The $3500 challenge

Now I'm not really getting into the middle of all this other than to say that there ought to be room in CC for both "all motor" V8s and a few budget turbo V8s.

So all of this is really CCMAG's fault for ignoring the call for one piddly little big block turbo build.

But the point is well-taken that the $3,500 build story isn't really the best venue for turbocharging.

I do note that some of the quotes you've stripped out of the nearly 300 posts on the "We aren't rich but we aren't stupid" thread were made in the context of people objecting to the idea of ANY turbo projects in CC.

Obviously, speed costs money in terms of safety and driveline components.  And that's true regardless of how you achieve it. 

But the points at least I've been trying to make over the past three years or so are that: (1) turbocharging isn't the most expensive way to go fast (an 800 hp street turbo engine is a lot cheaper than a NEXTEL CUP engine); (2) turbocharging isn't just for tiny imports (the counterpoint to all that "big blocks can take care of themselves" BS); (3) turbocharging doesn't require an MIT degree or a wall-full of ASE certifications to understand and apply; (4) homebuilt turbo kits can achieve surprising results for reasonable costs.   

I guarantee you that $2,000 spent on turbocharging will yield more bang for the buck than $2,000 spent on aftermarket cylinder heads (at least for most engines). Sure, both would be MUCH better working together.  But CC only sees fit to tell one side of the story. 

The truth is that the cylinder head manufacturers buy ads while the turbo vendors don't. (Ergo the aftermarket cylinder head tract about "500 h.p. engines" in last month's CC)  And for the average magazine reader,  buying heads out of a catalog on credit and slapping them on is a lot simpler than engineering your own turbo kit.  The same with N20 and even pre-packaged supercharger kits. 

But this hobby doesn't advance if all we're teaching folks is catalog bolt-ons.  Besides, nearly all of those bolt-ons (except high compression, long-tube headers and high-overlap cams) will work very well with street turbocharging.

As to the driveline issue you raise, most CCers are already thinking about or have transmission and axle upgrades. A simple Top Loader and 9" or mildly-built 8.8 will live under most steet cars.  Preping an automatic for 500+ hp isn't any different for a turbo than for a nitrous car.  That guy with 714 lbs/ft 460 mentioned earler used a rather ordinary C6 with a 2,000 rpm stall converter--not exactly top-of-the-line race equipment.  Mike Sitar built his blow-through carbureted 351W twin-turbo Thunderbird on a budget, while in college, using a mild C4 and a 3.08-geared 7.5! See www.toohighpsi.com

The problem is that the pro shops "best of everything" approach has mislead a number of young Car Crafters to believe that everything has to be race-spec perfect to make bigger-than-big block power with turbos.  The truth is that in a street/strip application that's just not so.  CC could get to about 85-95% of what the pro shops achieve for a fraction of the budget.

The fact that a brave few pioneers build these sorts of cars in obscurity doesn't prove anything.  But when CC reports on it in detail (not just a breezy "click, clack, kodak" photo spread), then people take notice.

CC is more of a D-I-Y performance magazine than most of the other Primedia titles.  And while "empty-pockets" projects belong in the magazine, they will never (and shouldn't) be the only ones in there. 

 But the sort of turbo project the "other thread" has focused on isn't a "mortgage-the-house-and-cash-out-the-401k" sort of build. It's more aimed at what an reasonably resourseful Car Crafter could do at home (with a little muffler shop help)  if he/she set aside a modest monthly "new car payment" for two or three years (which is how a lot of CC readers build their cars already)  

Those are my thoughts on the subject.  Have a nice day.

Big blocks can take care of themselves, raced a few turbo imports and whipped them, had it been a turbo small block, or turbo big block, there I would get in trouble. But it is nice to see someone make lots of n/a hp (and torque), because as stated, that takes alot of talent. Not saying a turbo set up doesnt take talent, but making more power without a power adder takes more talent. I thought of a pro charger myself, or even having a turbo set up like the ones they have for f-bodys because a big block and turbos wont fit under my hood very well. (remember the twin turbo camaro a few issues back?) The hobby does advance if we just have bolt ons. How much better has the blower gotten since it was just "bolted on"? How much better have headers gotten since they were just "bolted on". The list goes on, but people have bolted on parts for years, looked at how they could be made better, and made better parts.. to bolt on. What is a turbo if its not a bolt on part, sure you have to fabricate, but you may also have to fabricate to get your motor to fix in the engine bay. But the point I think CSIROC is trying to make, and is a good point by my views, there is no need to tell someone to bolt on a turbo everytime someone brings up h.p issues. Sure it makes more power, but unless they asked for help on a turbo, dont blabber it out. Same goes for those people who say 305's are boat ancors. If they wanna build one, or add a few performance parts, let them. If they dont like it, they arent out any money, they can later swap the parts onto a 350 block.  

At the risk of being part of the problem here, I have to throw in a couple of points that I think are germane to the subject.

I am old school and always maintained that a supercharger was more direct power than a turbo.  In the past it was in that you might get robbed a few horsepower, but the boost was immediate.  Turbo lag would probably make the turbo car slower.  In heated arguements with my one turbo freak friend and doing some self help research, that situation just doesn't exist anymore.  With the advant of two stage turbo setups turbo lag pretty much is a non issue.  While I still am partial to superchargers, it's more a preference than mechanical reality that they are better.  Given the complexity of setting up either one, I say take your pick.  Depending on application, it's true that an old school supercharger is likely to be much spendier than a home fabricated turbo, or even one done by a turbo shop.  For a Chev or a Ford that may not be the case, but for the Olds it would be.

As for the engine, we could go around about how that thing was built.  I would have done it different, but whatever the $3500 build was supposed to prove, the F-85 was a bad slate to start with.  No arguement that the body and chassis is perfect, but that car was optioned with no frills, a V-6 engine, and probably the lightest rear end put in the bottom basement version.  What I am trying to say is that pump the thing up to a full 500 horsepower and the drive train is going to scatter.  Having owned two of that style (a '66 F-85 and a 67' Cutlass Supreme) both with manual brakes, it's easy to say that aside from the tranny and rear end, stopping becomes an issue.  Disc brakes would be a must to be pushing it even into the 10s at over 100 mph.  The old manuals just are not that effective, and I have found them to actually be a safety hazard if not kept adjusted to the gnats eyebrow, and kept from overheating (danger of fade). 

Last point to make is that force induction of anykind is hard on the lower end of any engine.  I don't recall the build he put on that 455, but I think it was mostly seals, cam, intake, and carb.  Putting a blower or a turbo on any engine calls for at least main studs to keep main cap creep at bay.  Considering the increased combustion chamber pressures that a turbo would put on an engine, at least some form of lower end reinforcement is mandatory.  That I stand by.  In the build, this would have added considerable cost and probably exceeded the budget.

In my opinion, it just wasn't a good test case to use.  Don't get me wrong - I love the car.  Would give up one of my other heaps to have it in a heartbeat.  The post is cool, and having it be a bottom line car to me is a plus.  But to make it either a hot turbo or naturally aspirated beast would take more money than was allotted in the competition.

My two cents - Bowser.

Wow! I go away for a week and this thread has blown up!

Well, where should I start? First I would like to say putting a turbo on a BBO regardless of budget, would not be a good idea. Unless, you get custom rods, pistons, billet crank, full  girdle, reduce the mains to 2.5", reduce the rod journals to 2.2", blah, blah, blah. So why start with a BBO. A better canidate for a turbo would be the diesel SBO block. Still have to do some work to it but much better design for a turbo. A BBO block can only take 700-800 hp before they break. So you don't need a turbo on them.

My BBO is a stock rebuild woth headers and good exhaust. It runs on 87 octane and runs 11.80's on D.O.T. approved tires. The car weighs 3650 lbs and I drive it on the street all the time. It idles smooth at 750 rpm, pulls 15 inches of vacuum and I have full power accessories. It is as docile as any factory car. I shift at 5200 rpm so it doesn't have to rev very high either. I am also using the stock rearend and tranny ( 8.5" 10 bolt/ TH350).

The whole point of bringing this article up was to say that they could have run alot better by making a wiser choice with the cam. The compression has to be raised in order for the engine to run right with a bigger than stock cam. I bet that car already runs like a turbo car. No bottom end! And that's sad for a BBO.

A note on imports and/or compact cars. The only ones that are quick, are the ones that are balls out race cars. And I can still run faster than alot of those.

I am not directing this to you Bowser. I can't seem to change who it is to. It is to: ALL.

holy crap. Is it just me, or everytime a thread goes on for much longer than a couple posts, it turns into a turbo vs. NA battle to the death?Mopar or Nocar

I agree with you pretty much on all counts.  I probably didn't come out and say it, but putting force induction on a BBO isn't a real good choice.  I absolutely agree with you on the diesel 350.  There you have a situation where the crank mains are the size of a BBO and much of the bottom end reinforcement was engineered in to begin with.  So good thought on that.

The other thing that is true is your acertion that the engine could have been done better, and I think I said as much.  My recipe was for more of a conventional 500 hp build up which is safe and sane for the BBO, and very attainable for reasonable prices. 

I will say this.  I would love to get that car in the mag.  It is bad a@@ and just crying for upgrades.  They couldn't do the whole shmear given the challange, but it will be a car once the engine is built correctly and the rest of the thing can be fixed up. 

And as far as it being aimed at me, hey - no bag...I hate imports.  Even my '87 Iroc eats most of them for lunch.  When I pull up along side of one with my '67 Cutlass, they don't even try!  A pity.........

Bowser

I know what you mean about the imports not even trying, I had a '69 Firebird 400 (until some guy ran a red light) and all I got was the occasional 5.0 Mustang, drove my brother's 95 Neon for ONE day and it seemed like I was challenged at every light. I must say the stock DOHC 2.0 engine beat all the fart pipe body kitted cars easily. They seem to be all show and no go (that an since it wasn't my car I ran it hard  
-
The Silver Buick- '77 Skylark coupe w/ a Fuel Injected Buick 455&TKO-600, '72 Centurion Conv't - 455w/TH400, '67 T-bird 4Dr (suicide) w/428&C6. Needing to replace a '69 Firebird 400.

http://www.bangshift.com/forum/index.php?topic=6189.0

First of all hats off to CarCraft for doing something other than a the "usual" chevelle or camaro. I'm an Olds guy and would like to see more Olds in my mags every month.

"That cam is the worst cam he could have possibly put in there. It was designed for a SBC about 15 or more years ago. It has the slowest ramps in the world and Oldsmobiles don't like it one bit. Oldsmobiles don't like dual pattern cams either."

Should I now be dissapointed my street Olds 455 has only gone best 12.19 @111 with the same cam n/a?

Should I now be dissapointed my street Olds 455 has only gone best 12.19 @111 with the same cam n/a?

I would be.

Yah I don't know how I can live with all the dissapointment! 11's are less than 2 tenths away and I don't have long tubes or have really tuned it yet. Stupid crappy cam!!........  

just so you know...he's already in the 11's  
68 Olds Cutlass ~ 350 Rocket
85 Delta 88 ~ 425 Rocket
02 Silverado 4X4 ~ 5.3L

CSIROC I know. I heard about it on Olds forums. We're talking about how crappy and slow that cam is in an Olds but for the last 8 years that cam has been in my motor I have found no reason to change it yet.

Well I had that cam and picked up 4 tenths with a smaller Engle cam. So whatever.  

.  

Just my two cents, My wife's Wrx wagon is very quick, I love to drive it ( aka beat the dog bag out of it).  My 69 R/T with a properly built stroker 499 A-833 is f-ing scarry!  Take into consideration that the Wrx is a factory pakage that engeneers spent time on power to weight ratios, and my Charger R/T overcomes 4000 pounds with pure anger to scare the bejesus out of it's passengers.  Turbos have their place, but so do evil big-blocks...