So Were not rich but we arent stupid

he would be easier to sway with a blue metal-flake bottle...temporary boost...i like power adders that are available at all times, not just at the race-track  
-

fuzzy dice, air shocks & N50s rule

You're right.

Although I have to say that turbos are more of a "power recoverer" or "power reallocator" than a "power adder."  Turbos harness power that's being wasted out the tailpipe (heat, sonic, and velocity energy) to do work that increases the power density (efficiency) of the engine.

I understand why the all-throttle purists, bottle babies, and blower believers(and opinion-leading magazine editors) like to claim that turbos are just another "power adder" but philosophically, it doesn't seem completely accurate.  To me, turbos are no more of a "power adder" than high compression or tuned-length induction and exhaust tracts (manifold & headers).  
*****
TURBO TED --Internationally known as the "John Force of the Yugo Racing Association."

Sergeant-at-Arms and immediate Past President of the SoAL Yugo Owners Group.

i never put much thought into it but you're right about turbos being a power recovery system  
-

fuzzy dice, air shocks & N50s rule

suscribed,

put the net result is added power...  

While we're bumping the thread, here's a few thoughts on one of the "next generation" of junkyard turbo engines excerpted from http://speedzzter.blogspot.com:

When Ford Motor Company ® first proposed a new line of turbocharged “TwinForce” engines, many of FoMoCo’s long-suffering turbo fans had visions of 7,000+ r.p.m. redlines and “fifteen minute hop-ups” to 500 horsepower dancing in their heads.  

The more idealistic turbophiles imagined that Ford would take the good parts of the late Yamaha SHO V6 design, such as the beautiful variable geometry intake manifold, and then add modern turbocharging.  

Some crazies even anticipated that the Glass House Gang would tap into the Zeitgeist of Ford’s storied V8 heritage and of the current 2.4-liter V8 Formula One limit to offer a fully-modern, displacement-on-demand, VTEC (Variable Valve Timing and Lift Electronic Control) equipped  twin turbo mini-V8.

When news came out about Ford-ex Dr. Neil Ressler landing at Ethanol Boosting Systems, turbo lovers expected Ford’s new turbo mills to come with direct, on-demand injection of ethanol, providing a 160+ effective octane support for huge, ZR1-killing boost spikes, combined with brilliant off-boost fuel economy that cannot be matched by old-school two-valve pushrod engines.

And when Alan Mulally’s marketing crew reacted to the anti-performance  . . . hurricane flowing from  . . .  Washington D.C. by renaming the turbo engines under the silly “EcoBoost” moniker,  turbo fans held their breath and kept the faith that finally Dearborn would offer state-of-the-art high performance turbo engines.

What were WE all smoking?

FoMoCo’s engine department – which often seems more conservative than Barry Goldwater and less creative than Barry Mantilow – has delivered up an underwhelming initial installment for the EcoBoost saga: The 365-horse 3.5 EcoBoost V6.

While the gory details have been known in industry circles for some time, Stephen Kim, in the October 2009 issue of Popular Hot Rodding Magazine, gives the general public the most clear insight yet into how Ford’s engineers and bean-counters slouched their way into building a V6 that’s really not that much better than what could (and should) have been offered fifteen years ago.

And as PHR's sickeningly fawning espose' on the EcoBoost 6 shows, much of this technology will not be "rodder friendly" in the initial years. The EcoBoost 3.5 has a brace of tiny GT15 turbos that run out of breath at 200 h.p. each. The pistons and rods are not forged. The intake and exhaust manifolds are probably the worst things this side of an antique A-series BMC. The compression/boost relationship is virtually maxed out at the factory.  The rev limit is a pushrod-esque 6,200 r.p.m.

There is no displacement-on-demand, or variable geometry intake, or full VTEC (just variable cam phasing), or direct ethanol injection.

Seemingly the lessons learned by the Ramchargers nearly fifty years ago on the scientific design of intake and exhaust manifolds have been lost or, more likely, ignored to placate the penny-pinchers.  

To say these pedestrian specifications are tractor-like, is probably an insult to some of the high-tech tractors now available.

Moreover, the early tests report that Ford’s electronic management of the EcoBoost system manages to deprive enthusiasts of the sensations and sounds that have made turbocharging legendary.  It’s as if Ford set out to engineer a clandestine, tamper-proof “black box” engine that no ordinary motorist would even suspect was turbocharged.
 
About the only really exciting development that probably couldn’t have been offered in the late 1980s or 1990s is direct injection.  GDI allows for a stratified charge at part throttle, more targeted fuel induction events,  and in-cylinder evaporative cooling. All good stuff, but an expensive, steep hill to climb for tuners and hot rodders.  

Thus, turning the not-so-stunning 3.5 EcoBoost into a legitimate performance engine will take buckets of money and time. (a limp 104 horsepower per liter isn’t exactly the stuff of legends)

Also, given the fact that the underwhelming initial installment of the EcoBoost family will be implanted into a series of 4000+ pound AWD sleds, any aftermarket pressure to develop the engine may be initially limited.  And the EcoBoost V6 option runs over a couple of thousand dollars – which doesn’t exactly feel like the deal of the century.

Maybe it will get better in future installments.  But the first chapter of EcoBoost is decidedly less exciting than some anticipated.  
http://speedzzter.blogspot.com

460-BBF-IN-CC: " . . . long-time turbo racer Mike Moran . . . first doorslammer turbo car in the FIVES! (5.97 at 250.41, carded at Valdosta, GA). . . . ."

Moran's five-second turbo mill is also in the "Horsepower!" section of the November '09 Car Craft.  I wonder if it's an HRM outtake?

But it IS a "big block turbo" in CC (ha, ha, ha).  
http://speedzzter.blogspot.com

you wanted a tech-filled build-up article didn't you...
now you have to wonder which will happen first...
bowtie-craft becomes blue oval craft
or hell freezes over...

oh that's right, during the coolest (in my part of the country anyway) summer in written history the global warming problem won't let that happen  
-

fuzzy dice, air shocks & N50s rule

Im the owner of the Disco Era caddy featured in the top 10 affordable street cars section a little while back. I agree that CC needs to do a budget build on a off breed big inch motor with a fatty turbo on it. My caddy was purchased for 500 bucks off Craigslist with an absolute mint 500 inch motor underhood.Hows that for cheap!
  My buddy Marshall and i dreamed up the idea to turbo the biggest tuna boat we could find with the largest engine and that beast is the end result. Total investment is right around 3000 bucks so far and once i get the turbo sizing issues ironed out, i know it will run in the 11's.
   The 13.6 it ran so far felt so lame compared to the few good pulls we have gotten out of it that i know its gonna fly! That run was a slow to boost 10 psi run that ended up being around 10 to 1 A/F ratio when checked later on with a wideband. I had it running 12.5 to 1 A/F and 15 psi boost when the head gasket let go unfortunately.
  Oh well, it was leaking from day one anyways so no great loss. The motor looks cherry inside and once repairs are made, ill post track times! Maybe CC should buy it from me and continue the hunt for power with stock junk. LOL  

That turbo Cadillac really fits in the old "Affordable Street Performance" vibe that many CC readers still crave.

Running 5000 pounds of budget "Brand X" down the 1320 quicker and faster than scads of "store-bought" muscle is way cool. Doing it with a home-brewed turbo kit is even cooler!

Keep us posted on how quick it runs after the head gasket is replaced.

As for CC buying it, why would we want it to languish as so many other CC project cars have?   What CC ought to do is encourage you to freelance some test-n-tune reports on it.  
--------------------------------
460_BBF_Turbo-in-CC (formerly Dr511scj) "This guy has no life other than posting endlessly on carcraft.com." -- Car Craft, July 2005
-------
October 1, 2003: " I'm thinking a couple of...turbos, blowing through an old Powerstroke intercooler...on a Super Cobra Jet-head 460 would be mad cheap and make sick power."
-------
"I have no problem with your...talking to several versions of yourself...or pointing out our failure to do a turbo story ...." --Douglas "CC/Rambler" Glad

i have to agree with 460BB on that...
doing something that EVERYONE else is already doing is lame...sometimes we get stuck with what we have and it turns out cool

you'd be better off doing as 460 said and free-lancing the tech article and use that money to further develop the car or fund another project, either way you should keep the car as it wil get lost in CC's personal junkyard...


maybe that's what the staff at CC should buy next, it would allow them their own garage, plenty of storage, an abundance of project material while being a parts source all unto itself...like for used turbos and such

wishful thinking  
-

fuzzy dice, air shocks & N50s rule

Post 490!

And this thread's just a few hundred page views from 80,000!

Still, no action on getting a "real world" non-Chevy B-I-G block turbo project in CC.  

And another HRM Drag Week missed . . . .[sigh]  

One guy who didn't miss DW this year was Jeff Lutz.

His turbo car was ruling in the "Unlimited" class before it broke. Video: Jeff Lutz's Turbo 1957 Chevy Running 7.81 at 180 mph at Drag Week. Sure it's a Chevy but, Man, was it on a pass during that video!

We're not asking for an "unlimited" turbo project.  Just some modestly-priced turbos and support hardware on a real-world long block for some street/strip action.

To put this into perspective, "Top Gear" co-host Jeremy Clarkson suggests that the increasing regulatory pressure on supercars and exotics is "waging war on our right to dream." Clarkson also lamented in one of last Monday's "Top Gear" episodes that he'll never be able to own a 1001 horsepower Bugatti Veyron.

Many of us look at $100,000+ mountain-motor Pro Stocks and other high performance "unobtainium" in the same way.

But Car Crafters have the perfect antidote.   A modest big block turbo could foreseeably crest 1001 horsepower.  

Sure a CC project car (the big-block turbo engine in some sort of cheap used coupe or sedan) wouldn't have the style, handling, panache, value, etc. of a million-dollar Bugatti.  But it sure could handle one in acceleration!

More importantly, it would reinforce and inspire the dreams of plenty of Car Crafters out there. That would be of great benefit in these challenging times, wouldn't it?  
--------------------------------
460_BBF_Turbo-in-CC (formerly Dr511scj) "This guy has no life other than posting endlessly on carcraft.com." -- Car Craft, July 2005
-------
October 1, 2003: " I'm thinking a couple of...turbos, blowing through an old Powerstroke intercooler...on a Super Cobra Jet-head 460 would be mad cheap and make sick power."
-------
"I have no problem with your...talking to several versions of yourself...or pointing out our failure to do a turbo story ...." --Douglas "CC/Rambler" Glad

+1

we won't see anything like this until mcgann steps up to the plate....lord knows the rest won't  
-

fuzzy dice, air shocks & N50s rule

A Mike Moran-built big block turbo car has just won Drag Week.  
http://speedzzter.blogspot.com

that's fast for a car "docile" enough to drive on the street

the fact that there were a few turbo vehicles helps the cause of this thread but the hype and tech to follow will probably be in HRM and CC will only mention it in the straight scoop section  
-

fuzzy dice, air shocks & N50s rule

i have been considering putting a turbo on a 396/ 325 hp we have laying around and dropping it in my el camino.