Grassroots Motorsports

Register Log in to GRM
- Community

Birthdays
Recently on the Classic Motorsports forums

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » The age of the turbo.

1 2 3

April 15, 2009 5:42 p.m. ae86andkp61 Reader

ignorant wrote: Where is the downside?

Others have said it, but as huge fan of normal aspiration, I have to chime in also:

Sound and response. Sure, there are advantages to a well-tuned turbo, and modern ones have little to no lag, but none that I have experienced can hold a candle to the throttle response and sound coming from a 4A-G on individual throttle bodies. I get as much enjoyment out of the character of my car as I do from performance numbers, and for me a screamer makes for a more fun and interesting dance partner than a whoosh and big shove in my back.
April 15, 2009 6:21 p.m. njansenv Reader

I love the sound the S52 makes in my M3, as well as the wail of an S2k, but I had a chance to go to the "Rally of the Tall Pines" a few years back. More than anything, the surreal sound of those Suby 2.0's stands out. Incredible.

Referring to the comments about the S2k CR: that's all fine and well if I raced my car everyday, but I don't. On my DD: I LOVE being able to dip into the throttle at low rpm and get immediate response nearly everywhere in the powerband. (modern) Turbos do that. And get decent fuel economy when I'm out of the throttle. I had an SRT motor in my ACR Neon, and it was incredible fun. I firmly believe that the "percieved lack of reliablity" is generally less a fault of the forced induction, and more a result of how easily these motors can be tuned to make way more power and heat without improving the surrounding systems. (not too many people will bump a N/A motor up 60-100 hp without making serious upgrades to all the other systems. On some boosted cars, that's merely a chip and exhaust away).

I still want an LS1 in the M3 though.
April 15, 2009 7:12 p.m. Rumnhammer New Reader

My turbo has been on my Miata for the last 9 years now as of about 2 weeks ago, and I have had so little problems with it that it doesn't even come to mind. Oh wait, I did have a vacume line go up about 2 years ago, but that is it....... It runs fine ZERO fiddling, just power when I want it. Short trips to the store, to drives down to Deals gap from Maryland and back zero problems.

Chris Rummel
April 15, 2009 8:58 p.m. Trans_Maro Reader

Agreed, my Turbo T/A runs damn fine with very little fiddling and I'm running more than stock boost.

It's almost 30 years old and it's had one turbocharger replacement. This is an oil cooled turbo btw.

Lets face it. ALL cars are very lucky if they have proper maintenance performed on them at all, unless they are maintained by an enthusiast.

Turbo cars just tend to be more sensitive to lack of proper maintenance. Coked oil in a turbo is usually the owners fault, not the turbochargers.

Shawn
April 15, 2009 9:54 p.m. Rob_Mopar New Reader

I'm a late '30's-something and hate to break it to the young-ins, but the '80's were the Age of the Turbo.

(Judas Priest - Turbo - 1986 CBS Records)

Turbos were everywhere. GM got started down the turbo path in the late '70's with Buick (not discounting the Corvairs & turbo F85 Olds' of the early '60's), then Trans_Maro's turbo 301 for Pontiac in the early '80's followed by turbo FWD Sunbirds and the Buick Skyhawk twin. Peugeot had turbo 505's. Renault had turbo Fuego's. Mopar turbocharged anything FWD. Ford had their 2.3 turbo, Volvo, SAAB, and so on.

I've built 400 horsepower V8's, owned several Turbo Dodges (have a TII Daytona now), and have a Turbo Diesel Ram. I have to say when the Duster needs a fresh V8, it's getting forced induction. Probably turbocharged. If something goes wrong with the 360 in my Barracuda, it's probably going to get the Paxton I have sitting on the shelf here for some retro style boost. Yea, I like unnatural aspiration.

With current technology it's much easier to retrofit a turbocharger or blower to some old hardware. You can setup a motor to be more or less mild around town then come alive when the boost kicks in. I'm getting itchy to build something like that.

-Rob
April 15, 2009 11:15 p.m. problemaddict Reader

Re: foxtrapper For the record, i've owned half a dozen turbo Chryslers. Every one of them has had both oil AND water cooled turbos. Also seeing as stock motors can handle 20+ psi i don't think they were flawed. Now, everything attached to the motor, sensors, wire harness, 'puters, etc, that stuff sux.
April 15, 2009 11:18 p.m. Strizzo Dork

i've tracked my mazdaspeed3 with a reflash tune and intake and had zero troubles with it. cobb tracked theirs quite a bit and the only issue i heard they had was having to alternate hot/cool down laps in the 110 degree arizona heat.

i will say though, coming from a screamer, the n/a motors sound much nicer. i will say drivability is different with the turbo, but i think a lot of that has to do with mazda's boost control system that tries to minimize turbo lag by bypassing boost pressure to the wastegate until the turbo spools. this can cause jerky accelleration in daily driving, but i've gotten used to it.

then theres what happens when you're trying to get through a light because traffic is crawling and for some reason all of a sudden theres 20 psi at 2500 rpm. whoops. sorry about that, homeless-guy-on-the-corner
April 16, 2009 11:25 a.m. Keith UberDork

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.

We use water-cooled turbos on our kits. Failure rates are extremely low.

The only turbo car I've driven that had the stereotypical turbo lag (nothing, nothing, nothing..whaooah!) was my stock 1988 GTX. Low compression pistons, antique engine management and high altitude. The car had nothing at all going on off-boost. But it never took me by surprise.
April 16, 2009 11:33 a.m. ignorant PowerDork

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/03/small-yet-powerful-fiats-t-jet-engine-on-t...

Specs for Fiat's T-Jet engine installed in the Grande Punto are: 1,4 l gasoline engine, 4-cylinders, 16 valves. 120 HP and 152 lb-ft of torque. It makes 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. The green numbers are quite respectful for the car: 27 city, 44 hwy, 35 combined (EU Cycle) and 155 CO2 g/km.

They make a 150hp version.. twin turbo 1.4.. Hmm...

audi has a 1.4L with 125hp with a small turbo.

find me a 125hp or 150 hp 1.4L that is N/A and we can talk beyond that Snail Shaped Pre-mufflers FTW.
April 16, 2009 12:01 p.m. kb58 New Reader

Speaking of Snail-Shaped Pre-mufflers, that can be a pretty big deal on tracks with low sound limits. Not only is a turbo a pretty good muffler, it also quiets down intake noise which can be pretty loud on its own. Laguna Seca has a very low limit of 92dB. Some cars - Locosts for example - don't have much room for serious mufflers. With Kimini I was on the edge of getting thrown out even though I was lifting past the sound meter.
April 16, 2009 12:07 p.m. Paul_VR6 Reader

Unless you run in a race class that prohibits them turbo > na. Period. I don't know how there is even an argument. Both done right will make power, both done right will cost a bunch of money. Given the same power one will have much lighter pockets!! MUCH lighter!

That being said I run in a race class that prohibits any power adders and I'm having a ton of fun.
April 16, 2009 7:00 p.m. Twin_Cam Dork

As much as I hate to say it, there IS a replacement for displacement: forced induction.
April 16, 2009 7:17 p.m. Rob_Mopar New Reader

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.

Keith, completely I agree. I don't think I got to that point in my sleep deprivation induced post last night.

20 years ago I wouldn't have even dreamed of putting multiport fuel injection and turbocharging a '72 Duster. Now I'm doing the homework to see what all it's going to take. It will be a while until I get to build it, but it will get built.

-Rob
April 17, 2009 6:49 a.m. Toyman01 Reader

Twin_Cam wrote:

As much as I hate to say it, there IS a replacement for displacement: forced induction.

Untill you add a Turbo to the displacement. Then Displacement wins again. 1000hp anyone?
April 17, 2009 8:56 a.m. ignorant PowerDork

Toyman01 wrote:

Twin_Cam wrote:

As much as I hate to say it, there IS a replacement for displacement: forced induction.

Untill you add a Turbo to the displacement. Then Displacement wins again. 1000hp anyone?

displacement never wins. sorry

If you have a 100 ci engine with turbo it is better if you have a 500 ci engine; it is still better with turbo if you have a 100000 ci engine; it is better with turbo

life is better with turbo.

see..

lawnmower..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAGz4i2_Iuk turbo lawn mower...

see better.
April 17, 2009 6:25 p.m. Toyman01 Reader

Yes turbo is better, even better with displacement.

I don't think I would stand too close to that lawnmower though. It's not too far from spitting parts across the yard.
April 17, 2009 6:29 p.m. ignorant PowerDork

turbos run like crap on single cylinders. uneven exhaust pulses and all.

it was a jokes..
April 18, 2009 2:06 a.m. Wally UltraDork

ignorant wrote:

just for fun...

a cummins bus engine( most abused application there is aside from trash trucks) is warrantied for 300,000 miles, turbo as well.

hmmm

They will but out Bond like smoke screens long before that if you try, but we consider ourselves more talented then you're average garbageman
April 18, 2009 5:07 a.m. ignorant PowerDork

Wally wrote:

ignorant wrote:

just for fun...

a cummins bus engine( most abused application there is aside from trash trucks) is warrantied for 300,000 miles, turbo as well.

hmmm

They will but out Bond like smoke screens long before that if you try, but we consider ourselves more talented then you're average garbageman

Buses and garbage trucks are the worst. A close second are logging trucks who are constantly engine braking. Engine braking for looooooong periods of time pounds the E36 M3 outta the vg mechanism.
April 18, 2009 12:12 p.m. BAMF New Reader

G_Stock wrote: Also the fact you have to have almost double of everything on a V engine (camshafts, manifolds, heads, ..ect) for car manufacturers the straight 4 just makes more sense.

One day when we get engines to be made of polymers, run on Co2, getting 100mpg and make 200hp per liter the V might make a comeback.. maybe.

This is why I've always loved the Lancia V4s and VW VR6, the descendant of the Lancia V4.

2 camshafts, 8 valves, one cylinder head. Not bad for a 1960s four cylinder. Also, they were making around 130hp from a 1.6L in the mid 1960s. That's not bad at all.

Keep the angle narrow, and things work out just fine.

I personally love turbos, boost is addictive. Turbos with DI are really awesome. For the shortcomings of a MKV GTI, the engine is pretty nice. Plenty of torque, no lag, and better fuel efficiency than I get in my NA Mazda3.
April 18, 2009 12:37 p.m. sachilles Reader

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.
April 18, 2009 12:54 p.m. poopshovel SuperDork

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.
April 18, 2009 1:04 p.m. ignorant PowerDork

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.

Tell me about it. One of my last few jobs was failure analysis for turbochargers. I remember this one that came back as "failed" it was covered in mud and had a screw in the wastegate lever arm jamming it closed. HA!
April 18, 2009 1:56 p.m. Keith UberDork

I have yet to win a race by blowing up a motor.
April 18, 2009 6:41 p.m. Trans_Maro Reader

I blew up my 120hp 1300cc high-strung Toyota 4-banger autocrossing.

I have yet to blow up my 210hp, 345 lb/ft understressed, turbocharged domestic V8.

It's all in how you abuse it. I was always pushing the hell out of my n/a 4-banger and could never have enough power.

Now I have more torque than traction will allow me to use and I'm loving it even though the car is heavy.

I love my turboed V8 and it will probably hold together longer than my timebomb 4-bangers would (as long as I can keep from turning the boost up, currenty it goes to 11).

Shawn

1 2 3

You'll need to log in to post.