Turbo Talk

I think its funny how everytime this comes up people want to put a turbo and a sc together. As if a turbo isnt hard enough...the last thing you need to do is try to get it working along with a supercharger :rolleyes:
 
http://www.overboost.com/story.asp?id=290
http://www.evotuners.com/hartford2.htm
http://www.urbanracer.com/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=2
http://www.importdrag.com/racers_MattHartford.shtml

Here is a major article on Hoyos v6 car from 2001 and a few other articles as well. I think the main confusion is that in other articles Hoyos himself refered to the motor as being 3.8 thunderbird SC based. This article clearly states all the facts. In this article it lists the motor as making 1,100 hp but later articles have the car running 1,400 which I do recall seeing year sago..Just cant find em. So this will clear up some of the misunderstandings motor wise. After th2 2001 season there was a big contravery because it didnt have dual over head cams...IMAHGINE THAT! These motors sold originally through FMS and had 5 hundred and change HP..Flywheel not rear wheel in N/A form....So you know..1,100 or 1,400 is a hell of a lot more!..Al hail turbos;O) The only thing restricting us is keeping the motor together
 
DamonSlowpokeBaumann said:
http://www.overboost.com/story.asp?id=290
http://www.evotuners.com/hartford2.htm
http://www.urbanracer.com/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=2
http://www.importdrag.com/racers_MattHartford.shtml

Here is a major article on Hoyos v6 car from 2001 and a few other articles as well. I think the main confusion is that in other articles Hoyos himself refered to the motor as being 3.8 thunderbird SC based.

He was saying that mainly to ward off protests that it was a Nascar motor. In order to run in the class it had to be a "production based" motor. That is what SVO called it at the time also. I think that was necessary via Nascar rules as well. Nascar doesn't run production motors but they are "production based".

550hp was "out of the box" power levels for that motor. Race ready motors made about 100HP more and you can rest assured that the Hoyas motor was thoroughly warmed over prior to use in that car. Also, at 4.7L it's a LOT bigger than our motors. All I'm saying is that I think the motor was making, *realistically* about double the HP that the motor made NA. In our case, if you could get a 3.8L to make 350hp N/A you'd be doing extremely good. Then if you add the best turbo system in the world and run on alcohol you might be able to double that number like they did. So that puts the top cap on hp at about 700. Work backwards a little and you will see that 600rwhp is very nearly the most that it would be reasonable to ever hope to get out of this motor. If we can get 550 out of a bolt on AR with a much wider torque curve than the turbo and suddenly the supercharger doesn't look so anemic.

That's all I'm saying.
 
I will say that 700 crank HP will NEVER happen with our cars. Sorry, but the heads will lift before that and you will spray water all over the place. They just have too small of a deck on them for four bolts to contain the pressure at rpms that would support that number. PROVE ME WRONG...I dare ya:D

Chris
 
I dunno if any of you have messed with the MAPECU unit yet, but its a very impressive box. I switched to it on another car of mine when I came to the point of maxing out the MAF. You remove the MAF and put this in its place. The stock ECU doesnt know the differance. The MAPECU uses the map sensor and temperature to calculate MAF voltages to send to the stock ECU. Tuning is cake as well. Plugin a wideband and your all set. This sounds like a commercial, but this is a great MAF alternative. Drivability and idle are just as good as before. You can also put your BOV whereever you want.

http://www.performancemotorresearch.co.nz/
 
Ever see how many head bolts my trusty lil v8 has? :O) The one advantage of the v8 is aftermarket heads with or course thicker decks.

In order for the motor to be a ford production motor it would need to be sold at a certain volume which I am assuming they did. You should see what they are doing with the 5.4 ford GT block nowadays(lil off topic)..Production block yes..The main protests were not having dual overhead cams and that is was a v6. They did not distinguish a 4 6 or 8 cyl in the class. WHo would have the advantage?.....Remember fors used to sell the 600cid big blocks right out of thier catalouge as well!

The limitation we will have with a turbo is how much power can the stock block take. Turbo sizes and trims are practically unlimited. We also have to keep in mind that a SC takes quite a few HP to turn and puts extra strain on the crank that a turbo otherwise wouldnt. Guys are making more hp with less boost.

Yes we are talking two completely different power curves when comparing a turbo to a posative displacement blower. All I can say is that people building kits in thier garage are making over 500rwhp and in the low tens and 9's with thier stangs. Low tens in an SC? WHo knows at this point but it would be nice to see it work. I opened a turbo thread in the member section for any progress I will make on my own project. Hopefully all works out.

This whole turbo debate isnt to discredit any other forms of aspiration just to talk about turbos and yes to compare. BTW I will dyno my car before and after turbo installation for comparison at the same boost level
 
Dave,

Just got back from taking my turbo car for a drive...my hands are still shaking a little. The additional timing on the low end made it spool the turbo much quicker and the manifolds are not getting nearly as hot now. Still has the part throttle stumbles and wants to backfire with light throttle once in a while, but it's much more streetable and responsive than before.

This car is tearing the heck out of my M/T ET street radials. They are getting feathered badly and rubber particles are stuck in the fenderwells. With 15 pounds of boost it easily spins them on any surface thru 1st and 2nd gear. I didn't get a chance to see what happens in 3rd because there wasn't enough road. I might have to put some Nitto DRs or something with a harder compound on the car until it's race ready. At the rate I'm going I'll need new tires before I even get it back to the track.

It's running well enough that I might take it over to the dyno just to see how much power it's making. My butt dyno says 600 plus rwhp but it's hard to tell at this power level....:D

David
 
Last edited:
David you never fail to crack me up. Good stuff. :D I do think it would be a good idea to put it on the dyno, it can't be any harder on it than booting around town like that. Who knows you might be surprised. :eek:
 
seawalkersee said:
I will say that 700 crank HP will NEVER happen with our cars. Sorry, but the heads will lift before that and you will spray water all over the place. They just have too small of a deck on them for four bolts to contain the pressure at rpms that would support that number. PROVE ME WRONG...I dare ya:D

Chris

Matthewneuharth over at v6power.net has been making some impressive power and e.t. times with his 4.2l turbo. There is alot of info and other stuff about his car over there. Heres a bit from his sig :
The First and Only 9sec production based V6 Stang!

95 C4 single port
Turbo Dyno #s 527rwhp@5500rpm and 539rwtq@4400rpm. (pump gas)19psi
587rwhp abd 601rwtq 26psi race gas.

race gasTime-9.85@138.6mph
1/8th-6.32@112mph
60ft-1.447

So 587rwhp x 20% loss (being nice) = 117.4

587 + 117.4 = 704.4 crank hp....So does that prove you wrong;)
 
Dont know...is he running factory heads on his turbo OR is he running the SPI heads which have a thicker deck? If he is running the SC heads, I would think that yeah...he might prove me wrong...but it was a long night last night and I wrote that while I was a tired boy...

Chris
 
There is no doubt that head lift will occur. Weather supercharged or turbocharged. But the fact you can make more power with less boost...at the same boost level on the edge of lifting a head...

I dont know if you guys have seen Matts setup but it can easily be duplicated by anyone who can fabricate.

Also I have seen about 50 to many videos of worked AR and eaton powered 03/04 cobras getting waxed by Supra turbos on the top end or on highway runs.

And David once you get that thing running tops you will eb very very happy. If your happy now just wait.
 
95 single port

Also, Chris Wise made 505rwhp with his M90 so you can add another 150hp spent turning the M90 as well as the non-locking converter etc. I'd put his at more like 750 inside the motor.

It's not that 700hp can't be produced, but you have to look at what is a reasonable ceiling to expect and 700hp is getting very close to what probably should be considered a reasonable limit. How much of that 700-750 you can harness, now that is another story altogether.
 
XR7 Dave said:
Also, Chris Wise made 505rwhp with his M90 so you can add another 150hp spent turning the M90 as well as the non-locking converter etc. I'd put his at more like 750 inside the motor.

Dave that is indeed the #1 question. But if I can do it with a turbo, a small cam and mild head work that would be great! His combination was all out and on the laughing gas.

We will eventually come upon the limits of our block but what is it? I dont know yet. ALso will it be different with a turbo due to less strain on the bottom end?

Chris was much like Kevin in that he really romped his car at the track. Its on ething to make power and another to put teh combination to the test. My cougar v8 turbo made 748rwhp with a stock block. I KNOW that if I raced that on a weekly basis I wouldnt no longer have a block. Regardless of induction people like them will surely bring us to the edge of what our block can take.

Me... I want to see what can be done with a stock SC longblock and a turbo power wise. And if I'm happy leave it at that. I plan on no more then 17-21 psi on a stock motor. And I dont see why it wont handle it. Maybe more?..I dunno
 
seawalkersee said:
I will say that 700 crank HP will NEVER happen with our cars. Sorry, but the heads will lift before that and you will spray water all over the place. They just have too small of a deck on them for four bolts to contain the pressure at rpms that would support that number. PROVE ME WRONG...I dare ya:D

Chris

Ok... there is a guy in FLA putting down over 600rwhp with a 2.x twin-screw/ That equates to at least 690chp with a 15% drive train loss without factoring in parasitic loss from the blower. So what do I win?
 
seawalkersee said:
Dont know...is he running factory heads on his turbo OR is he running the SPI heads which have a thicker deck? If he is running the SC heads, I would think that yeah...he might prove me wrong...but it was a long night last night and I wrote that while I was a tired boy...

Chris

Ported stock single port heads... from the Mustang, not the SC.
 
DamonSlowpokeBaumann said:
NADA because its still not 700! :O)~!

I said I didn't factor in the parasitic loss from the blower. That's gotta be a good 50-75hp, if not more. :p

PS: You mean we're going to see what the stock bottom end can handle. :cool:
 
Paul, I'm aware of the car and I've seen some pictures. However I've neither seen nor heard anything that would indicate that it makes over 600rwhp. I think that is internet lore more than anything. I may just have to call him up and ask him if it has ever been on the dyno. Based only on the size of his blower pulley, I'd guess that he is just not making the boost necessary to generate that kind of HP.

I just don't think it requires 600rwhp to run 165 in the 1 mile. If David's 4200lb SC makes 600hp and does 130 mph in the 1/4 mile it should follow that 600hp would be doing more than 165mph 3/4 of a mile later.

Damon, you and I both know that big cams are not what makes turbo's happy. I find it interesting that turbo guys often brag about their "mild cams" making it seem like if they went with a more radical cam they would make more power. Truth is that if you put a radical cam in a turbo application you will all but murder the thing. Even with a blown application big cams don't mean a lot. My car was one of the higher HP cars even when it had the old S-Port on it and my cam was under .500" lift. The cam I'm doing for my new motor is fairly radical by SC standards but it should "idle like a stocker" as people like to put it. With only 262 gross duration it has less gross duration than my current cam.
 
seawalkersee said:
Dont know...is he running factory heads on his turbo OR is he running the SPI heads which have a thicker deck? If he is running the SC heads, I would think that yeah...he might prove me wrong...but it was a long night last night and I wrote that while I was a tired boy...

Chris

Single port heads, and what is even more interesting is that he ported the heads himself and the stock ford valves are still being used :eek:
 
Back
Top