Slant Six Forum :: New (old) Slant-6 turbo article

Wondering about the year of the article. Everything in the pictures looks like from the 60's, including the turbo. Yet in the article it states "hydraulic lifters limit the max rpm to arount 5,000 rpm." Must be a "throw back".

I guess the proof readers wern't any better then, then they are now.

that is a tiny turbo, and no intercooler? no wonder only 30% interesting design with the carb bolted to the turbo. im so used to seeing blow thru setups, not draw thru

Very interesting article! I wonder how the turbo setup off of a late 80`s 2.2 liter LeBaron would work? Hmmmm, something to ponder. It`s not every day that you see a turbo /6!

Jonah

I don't know that I'd agree a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo would necessarily be too small. There were many different turbos used on those engines over the years. Small Mitsubishis, large Garretts, and really large Garretts. The 16-valve DOHC 2.2 in the Spirit R/T and IROC R/T of '91-'93 produced 224 hp and 217 lb-ft in factory configuration, using a large Garrett turbo. And that's just considering stock turbos; the aftermarket offers an even larger range of much larger turbos.

I guess "too small" would also depend on the intended usage. If we're trying for a setup where high RPMs will be desired and often seen, then yeah, the turbo had better be large enough to support that level of airflow. On the other hand, if we're trying for quick boost and maximum low- and mid-range torque, then maybe a smaller turbo would be desirable...without making it so small as to strangle the engine at what would otherwise be useful RPMs.

Seems to me mpgmike managed to put together some reportedly good-running setups using K-car turbos, didn't he?

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:45 pm ]
Post subject:	New (old) Slant-6 turbo article
Found this in the February '64 issue of "CARS" magazine. Some interesting stuff (carb modifications & setup, etc) in here. Too bad Garrett never put out that kit! Click the pic to download the 4-page article (2.6mb PDF):

Author:	slantzilla [ Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Interesting article. I'da thought that a turbo would be worth more than 30% though.

Author:	Charrlie_S [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:31 pm ]
Post subject:
Wondering about the year of the article. Everything in the pictures looks like from the 60's, including the turbo. Yet in the article it states "hydraulic lifters limit the max rpm to arount 5,000 rpm." Must be a "throw back". I guess the proof readers wern't any better then, then they are now.

Author:	turbofish [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:
that is a tiny turbo, and no intercooler? no wonder only 30% interesting design with the carb bolted to the turbo. im so used to seeing blow thru setups, not draw thru

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, I think some editor was asleep on that lifter detail. he probably meant to say something about the engine's long stroke. The small turbo is probably one of the main contributors to this build's easy streetability (and would've given fast spool-up, too). As for the draw-through setup...well, it would certainly simplify the carburetion, and it would probably have unintended benefits in terms of completeness of fuel burn (due to heating of the air/fuel mixture).

Slant Six Forum https://slantsix.org/forum/

New (old) Slant-6 turbo article https://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24709	Page 1 of 1

Author:	AnotherSix [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Turbo design has improved dramatically, mostly in the past ten years or so. So that 30% may be very realistic for a system that actually works well on the street. Very interesting article. Reminds me of the turbine powered concept cars of the same era. I got to see one of them a few years ago.

Author:	slantzilla [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Wondering about the year of the article. Everything in the pictures looks like from the 60's, including the turbo. Yet in the article it states "hydraulic lifters limit the max rpm to arount 5,000 rpm." Must be a "throw back". I guess the proof readers wern't any better then, then they are now. 1964

Author:	Charrlie_S [ Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:44 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: that is a tiny turbo, and no intercooler? no wonder only 30% interesting design with the carb bolted to the turbo. im so used to seeing blow thru setups, not draw thru Another draw thru. Turbo is a modified Rajay, for a 168 Cu In 1966 Corvair. http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/schmid.html

Author:	Jonah Hex [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:07 am ]
Post subject:
Very interesting article! I wonder how the turbo setup off of a late 80`s 2.2 liter LeBaron would work? Hmmmm, something to ponder. It`s not every day that you see a turbo /6! Jonah

Author:	Charrlie_S [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:18 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Very interesting article! I wonder how the turbo setup off of a late 80`s 2.2 liter LeBaron would work? Hmmmm, something to ponder. It`s not every day that you see a turbo /6! Jonah Jonah, that has been done. There have been many discussions about that turbo. The general consenses is that turbo is too small. It does work, but not well. Use the search function on the site to see the threads.

Author:	Matt Cramer [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Very interesting article! I wonder how the turbo setup off of a late 80`s 2.2 liter LeBaron would work? Hmmmm, something to ponder. It`s not every day that you see a turbo /6! Jonah Probably too small unless you use two of them. I used a single K-car turbo, but it was the Mitsu turbo off a 2.5, the smallest one made. It could hit double digit boost levels at 1,500 RPM, but the engine wouldn't want to rev past 3,000 because the turbo was so restrictive. Other K-cars had somewhat larger turbos, but they're still not large enough for a serious performance application. One guy here commented they might be appropriate for stationary power generators.

Author:	SlantSixDan [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:20 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't know that I'd agree a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo would necessarily be too small. There were many different turbos used on those engines over the years. Small Mitsubishis, large Garretts, and really large Garretts. The 16-valve DOHC 2.2 in the Spirit R/T and IROC R/T of '91-'93 produced 224 hp and 217 lb-ft in factory configuration, using a large Garrett turbo. And that's just considering stock turbos; the aftermarket offers an even larger range of much larger turbos. I guess "too small" would also depend on the intended usage. If we're trying for a setup where high RPMs will be desired and often seen, then yeah, the turbo had better be large enough to support that level of airflow. On the other hand, if we're trying for quick boost and maximum low- and mid-range torque, then maybe a smaller turbo would be desirable...without making it so small as to strangle the engine at what would otherwise be useful RPMs. Seems to me mpgmike managed to put together some reportedly good-running setups using K-car turbos, didn't he?

Author:	Matt Cramer [ Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:
I may be overdoing things a bit - this is my idea of a really big Garrett. It's pictured next to the TE04H used on a 2.5 Turbo. By "serious performance application," I had an all out power more in mind, while Mike's was an excercise in mileage (of course) as much as power. I suspect that MPGMike's slant sixes, which used one one of the Garrett turbos off a 2.2 SOHC, would have been just as streetable, gotten as good mileage, and made better power with something a bit bigger. I'm not convinced sizing a turbo for boost at 1,200 RPM is a good idea on a street car, especially not if you happen to have an automatic with a 2,000 RPM stall converter. The turbo on the DOHC 2.2s might work OK. But there's bigger and better options out there. If you're just starting, there are other choices out there that are just as cheap, somewhat larger, and don't lock you into the weird K-car flange.

Author:	DionR [ Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I don't know that I'd agree a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo would necessarily be too small. There were many different turbos used on those engines over the years. Small Mitsubishis, large Garretts, and really large Garretts. The 16-valve DOHC 2.2 in the Spirit R/T and IROC R/T of '91-'93 produced 224 hp and 217 lb-ft in factory configuration, using a large Garrett turbo. And that's just considering stock turbos; the aftermarket offers an even larger range of much larger turbos. I guess "too small" would also depend on the intended usage. If we're trying for a setup where high RPMs will be desired and often seen, then yeah, the turbo had better be large enough to support that level of airflow. On the other hand, if we're trying for quick boost and maximum low- and mid-range torque, then maybe a smaller turbo would be desirable...without making it so small as to strangle the engine at what would otherwise be useful RPMs. Seems to me mpgmike managed to put together some reportedly good-running setups using K-car turbos, didn't he? The compressors are just to small for any real gains. Working outside the efficiency island just gets you hot air and not much boost. Turbine on a 2.2/2.5 garret should work for a mild build. Personally, I would have been very disappointed in the results that mpgmike got on the slant he built. If he swapped the compressor for a "57" trim T4OE setup and built a hybrid, I bet the results would have been much more impressive.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC-08:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/