE's newly developed turbosupercharger. The GE turbosupercharger ultimately produced 356 horsepower and provided a strategic advantage for U.S. aircraft during World War I."

A book I picked up recently on EFI is called "How To Tune and Modify Engine Management Systems", by Jeff Hartman, from "Motorbooks Workshop". It is not an in depth manual on modifing fuel injection, as the name implies, but It is packed with tons of information on engine management controls and the different methods of fuel injection. I was very suprized to learn the MANY different methods that have been used over the years and by various manufacturers. Up to this piont I thought Throddle Body or Multi-Port, and Mas Airflow or MAP sensor were the only major differences, this book really opened my eyes. Its hard to try to catch up in one week by reading a book, after all  fuel injection has been around since practically 1900. Thats what jacks me off so bad, if not for the stuborn, diehards that are afraid of learning something new, we'd all know fuel injection as well as we know our carbs by now. Same goes for this turbo thread, its not black magic people. I actually read a post on here that implied a turbo would require a new engine block and internals, turbos came on 2.3 for criing out loud.

Sorry I got off track, I get worked up stuborn people hold up natural progession, anyway its a good informational book to check out, were you go from there, well good luck.

Turbochargers are even older than GE's application; the turbocharger were patented by Alfred Buchi in 1905. The reason I said:

"Turbos are based off of technology developed for the diesel industry, turbo era F1 and rally racing; not GM passenger cars."

Was because that's where many of the reliability and cost issues were sorted out in order for them to be practical in production cars. They also gave us things like anti-lag systems and variable vane turbos. I know that GM introduced the "jetfire" for olds and the turbo corvair in 62' but those models were not the picture of reliable operation. There was a reason that Olds killed the jetfire so quickly. I'm also pretty sure that the turbo used on the jetfire was a Garret design, not a TRW turbo.

Joe

You are correct about Dr. Buchi holding the original patent. 

Buchi worked as chief engineer for Sulzer Brothers (Switzerland), a locomotive, shipping and stationary power manufacturer.  In 1915 he introduced the first prototype for a turbo diesel. Some accounts suggest it failed to produce sufficient boost pressure.   Moss and GE, however, first developed the turbo into a useable and marketable application on gasoline.  Moss is sometimes known as the "father of turbocharging." See http://www.ucalgary.ca/~csimpson/Articles/JetFire.html Certainly, GE and Moss were first in developing the concept for "light," high-speed vehicles.

http://www.jandmmotorsports.com/turbo.htm

Certainly the Jetfire design was compromised by: (1) excessive compression ratio; (2) draw-through carburetion; (3) lack of intercooling; (4) lack of efficient boost control; (5) dependence on unreliable water-alcohol injection system to suppress detonation; (6) excessive backpressure; (7) poor turbocharger aerodynamics; (8) excessive cost in comparison to alternatives (i.e. increased engine size);(9) operator ignorance and indifference.

I would agree that other than being the first to install turbos on production cars, GM has not contributed much to the development of the technology.  GM does deserve credit for engineering and marketing some of the most potent US turbocharged vehicles (GNX, Syclone/Typhoon, 1989 Turbo Trans Am) even if they were mostly derivative of existing technology.  They also deserve the blame for marketing some of the worst (1978-82 Buick V6 Turbo, 1980-81 Turbo Trans Am, Jetfire . . . .)

I wouldn't dream of short changing GM for designing their fantastic late 80's turbo cars. The GN/T type, Typhoon and Syclone are still extremely strong runners. I only wish they would have kept making them.

Joe

They'd be better than the front wheel drive slate GM's been pushing the past 17 or so years.  

Of course, the turbo haters will undoubtedly point out that the current GM/Buick supercharged V6, the DOHC I-6 (Trailblazer, etc.) and the LS-series V8s all eclipse the output of the 1980s turbo V6s.  But the turbo V6 units were half-hearted, engineered-to-a-price-point attempts. Imagine how much clean, efficient power GM could have made with turbos if they had ever been serious about it.

It's sad that nearly everyone under age 18 associates big-time turbo horsepower with Toyota Supras, Nissan 300ZXs and tweaked DSMs.

That's why CC NEEDS to do an affordable turbo story.   Detroit's not helping us, so we've got to help ourselves.

Doc, some of 'em ARE stupid.

Give it up. Furby ain't never gonna do a  turbo story. Too many old SLOmaro and SHOVElle guys would start BEE-ach-ing.  And no free stuff from the advertisers.  And ya can't seal the pipes w/ duct tape.

When you buy a Car Craft, just expect old school carbs 'n Chevys. The real tech is in 5.0 Mustang and Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords.

GrandStangMaster Buzz

MMFF is more full of cars with bodykits and lambo doors than it is tech.  And I even like fords.

Here is a guy who did it with a stock short block-

01.15.03

    As you can see from the picture below, we finally got the Vega running and down the racetrack. WooHoo! The first pass off the trailer was a little nerve racking, as I had no idea what would happen. I wasn't even sure if the cast pistons would survive the 6-8psi that the wastegates were supposed to be set for. Well, it turns out the pistons could survive, as the turbos were pushing 16psi through the traps!

First pass off the trailer, leaving off idle I ran something like an 11.50 at 106 mph. I was in and out of the throttle because I saw the car was boosting 10-13 psi. Keep in mind this shortblock is a 355" SBC with cast pistons, cast crank, stock rods/bolts, and a 2-bolt block that has over 500 passes on it, in addition to about 20,000 street miles. I was a little nervous running more than 6 psi, but what the hell, this engine has never given me a single problem in the 12 years I've owned it.

Second pass, left the line on the footbrake at about 1500rpm. I stabbed the gas and it stumbled bad (60' was a 3.19!) then pulled hard for a 12.49 at 135 mph! This was without the water-to-air intercooler because I forgot to flip the pump switch on.

Third pass, I left off the transbrake with about 1psi of boost and the car cut a 60' of 1.68. On this pass I stayed in it all the way to the finish line and ran 10.14 at 138 mph. . .and I forgot to turn the intercooler pump on again. Dumbass. This pass I looked at the boost gauge as I crossed the finish line and noticed it was pulling 16 pounds of boost! Not good for a cast piston motor! The track officials also informed me that if I made another pass that fast without the proper safety gear (gloves, neck collar, 3 layer fire suit. . .I only have a single layer jacket) or a chassis cert/comp license I would be booted from the track. I had to run half passes for the remaining two days. This was probably a good thing considering the cast pistons!

On my last pass of the third day, I put it on the transbrake and let it build 5-6 psi. I left the line with a 1.47 60' and stayed in it until the 1000'-1100' mark. It ran a 10.10 at 111 mph in the 1/4 with a 6.31 at 113 in the 1/8th mile!
 

12.26.03

    The Vega is finally ready for the "Hangover Nationals" held every New Year's Eve/Day at Los Angeles County Raceway. If you recall, last year I was not allowed to make full passes over 135 mph because the car (as well as the driver) was not legal to run an ET faster than 9.99 or faster than 135 mph. I've spent all year getting everything ready so that the car will be legal, along with some other minor tech issues. The first thing I had to do was get a NHRA chassis certification for the rollcage. Before I could get the cert I had to add a couple bars to the cage, as well as 4 gussets to the "halo" portion of the 'cage. I was a bit worried about the 'cage not passing certification because I built it using .120" wall ERW tubing. NHRA mandates that all mild steel tubing must be a minimum of .117" thickness. The problem with using .120" ERW is that it does not always maintain a constant wall thickness like DOM tubing, which means the tubes may check undersize when the inspector checks it for thickness with a sonic tester. If the rollcage did not pass cert, I would have to cut it all out and fabricate a new one.

    However, all was well when the local chassis inspector came out to check the car. He checked every tube in the car, and they all checked at .118". Whew!

Where did he find a VEGA these days?

That's the kind of thing we need in CC (but I'd rather see an Alternative brand  B-I-G BLOCK instead of another SBC.

Try reading a copy of MM&FF, Dawg.  

 Who's flowed almost all the SBF heads? MM&FF  Who did the Eaton/KB/turbo comparison tests? MM&FF  Who got 900+ hp out of a stockblock '03 Cobra crate motor? MM&FF  Who built the first 5.4 Lightning in a fox-bod? MM&FF  Who did the first all-motor Cobra build-up ("Superfly")?  MM&FF. Who's done more N02 stories. MM&FF  Who's tested nearly every 5.0 supercharger?  MM&FF  Who did the multipart build up on a 427W MM&FF Who did the first Aussie 3V Cleveland head story . . . .

Don't talk trash unless yo can back it.

GrandStangMaster Buzz