old grumpy men in hats - whats a wet turbo gonna do? am i gonna die?

you guys are some real dicks.

and everyone that said wheres the blow off valve, wheres the intercooler - yall dont ******* know what you are talking about.

this style of turbo DOES NOT use those items.

you should just *not* post, instead of showing your ***.
 
saylor said:
you guys are some real dicks
Click to expand...

Yes
saylor said:
and everyone that said wheres the blow off valve, wheres the intercooler - yall dont ******* know what you are talking about
Click to expand...
I gave you the blueprint of doing it correctly

saylor said:
this style of turbo DOES NOT use those items
Click to expand...
CORRECTION: This style of turbo does not work!

The first picture is a GM unit. The carburetor is mechanically connected to the waste gate. A manual overide to dump all exhaust gas past the turbo upon closing the throttle to prevent overpressuring the carburetor. This causes the turbine wheel to lose all of its momentum/speed, compounding the "turbo lag" that is much worse in a gasoline engine than a diesel, because of exhaust flow gets cut every time the throttle does, causing the turbo to slow too much and recovery (turbo lag) takes forever.

NO FREE LUNCH!
 
70bigblockdodge said:
Blow through carb is easiest way unless you have a thing for electron flow.
Unless you have the umteenmillion parameters sorted and turbo sized just right for narrow rpm band you need a waste gate. Blow off valve is the evil twin to this, needed for dumping pressure when throttle blades are closed (no throttle blades is why diesels were made for turbos).
Suck through turbos have the problem right in the name, "suck"
You will need forged pistons and piston thermal coatings would not hurt because your combustion temps are going to be sky high with all the on the ragged edge of detonation with wet/sucky turbo.
Any carb can be blow through with little modifications. Think about it, your carb is fighting off 5-7 psi of atmospheric pressure all the while it's idling, 10-14 psi when letting off at high RPM in gear. So you still think that 10-12 psi trying to get out is a problem? That's only at full song when RPM and load are right, the rest of the time it's much less. Spring and jetting adjustments being the worst of sorting out, and big leaks (choke linkage, gotta go)
Power piston springs will need to be lighter and jetting will need to be fatter,( more air needs right amount of more fuel, gasoline's fatal flaw). Everything needs referenced back to same pressure as float bowl vents(air horn area) is going to see. Nothing can be left to vent to atmosphere, you are making atmosphere so you have to stay with it.
A gasoline engine without a charge air cooler (" intercooler" though technically not correct) is a lesson in.... Well you would be better off beating your head on a rock prior to doing that instead of after.
Cam is also very important the valve timing events need to be for turbo application to work efficiently.
Hope this helps. Others will have 2-3 cents to offer but it is anal worry wart stuff. Sort the big problems the details will line up to be knocked out one by one.

One other point to mention is that first picture with the Quadrajet, those carbs don't have enough fuel in them for a NA small block there is no way that thing is keeping up with a turbo Big Block
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
70bigblockdodge said:
Yes

I gave you the blueprint of doing it correctly


CORRECTION: This style of turbo does not work!

The first picture is a GM unit. The carburetor is mechanically connected to the waste gate. A manual overide to dump all exhaust gas past the turbo upon closing the throttle to prevent overpressuring the carburetor. This causes the turbine wheel to lose all of its momentum/speed, compounding the "turbo lag" that is much worse in a gasoline engine than a diesel, because of exhaust flow gets cut every time the throttle does, causing the turbo to slow too much and recovery (turbo lag) takes forever.

NO FREE LUNCH!
Click to expand...
Thank you, again.
 
saylor said:
you guys are some real dicks.

and everyone that said wheres the blow off valve, wheres the intercooler - yall dont ******* know what you are talking about.

this style of turbo DOES NOT use those items.

you should just *not* post, instead of showing your ***.
Click to expand...


Ok sorry to piss you off. I retract everything I said and will change my answer to , do it and make a video for us..
Good luck.
 
Last edited:
The Goose said:
Hey Dave, correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t these the kind where you floor it and it kicks in two blocks later? This is the system that made “turbo lag” a household word right??? Just wondering because I remember anything turbo short of an ‘87 regal type T was dog&#%& slow. Those turbo trans ams were a joke. If you had to guess what % HP gain could you really expect - on the street - not a race car with a system like this?
Click to expand...

Those early systems were a dog. Punch the throttle and it seemed it took forever for the turbo to spin up. As the turbo spun up, these cars would usually knock and fart until the fuel and air ratios stabilized. If I recall correctly, the early turbos when everything was perfect would be expected to gain about 25% over a similar non turbo engine. (boost ratios in those days were low) In practice, these early turbos were not very refined and tended to run rich at low rpms, lean at high rpms and fried the valve train. Most of the engines also suffered a significantly shorter life that similar non turbo versions.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Davea Lux said:
Those early systems were a dog. Punch the throttle and it seemed it took forever for the turbo to spin up. As the turbo spun up, these cars would usually knock and fart until the fuel and air ratios stabilized. If I recall correctly, the early turbos when everything was perfect would be expected to gain about 25% over a similar non turbo engine. (boost ratios in those days were low) In practice, these early turbos were not very refined and tended to run rich at low rpms, lean at high rpms an fried the valve train. Most of the engines also suffered a significantly shorter life that similar non turbo versions.

Dave
Click to expand...
Or as I had noted "don't work"
 
rags said:
could supplement all this with a "c3" system and a feedback quadrajet. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Only thing a Q jet does well is steady state atomization. Any solid fuel demand on them results in low float bowls and lean conditions.
Can you fix them sure. Why is the question. Two of the best know carburetor manufactures specifically made carbs to replace the Q jet eliminating it's fatal flaw.
 
If ya got it, do it. TBI will eliminate all the carb related fuel delivery issues and can also deal with ignition timing which is what usually blows up a boosted engine anyway.

Draw thru was always intended as a low boost deal as in less than 10 psi so after cooling isn't as critical.

If the fun runs out with the draw thru turbo the EFI can be used blow thru or naturally aspirated no turbo.

Kevin
 
Last edited:
Davea Lux said:
Those early systems were a dog. Punch the throttle and it seemed it took forever for the turbo to spin up. As the turbo spun up, these cars would usually knock and fart until the fuel and air ratios stabilized. If I recall correctly, the early turbos when everything was perfect would be expected to gain about 25% over a similar non turbo engine. (boost ratios in those days were low) In practice, these early turbos were not very refined and tended to run rich at low rpms, lean at high rpms and fried the valve train. Most of the engines also suffered a significantly shorter life that similar non turbo versions.

Dave
Click to expand...
My buddy’s dad and his two uncles bought one type T each back in I want to say ‘87. I had an article in a mag by the Mopar action guys called Hi Perf Cars I think. Now his dad had a silver turbo TA and it was caprice classic slow so he was leery of my news. Long story short he test drove one and just never took it back. His two brothers each bought one and they were pretty fast.

Now these were super fast if you powerbraked them into the boost band? I’m no turbo guy so not sure what you’d call it but that red velvet POS would give my 340 cuda a run for its money but would lose unrecoverably from the hole. This was earth shattering speed for a new car in the 80’s. With that being said how would we slap on that type and make it work? I believe it was intercooled but I’m no Buick guy either.

And yes they still have it in all it’s bald spotted velour seat dangling headliner and rattling failed turbo glory. Turbo gave up the ghost about 80k and they parked it. Forever Lol!!!
 
Forgive me if I repeat a few things others have mentioned.

"Blow THRU" needs a pressurized enclosure AROUND the carb, as one of the Shelby GT350 supercharged cars did. Otherwise, when you put pressurized air through the carb, it can force fuel OUT of the carb via the bowl vent, etc. Not good. Which is why "PULL THRU the carb" is a better deal for carbureted engines.

The "style" of turbo has nothing to do with whether or not an intercooler/charge cooler is in the circuit between the turbo and the engine. "Turbo lag" happens when the turbo is sized for max power and it takes longer to get spooled-up for boost. A smaller turbo will be spooled-up quicker and be more responsive, as a result, but with lower peak horsepower output. Which is why TWO smaller turbos work better than one big one.

As for the seals, if you find a rebuildable used turbo, there are MANY truck turbo rebuilders in the DFW area. I suspect they might supply the type of seals needed for the "wet" or "dry" air flow situations?

The first Buick 3.8L 4bbl turbos were problematic, in many respects. In the few Turbo MonteCarlos I was around, they all detonated upon mild-to-heavy acceleration, although they had a crude detonation limiter in place. If they weren't maintenance well, the turbo oil seals would harden (coke-up?) and then leak internally. In a short time, the crankcase oil (pressurized to the turbo) would go out the exhaust pipe. With predictable results! If a new turbo was put on a poorly-maintenance engine, the seals would fail pretty quick, needing another turbo and/or engine rebuild/clean-out/de-sludge..

By comparison, the later Buick 3800 turbos in the Regal GS were a completely different breed of unit! Electronic control of the wastegate functions, for example. MUCH more reliable. Of course, in the 10 years between the two turbo engines, motor oil improved a whole lot, which helps, too. On initial WOT from idle, boost would go to 8.5psi and then drop to 6.5psi (I believe) after engine speed approached 3500rpm (according to the DIC display of boost pressure).

ALL of the earlier turbo motors had compression ratios of about 8.0 :1. Except for the Olds JetFire Turbop 215 V-8 of 1962, which maintained its original 10.0+ compression ratio. BUT it also had a "Turbocharger Fluid" system for an alcohol mix to cool the intake charge when the turbo was working. If there was no Turbocharger Fluid, the driver was supposed to refrain from heavier throttle situations (according to the service literature). The "fluid" was probably some alcohol/water mixture? By comparison, the Turbo Corvair Spyder had the 8.0 compression ratio and no need for "fluid".

Studebaker had their supercharged Larks and Avantis, so there should be plenty of literature on them to look at on how to do a supercharged V-8. Then possibly replacing the supercharager with a turbo (with all of the related plumbing of exhaust and oil supply to the turbo unit).

A turbo might be "free horsepower", but I believe a belt-driver supercharger can be a better long-term situation on an older street-driven vehicle.

Back in the Buick Regal GNX days, there was a race team from Houston, TX. The family members had two Mustangs. One was turbo'd, the other one was supercharged. The induction system was the main difference between them. The turbo car would run 9.0s, as the supercharged car wan 10s. The turbo always won. Obviously it was all about top end power, which a correctly-sized-for-that intercooled-turbo can supply better than a centrifugal supercharger can. At least 30 years ago.

Some of the modern turbo add-on systems (as in armored Suburbans) have the turbo at the rear of the vehicle, with plumbing between it and the engine. Better than a naturally-aspirated engine, but probably not as good as if the turbo was mounted under the hood.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
The Goose said:
My buddy’s dad and his two uncles bought one type T each back in I want to say ‘87. I had an article in a mag by the Mopar action guys called Hi Perf Cars I think. Now his dad had a silver turbo TA and it was caprice classic slow so he was leery of my news. Long story short he test drove one and just never took it back. His two brothers each bought one and they were pretty fast.

Now these were super fast if you powerbraked them into the boost band? I’m no turbo guy so not sure what you’d call it but that red velvet POS would give my 340 cuda a run for its money but would lose unrecoverably from the hole. This was earth shattering speed for a new car in the 80’s. With that being said how would we slap on that type and make it work? I believe it was intercooled but I’m no Buick guy either.

And yes they still have it in all it’s bald spotted velour seat dangling headliner and rattling failed turbo glory. Turbo gave up the ghost about 80k and they parked it. Forever Lol!!!
Click to expand...

For '87, Buick ran the 3.8 turbo which had all the issues mentioned above, in addition, they were coupled with the TM200 automatic which was not up to any type of performance use. Adding a modern EFI system would probably solve some of the issues relating to fuel delivery but frankly given the low current values of these cars it probably would not be worth the effort unless it was one of the rare grand national cars.

Dave
 
Last edited:
CBODY67 said:
"Blow THRU" needs a pressurized enclosure AROUND the carb, as one of the Shelby GT350 supercharged cars did. Otherwise, when you put pressurized air through the carb, it can force fuel OUT of the carb via the bowl vent, etc. Not good. Which is why "PULL THRU the carb" is a better deal for carbureted engines
Click to expand...
No, yes you can put it in a box like Studebaker did. Most float bowl vents are in the air horn so fuel does not go splashing out onto hot exhaust ( stays in air cleaner). So you put a hat on the carb and blow in Venturi will still cause a pressure drop causing fuel to be drawn over through main jets.
Again suck through carb/turbo setup is no good/waste of time. They provide all sorts of strange signals to carb, almost impossible to sort out.
Yes GM has tried this nonsense over and over and guess what? With all their billions of dollars they still could not make it work. Guess when a turbo did work for them? Yes when they put the pressure in before the fuel supply, GN and turbo Regals with EFI.
In a slow and steady state they can work but who the hell drives like that?
rags said:
was being facetious, actually. was going to suggest "lean burn" but thought the better of "c3".
Click to expand...
I was wondering what the hell you were talking about. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top