Help Needed With My Thermal Design Project - Designing a Turbo System for the Slant!

-

low_kota

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
243
Reaction score
21
Location
Overland, MO
For those of you who don't know, I am a senior level mechanical engineering student and have been assigned a project for my Thermal Systems class. We have to design any kind of thermal system that we choose and I convinced my group to design a turbo system for my 74 dart with a 225 /6 & 904 transmission. We don't have to build it, just design it. However, I do want to be realistic with the design so that, if I choose to, I could actually build the system sometime down the road. Everything will be designed using a stock, carb'd engine using a 4brl intake and carb.
We will also be using an intercooler. I have a really good general idea of how the system should work, but as I dig into the details, I'm sure a lot of questions will come up.

For the people who have done this and have turbo build threads, can you please post links and pictures that you would be willing to share? Anything that we use for our presentation will be given credit. Pictures will be a huge help since we are not actually building anything.

Now for my first round of questions...

1. How much boost can the stock slant take while maintaining reliability?
2. What makes a "blow through" carb different from a regular carb and what would be a good one for a turbo 4bbl slant?
3. How fast can I safely turn the stock motor? Everything will be stock for this design. Cam, crank, pistons, heads, etc...

Thanks in advance! We have to make a 20 - 25 page report and a powerpoint presentation. I will be posting all of it after it is finished.
 
For those of you who don't know, I am a senior level mechanical engineering student and have been assigned a project for my Thermal Systems class. We have to design any kind of thermal system that we choose and I convinced my group to design a turbo system for my 74 dart with a 225 /6 & 904 transmission. We don't have to build it, just design it. However, I do want to be realistic with the design so that, if I choose to, I could actually build the system sometime down the road. Everything will be designed using a stock, carb'd engine using a 4brl intake and carb.
We will also be using an intercooler. I have a really good general idea of how the system should work, but as I dig into the details, I'm sure a lot of questions will come up.

For the people who have done this and have turbo build threads, can you please post links and pictures that you would be willing to share? Anything that we use for our presentation will be given credit. Pictures will be a huge help since we are not actually building anything.

Now for my first round of questions...

1. How much boost can the stock slant take while maintaining reliability?
2. What makes a "blow through" carb different from a regular carb and what would be a good one for a turbo 4bbl slant?
3. How fast can I safely turn the stock motor? Everything will be stock for this design. Cam, crank, pistons, heads, etc...

Thanks in advance! We have to make a 20 - 25 page report and a powerpoint presentation. I will be posting all of it after it is finished.

1. That is the $64,000.00 question. I have no firsthand information about how much boost a stock Slant 6 can stand, and I have spent a goodly amount of time looking for the answer to that exact question. There are some significant factors to consider:

The slant 6 was originally designed as an aluminum engine. Aluminum lacks the strength of cast iron, so the original design parameters reflected that. The aluminum blocks apparently were fraught with warranty problems, so after 60,000 of them, Ma Mopar gave up, and changed the block material over to cast iron. The heads were always cast iron.

When they did that, they were apparently interested in doing it as cheaply as it was feasible to do, so the factory didn't do a lot in the way of reducing the cross-sectional area of structural members, such as the main-bearing webs, and thin-wall casting techniques were't around yet, (to my knowledge,) so the new "iron" block was built with an unusually stiff/strong infrastructure Almost like a Diesel! The head was unchanged, but had a nearly half-inch thick gasket sealing surface (my slant 6 head weighs about 84 pounds.) That stiffness adds to the overall stiffness of the block/head "package."

The forged-steel crankshaft was designed super-stiff, as short as possible, with only 4 main bearings (as opposed to conventional 7-main bearing design for inline 6s.) To further ensure severe crankshaft load-supporting capability, the main bearings were designed with the same dimensions as the 426 Hemi. Yeah...

So, the basic engine has an unusually strong block, crank and head, and is a really good candidate for large amounts of boost.

The cylinder head is an interesting exercize in engineering in this way: The original design for the slant 6 was mandated to be built as short, (front-to-back,) as possible. That meant bore-center spacing needed to be made as close and small, as was feasible. That gave it really small bores. That meant small valves, but the relatively-small valves were plenty big for even high-performance work (such as the original Hyper-Pak engines) given that it was just 170 cubes.

When the one-inch stroker (225) was introduced, nothing was done to the head to enhance breathing for the 33-percent larger motor.

Bores were the same size... as the 170/225 engines were only different sizes because of the 1" difference in stroke. So, there was not a whole lot that could be done with the stock, factory head. Oversize valves, and a certain amount of porting can alleviate (to an extent) the asthmatic 225 condition, but making a LOT of horsepower, normally aspirated for a 225, is a steep, uphill battle.

Enter forced induction:

There are a couple of turbocharged slant sixes currently running, that make around 500 horsepower. Here is one of them:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QzUfV8iTpQ"]Turbo Slant Six 10.74 @ 127 mph 7-19-10 - YouTube[/ame]

Of course, that is a race motor running well over 20 pounds of boost, but shows what is possible with this motor, given some meaningful cylinder pressure.

The prospect of using a forced induction system like this one on a stock motor is not possible, for a number of reasons, but you can build something more low-key, gain significant performance, and still get by with stock components.

Expect markedly less-spectacular results.

Stock (cast) pistons will probably allow you to run up to about 10 pounds of boost with reasonable expectations of reliability. A blow-thru 2 or 4-bbl carb setup and a modified stock exhaust manifold (with a turbocharger mount,) using a stock cam and drivetrain, should produce about 200-250 horsepower, I think. That should put a 3,300-pound Duster through the quarter-mile in around 14-flat at 96mph.

FABO member, Tom Wolfe, put a junkyard Buick turbo on a stock slant 6 that had a 4bbl added, and ran 12.90 at 104 mph, in a 3,300-pound Dart, but his car was running 21 pounds of boost to go that quick. I don't believe that that motor would last long with that kind of boost, given the stock, cast pistons. It would probably grenade, before very long.

Here's that run...:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPe_vHwZsF4"]Slant Six Turbo 1970 Dodge Dart 1/4 Mile pass - YouTube[/ame]

To answer your question,, the difference in a blow-thru 4bbl and an off-the-shelf, normally-aspirated unit, has to do with mixture control under boost. The folks who modify these carbs (usually Holley, but not always) modify the internal circuits to pass more fuel under boosted conditions, and the procedure is not a simple one, if done "right." I paid $900.00 to the Carb Shop in Ontario, CA, for the one on my supercharged Valiant, for example.

The odd thing about turbocharged slant 6s, is they don't need a lot of RPM to do their job. Tom's motor (and the one in the video, owned and driven by FABO-member Ryan Peterson,) both have virtually 500 horsepower engines and neither recommends taking such an engine over 5,500 rpm.

Those engines seem to like being heavily-loaded, and both owners report that their drag racing experiences indicate that they both run quicker and faster with a 2.76:1 rear axle ratio than they do with, say, a 3.90:1.

That flies in the face of time-honored tradition, and seems bizarre, but it's a fact.

The turbocharged slant 6 is, in my opinion, the best-kept secret in the Mopar hot-rodding world. Just how much power you can get from one, reliably, with s stock head and short block, will be interesting to see.

The 500+ hp engines have forged pistons (9:1 compression ratio,) 600cfm Holley 4bbl carbs (modified for blow-thru), camshafts that are very mild compared to "racing cams," and aftermarket rods that are supposedly stronger than the stock ones. Cam specs run in the 210/210* range at .050"-lift, with only about .484" total-lift. They are usually ground with about 115-degrees of lobe separation... not really very far from a stock cam, except for lift.

These engines seem to make egregious amounts of mid-range torque, and in addition to an intercooler, seem to benefit from a high-pressure, atomized alcohol injector, such as a "Snowperformance Boost Cooler."

You might consider adding one to the mix, when you do your design/calculations.

Here are some pictures that might help fire your imagination.

:wack:
 

Attachments

  • 100_3649.jpg
    59.3 KB · Views: 305
  • js640_100_3489-2.jpg
    88.7 KB · Views: 301
  • js640_turbofront.jpg
    103.9 KB · Views: 304
  • js640_turboside.jpg
    106.9 KB · Views: 304
  • js640_100_3528.jpg
    93.7 KB · Views: 304
  • js640_mypictures-1.jpg
    78.3 KB · Views: 302
Fellow mechanical engineer subscribed. I don't know much about turbo systems, but I work in a thermal-based field of engineering. Looking forward to see where this goes.
 
The slant 6 was originally designed as an aluminum engine. Aluminum lacks the strength of cast iron, so the original design parameters reflected that. The aluminum blocks apparently were fraught with warranty problems, so after 60,000 of them, Ma Mopar gave up, and changed the block material over to cast iron. The heads were always cast iron.

:wack:

They were designed to be aluminum, but from the very beginning they were made out of cast iron also. They had problems with the initial run of aluminum blocks on the production side so they made cast iron blocks alongside the aluminum until they fixed the problem. The production problems were different from the head gasket/coolant issues.
 
They were designed to be aluminum, but from the very beginning they were made out of cast iron also. They had problems with the initial run of aluminum blocks on the production side so they made cast iron blocks alongside the aluminum until they fixed the problem. The production problems were different from the head gasket/coolant issues.


You're 100% correct. I knew that, but a sizeable brain fart derailed my so-called "thinking..."

The 170s and 225s were initially produced with both materials and it turns out (I find, with more research,) warranty problems weren't the reason for dropping aluminum block construction. Instead, Ii was a variety of production problems with the aluminum construction that were deemed not worth the cost to fix, given the relatively small perceived benefit of the weight saving.

I need to do better research before posting erroneous information as "fact."

I'll try not to do that again. :violent1:

Thanks for the correction!

So, the engine was NOT "redesigned" in cast iron; it had been available in cast iron all along. I see no evidence, though, that the cast iron version had any deviation from the aluminum version in production castings. That is, deviation from the aluminum engines with regard to main bearing web parameters, general wall-thicknesses and crankshaft support. So the fact remains, this thing is just short of a Diesel when it comes to block/crank rigidity.

It is a REALLY good candidate for forced induction of any kind. Or, Nitrous Oxide injection!

Long live the boosted slant six! :hello1:
 
low_kota,
Just curious how thermal design is related to turbo charging? I would think that you would be focusing on the intercooler part.
~Michael
 
low_kota,
Just curious how thermal design is related to turbo charging? I would think that you would be focusing on the intercooler part.
~Michael

I am not even close to an engineer, but I bet it has to do with scavenging the wasted heat from the exhaust system of the car and converting it into a usable form. Boost is addictive.
 
I am not even close to an engineer, but I bet it has to do with scavenging the wasted heat from the exhaust system of the car and converting it into a usable form. Boost is addictive.

mcnoople I am not an engineer either and that is why I asked the question. The basic principle of a turbo is to use exhaust pressure to spin a turbine which turns a pump to pump air into the cylinders. The intercooler however is designed to cool the air coming from the pump. This cooling process allows cooler denser air to enter the combustion chamber. That is why I thought he should concentrate on the thermal dynamics of the intercooler rather than the turbo itself.
~Michael
 
mcnoople I am not an engineer either and that is why I asked the question. The basic principle of a turbo is to use exhaust pressure to spin a turbine which turns a pump to pump air into the cylinders. The intercooler however is designed to cool the air coming from the pump. This cooling process allows cooler denser air to enter the combustion chamber. That is why I thought he should concentrate on the thermal dynamics of the intercooler rather than the turbo itself.
~Michael

I read the wikipedia description of thermodynamics and feel a little dumber now. It is way over my head. I hope the op goes on to a brilliant career designing good working systems that are user friendly and designed with repair technicians in mind. He already is starting off on the right foot with a slant six.
 
I read the wikipedia description of thermodynamics and feel a little dumber now. It is way over my head. I hope the op goes on to a brilliant career designing good working systems that are user friendly and designed with repair technicians in mind. He already is starting off on the right foot with a slant six.


He could do a lot worse...

I decided to try this (turbocharging) with a slant six for several reasons (as opposed to a different motor):

1. They are about as cheap to acquire as any engine imaginable; the one I am working on was given to me... you can't get much cheaper than that!

2. I am, first and foremost, a Mopar man... 'nuf sed.:D

3. I like A Bodies, the home stomping grounds for the 170-198-225 motors.

4. The unusually stout infrastructure of the slant 6 makes it a good candidate for forced induction of any kind.

5. I already have a V8 with a supercharger on it, and wanted to try something different.

6. The two FABO members who have what I believe to be virtually 500 horsepower turbo slant sixes had, by example, showed me some of what was possible with this motor with a 4-barrel carburetor and a "backyard" approach.

7. The inherently restrictive design of the original cylinder head made the gaining of power in wholesale lots, look like a too-expensive and time-consuming exercize for me, normally-aspirated.

8. I have a friend who GAVE me a brand new, in the box, Turbonetics turbo of the right size for this project. And, an intercooler.... and, a suitable wastegate.

9. My favorite Mopars are early A Bodies, and this was a natural (bolt-in.)

10. The prospect of outrunning Corvettes and other Brand X machinery with a six with 1 four barrell and an automatic transmission was just too tempting to resist!

Talk's cheap! We'll see.:blob:
 

Attachments

  • 100_3613.jpg
    112.3 KB · Views: 224
  • js640_turbofront.jpg
    103.9 KB · Views: 224
  • js640_turboside.jpg
    106.9 KB · Views: 217
He could do a lot worse...

I decided to try this (turbocharging) with a slant six for several reasons (as opposed to a different motor):

I need to give credit where credit's due: I have a full-partner in this escapade, whose name is Freddie Nielsen. He and I decided to do this as a joint project, neither having had any experience with either slant sixes OR turbos, before. It's pretty much the blind leading the blind. Freddie has done most of the work that's been done on this car. It's at his house... 35 miles away from me. I get there when I can...

Without a LOT of excellent advice from several FABO members as to what to buy and how to install it, we'd still be trying to figure out how to get the head off...

Thanks to everyone. We'll try to make it worth your while!:yawinkle:
 
Bill, Thanks for all of the pictures and if you don't mind, a few of them will end up in my report and presentation. I have been reading your posts in all of the other turbo slant threads and I can tell that you have a lot of knowledge to pass on. I really like your header design, what type of metal was it made from? I think for this design I will just modify the factory manifold to keep costs low.

When it comes to the carburetor, would I have to have one modified to work with a turbo or is there something that I could just buy and use straight out of the box? For the purpose of this project I would like to be able reference a specific item that I could pick from a catalog or website.


mcnoople I am not an engineer either and that is why I asked the question. The basic principle of a turbo is to use exhaust pressure to spin a turbine which turns a pump to pump air into the cylinders. The intercooler however is designed to cool the air coming from the pump. This cooling process allows cooler denser air to enter the combustion chamber. That is why I thought he should concentrate on the thermal dynamics of the intercooler rather than the turbo itself.
~Michael

There is a lot of thermodynamic activity that takes place throughout the entire system and we're going to be looking at all of it. The thermal energy (heat) from the exhaust is the biggest contributor of power that spins the turbine portion of the turbo. The turbine transforms this thermal energy into mechanical energy to spin the compressor. The compressor sucks in the ambient air and compresses it, the compression also creates heat which is transfered back to the atmosphere through the intercooler (cross flow heat exchanger) The cool, compressed air then goes into the combustion chamber to create a more powerful explosion.
 
The thermal energy (heat) from the exhaust is the biggest contributor of power that spins the turbine portion of the turbo.

Heat from the exhaust does NOT spin the turbine!! It is the exhaust flow that spins the turbine. It doesn't matter if the exhaust is hot or cold it will still spin the turbine.
~Michael
 
Heat from the exhaust does NOT spin the turbine!! It is the exhaust flow that spins the turbine. It doesn't matter if the exhaust is hot or cold it will still spin the turbine.
~Michael

You are correct in the sense that it is not the heat that directly spins the turbine, but it is the heat that causes the exhaust gases to move. The pressure of the exhaust gas is a function of temperature and the physical properties of the gas. As the the temperature of the exhaust gas increases, the pressure increases. Pressure is a force per unit area, so the greater the heat, the greater the force applied to the turbine.

This is why a turbocharger works best when it is as close to the engine as possible. Think about a remote mounted turbo and how it will make less power than a turbo mounted directly to the manifold. The same amount of gas is flowing to the remote turbo, but the gas will have a much lower velocity because it has had time to cool and compress closer to atmospheric pressure before reaching the turbo.
 
You are correct in the sense that it is not the heat that directly spins the turbine, but it is the heat that causes the exhaust gases to move. The pressure of the exhaust gas is a function of temperature and the physical properties of the gas. As the the temperature of the exhaust gas increases, the pressure increases. Pressure is a force per unit area, so the greater the heat, the greater the force applied to the turbine.

This is why a turbocharger works best when it is as close to the engine as possible. Think about a remote mounted turbo and how it will make less power than a turbo mounted directly to the manifold. The same amount of gas is flowing to the remote turbo, but the gas will have a much lower velocity because it has had time to cool and compress closer to atmospheric pressure before reaching the turbo.

Not to be argumentative but it is the piston moving upward in the cylinder that forces the exhaust gas to exit the cylinder and begin its journey through the exhaust system. The heat still has nothing to do with it. Force is always strongest at its point of origin that is why turbos are connected to the exhaust manifold. Its like standing in front of a fan. The fan speed doesn't change but the farther away you move from it the less air you feel moving.
~Michael
 
Bill, Thanks for all of the pictures and if you don't mind, a few of them will end up in my report and presentation. I have been reading your posts in all of the other turbo slant threads and I can tell that you have a lot of knowledge to pass on. I really like your header design, what type of metal was it made from? I think for this design I will just modify the factory manifold to keep costs low.

When it comes to the carburetor, would I have to have one modified to work with a turbo or is there something that I could just buy and use straight out of the box? For the purpose of this project I would like to be able reference a specific item that I could pick from a catalog or website.

Thanks for the kind words.

Modified carbs are the most ticklish part of a blow-thru system, but they are a MUST, insofar as having a properly-modified fuel delivery system that is part and parcel of the turbo package, itself. You can buy them "off the shelf" (expensive,) modify them yourself (iffy, but possible; lots of info available relative to doing this, online) or hire somene who is familiar with the drill, to do it for you (can be almost as expensive as an off-the-shelf model, but not usually.)

Please, use any and all the pictures I have posted for your report; But, be aware that I am anything BUT an expert when it comes to this turbo business. For example, as nice as that header looks, I am of the opinion now, that it has tubes that are too long, and gives the enclosed heat too much of an opportunity to dissipate before it arrives at the turbo, and will waste a significant amount of heat/energy.

You would know more about that then I would, of course. The headers are mild steel, and ceramic-coated. The guy at the coating place advised us against wrapping them; said it would be very bad for them.

A similar, but more efficient, header that Aaron made is much shorter, more direct, and an overall better design than this one in my opinion. I don't have the URL for his pictures, but he monitors this thread pretty closely, so maybe he'll offer to show that header to you.. It's awesome, I think!!!:cheers:

The intake manifold we are using is inappropriate for a turbochargerd motor, I found out... too late. We had already designed the headers for it, and are pretty much stuck with it. I bought an Offy and a Clifford manifold to try to replace it, but neither of them will work with these headers. We ground all the way through one Clifford intake runner and beat the offending exhaust tube until it was obvious that those two parts were just not going to work together.:sad7:

My source of dissatisfaction with this Hurricane ($400.00) intake manifold comes from advice offered by a friend of mine who is a professional consultant... makes his living designing turbo systems for automobile manufacturers; when he talks, I listen. He said that it is an excellent manifold for a normally-aspirated engine, but just won't work on ours. He said we'll add 10 pounds of additional boost, and won't make any more power due to the excessive (for this application) runner length.

Down the road, we'll replace both the intake AND the header, I am sure, but we want to get it running, first.

So, we're pretty much flying blind here, but we learn as we go.:banghead:

We're down to a couple of weeks until it's operational.... we hope.

Stay tuned! :) and, thanks for your interest!!!
 

Attachments

  • asu0024-5.jpg
    110.2 KB · Views: 180
Not to be argumentative but it is the piston moving upward in the cylinder that forces the exhaust gas to exit the cylinder and begin its journey through the exhaust system. The heat still has nothing to do with it. ~Michael

Heat has EVERYTHING to do with it, because if the heat didn't expand the air-fuel mixture when it ignites, there would be no pressure to push the piston down... (no power) and the amount of gasses coming out the exhaust manifold would just be equal to the amount of air going into the cylinder. A turbo couldn't work.

Yes, the piston on its way up the cylinder, pushes the exhaust out, but the exhaust is still expanding (that's why turbos glow cherry red when in operation under load,) and that still-burning gas expands the air further and helps create the pressure that spins the turbo impeller.

I'm no engineer either, but that is my opinion... LOL!

You know what they say about that (opinions)...:happy1:
 
Not to be argumentative but it is the piston moving upward in the cylinder that forces the exhaust gas to exit the cylinder and begin its journey through the exhaust system. The heat still has nothing to do with it. Force is always strongest at its point of origin that is why turbos are connected to the exhaust manifold. Its like standing in front of a fan. The fan speed doesn't change but the farther away you move from it the less air you feel moving.
~Michael

Force is not always strongest at its point of origin, that is the whole concept behind a lever.

The piston moving is also because of the volumetric expansion and heat generated when the air/fuel mixture is ignited in the combustion chamber during the power stroke. Some of this force is retained in the flywheel and used to force the piston up the bore during the exhaust stroke. So, in the end it is thermal energy that does all of the work. It is absolutely thermal energy that provides the power to spin the turbine.

Without getting into the thermodynamic properties or calculus proofs, consider the ideal gas law. PV = mRT If you increase the temperature you are also increasing the pressure and volume of the exhaust gas. More heat = more volume and pressure = more power to the turbine. I know that we are not exactly dealing with an ideal gas but the same concept applies.
 
Thanks for the kind words.

Modified carbs are the most ticklish part of a blow-thru system, but they are a MUST, insofar as having a properly-modified fuel delivery system that is part and parcel of the turbo package, itself. You can buy them "off the shelf" (expensive,) modify them yourself (iffy, but possible; lots of info available relative to doing this, online) or hire somene who is familiar with the drill, to do it for you (can be almost as expensive as an off-the-shelf model, but not usually.)

Please, use any and all the pictures I have posted for your report; But, be aware that I am anything BUT an expert when it comes to this turbo business. For example, as nice as that header looks, I am of the opinion now, that it has tubes that are too long, and gives the enclosed heat too much of an opportunity to dissipate before it arrives at the turbo, and will waste a significant amount of heat/energy.

You would know more about that then I would, of course. The headers are mild steel, and ceramic-coated. The guy at the coating place advised us against wrapping them; said it would be very bad for them.

A similar, but more efficient, header that Aaron made is much shorter, more direct, and an overall better design than this one in my opinion. I don't have the URL for his pictures, but he monitors this thread pretty closely, so maybe he'll offer to show that header to you.. It's awesome, I think!!!:cheers:

The intake manifold we are using is inappropriate for a turbochargerd motor, I found out... too late. We had already designed the headers for it, and are pretty much stuck with it. I bought an Offy and a Clifford manifold to try to replace it, but neither of them will work with these headers. We ground all the way through one Clifford intake runner and beat the offending exhaust tube until it was obvious that those two parts were just not going to work together.:sad7:

My source of dissatisfaction with this Hurricane ($400.00) intake manifold comes from advice offered by a friend of mine who is a professional consultant... makes his living designing turbo systems for automobile manufacturers; when he talks, I listen. He said that it is an excellent manifold for a normally-aspirated engine, but just won't work on ours. He said we'll add 10 pounds of additional boost, and won't make any more power due to the excessive (for this application) runner length.

Down the road, we'll replace both the intake AND the header, I am sure, but we want to get it running, first.

So, we're pretty much flying blind here, but we learn as we go.:banghead:

We're down to a couple of weeks until it's operational.... we hope.

Stay tuned! :) and, thanks for your interest!!!

For the scope of this project we have decided to leave the carb and intake out of the analysis and focus on the events leading up to the intake only, especially since we only have a week and a half to get it done. We are going to look into the turbine, compressor, intercooler and pressure releif valve. We will also talk about modifying the stock exhaust manifold to accept a turbo flange, this will also reguire the use of a turbo with an internal wastegate. This professor is insane, he wants a 20 - 25 page report and a 15-30 minute powerpoint presentation, all in a week and a half!

I can see how the long tubes of your header may not be the best due to the cooling factor, but something has to be said for the craftsmanship. It also looks like it puts the turbo in a good location if you ever need to be able to get to it.
 
I can see how the long tubes of your header may not be the best due to the cooling factor, but something has to be said for the craftsmanship. It also looks like it puts the turbo in a good location if you ever need to be able to get to it.


My partner, Freddie Nielsen, did a great job considering he had never built a header before. I only touched that header to carry it to the car to take it to be T.I.G. welded and to be ceramic coated. He did EVERYTHING ELSE!

I think he's to be commended for the workmanship, if not the design. BTW, Freddie's 74 years old and has a pacemaker/defibrilator, and isn't allowed near a welder. He mocked it up with masking tape... no kidding!

I'm only 73, so I handle the heavy-duty stuff... LOL!

Thanks for the compliments; I'll tell Freddie! :hello1:
 

Attachments

  • headerbyfred.jpg
    51.8 KB · Views: 152
Can anyone point me in the right direction on figuring out what kind of pressure the slant would deliver to the turbo? I am planning on running 8lb of boost which would give me a pressure ratio of 1.54. The engine would be fed air at about 442 CFM or 30.57 lb/min.

I am considering the Garrett GT3782 because it would give me a compressor efficiency of 72% but i'm worried that that the turbine may be too big.
The GT3271 also has my attention but he compressor efficiency seems like it would be a little low. This may not matter because I will be using an intercooler to remove some of the heat, and it has the convenience of an internal wastegate so I could put the turbo right at the end of the manifold.

What do you guys think? The overall goal is a quick daily driver that will peak at 5500RPM
 
Can anyone point me in the right direction on figuring out what kind of pressure the slant would deliver to the turbo? I am planning on running 8lb of boost which would give me a pressure ratio of 1.54. The engine would be fed air at about 442 CFM or 30.57 lb/min.

I am considering the Garrett GT3782 because it would give me a compressor efficiency of 72% but i'm worried that that the turbine may be too big.
The GT3271 also has my attention but he compressor efficiency seems like it would be a little low. This may not matter because I will be using an intercooler to remove some of the heat, and it has the convenience of an internal wastegate so I could put the turbo right at the end of the manifold.

What do you guys think? The overall goal is a quick daily driver that will peak at 5500RPM

Maybe someone who is actually educated in the science of turbo-sizing will chime in here (Prine?) because I think this is one area that can be approached two ways; scientifically, with flow maps and numbers, or the "monkey-see/monkey do" method, which is the only one I am capable of.

The friend who gave us the turbo we have (nominal 67 mm,) has an identical unit on his Buick V6 (G-N,) and it runs in the tens at 25 pounds of boost (3,500 pounds.) His engine is about five cubic inches (approximately 2 percent) larger than ours and he only spins it 5,400 rpm.)

I can only hope that our engine will respond in a like manner.

Sorry I can't be of any help.:banghead:
 
-
Back
Top