|
Author
|
Topic: Twin turbo Mustang
|
SteveLaRiviere
Administrator Posts: 33988
From: Saco, Maine
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-30-2002 04:20 PM
   
Have you guys seen this before? http://www.hotrod.com/editorial/article.jsp?viewtype=text&id=42798 Pretty slick! ------------------
'70 Mustang Mach 1 - '72 Mustang Sprint - '94 F-150
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 19751
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-30-2002 05:42 PM
Yeah I have seen it. 
Looks slicker than snot, but should run better I think.  ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
IP: Logged |
MrWesson22
Gearhead Posts: 1209
From: Dacula, GA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 10-30-2002 11:53 PM
Why wouldn't he put that setup on a 331, 347, or something windsor based? Oh yeah, gas mileage. It's a sweet car, but that guy sounds like a dork.
------------------
Neal 69 Gulfstream Aqua Grande
351C/4sp
https://mustangsandmore.com/ubb/MrWesson22.html
IP: Logged |
indyphil
Gearhead Posts: 877
From: Lafayette, IN, USA
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 10-31-2002 08:06 AM
Does look like a nice car. Pretty much everything he says is true, but its what he doesnt say that matters.A turbo with a wastegate is superior to other power adders in steady state conditions, and even when racing at the track. But what the Garret employed engineer fails to mention is the critical mash the pedal at low revs factor. The turbo drops boost when the throttle is closed (cruising along the street at 30mph). So when you hit the throttle to get the car through an amber light, you get naturally aspirated performance - or worse. What it addes up to is a feeling of a slow build up of power called in the trade "turbo lag". Wastegates help to minimize this, but I have driven a lot of turbo cars, and they all have it. The engines I design at work are turbocharged, but response is not an issue. all I can say is they make great ET's at the track, and smack down good numbers on the dyno, but I would still build a blower car over a turbo car for street driving. I size turbos for CAT diesel engines. I have one waiting to go into a test cell sometime today. Should make over 3500hp at 1800RPM. I know a lot of guys at Garret, and other turbo manufacturers, and they all have one thing in common, they all think that turbos are the best thing since flushing toilets. Having said all that, its a great car, makes me very jelous.
IP: Logged |
V8 Thumper
Gearhead Posts: 3529
From: Orange, Ca. United States of America
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 10-31-2002 08:16 AM
I'm impressed with all the engineering and fabrication that went into that Just don't be in a big hurry to set the lash 
IP: Logged |
Mpcoluv
Gearhead Posts: 975
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-31-2002 08:58 AM
Turbo lag can be eliminated with a modern programmable ECU with total ignition control.
At low RPM you retard the timing 90 (!) degrees, you are dumping burning fuel out the exhaust and keeping the turbo making boost. Then when you slam the accelerator open, the timing go back to where it should be and you have full boost.
This is how the old Renault turbo F1 cars got around lag. It's not really practical on the street however....
IP: Logged |
albatross
Journeyman Posts: 28
From: NZ
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 10-31-2002 09:12 PM
Funny article in Motorsport about the Porsche 917/10 "Turbo Panzer" that appeared in Can-am in early 70's to ruin everyones day. 1100 hp in under 2200 lbs but the lag was so bad you floored the pedal well before the apex to the corner so the lag took you past before the power kicked in. Spooky.
IP: Logged |
indyphil
Gearhead Posts: 877
From: Lafayette, IN, USA
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 11-01-2002 07:40 AM
I understand that lag can always be "reduced" but it always seems to be there, leaving you with a feeling that when you mash it you get a build up of power and not an instant response. That said it usually applies to the smaller displacements, im sure a turbo 302 still snaps the neck a little when he floors it.
IP: Logged |
SAMWE
Journeyman Posts: 35
From: Anchorage, Ak
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted 11-01-2002 08:47 PM
Why would he want a 331 or a 347?
His money would go farther if it went towards increasing the boost...
IP: Logged |
jsracingbbf
Gearhead Posts: 1853
From: Batesville,MS. , U.S.A.
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 11-01-2002 09:10 PM
We run turbo chargers on all our big bore HP compresors at the Gas Plant. Some of the engines make 9000HP. Several different types, cooper 11 inch bore, 2 cycle, 300 rpm; Wartsilla, 5 inch bore, 4-cycle 550 rpm, to name a couple. We do have some piston scaveged units and one chain driven assisted turbo-charger. HOWEVER, I have always wondered and the reasoning may be flawed, BUT if turbo-chargers were this much better than superchargers why don't the top fuel cars run them? Jerry
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 19751
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-01-2002 09:48 PM
They have tried to run turbos on drag cars millions of times. 99% never work out. The biggest problem is inconsistancy.
On fuel cars they cannot control/manage the boost well and too much heat is generated in the cylinders between the nitro and the turbo. They either go up in smoke via the tires or the engines. I have never been a turbo fan. I have done a few over the years (long ago back in the late 70's early 80's) and all have only been mediocre. Same story every time. Either big time lag or instant uncontrolable boost and tire smoke. I prefer supercharging anytime.  ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
IP: Logged |
joe
Gearhead Posts: 517
From: Los Angeles
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 11-03-2002 10:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
They have tried to run turbos on drag cars millions of times. 99% never work out. The biggest problem is inconsistancy.
On fuel cars they cannot control/manage the boost well and too much heat is generated in the cylinders between the nitro and the turbo. They either go up in smoke via the tires or the engines. I have never been a turbo fan. I have done a few over the years (long ago back in the late 70's early 80's) and all have only been mediocre. Same story every time. Either big time lag or instant uncontrolable boost and tire smoke. I prefer supercharging anytime.
I like turbos over blowers. What was lacking back in the day I think is todays computers. With a good boost controller, you can run low boost 90% of the time, then crank her up for track runs. Add to that zero parasitic loss, And if the lag were a really big problem, like with a big single, a small shot of N20 would do the trick.
IP: Logged |
indyphil
Gearhead Posts: 877
From: Lafayette, IN, USA
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 11-04-2002 11:09 AM
Jerry,
The reason us big engine manufacturers use turbos over blowers is efficiency. The owning and operating costs of our engines are huge and sometimes these costs are paid for by small co-operatives say in the north-west terrortories where they dont have an energy grid. they want the best fuel consumption they can get, blowers dont even get a look in, turbos are way more efficient.Top fuel drags dont care about fuel consumption, they need consistancy so they can set their clutch up to get maximum power for the prevailing conditions. Im wondering if top fuel used turbos, aside from the lag and incosistancy, if their exhaust valve temperatures might get too high with all the back pressure created by turbos (not to mention to get the boost pressure needed they would need several stages of compression, which might weigh more and take up a lot of space) They already melt their spark plug electrodes away before they reach the finish line, running only on detonation from about half track onwards. there is no obvious winner in the Turbos Vs blowers debate. turbos have the fuel efficiency edge, but blowers have the easiest packaging and a good pedal feel (no lag). I think for street/strip performance stuff like we are talking about blowers are the easiest way to make extra power, most of us dont care about fuel consumption - Just my opinion. I still think that guys car is pretty cool. I showed the turbo web page to an ex garret employee friend of mine who then told me he used to have a 67 GT350, he pulled out a bunch of old 1965 ford performance parts catalogues. Im gonna try and buy them off him. He also said that the shelby 306hp 289 engine didnt make the advertised power on their dyno, and nor did the hipo 271hp engine, but carol shelby took the error in the 271 engine and applied the ratio to his engine - so its all a big lie (according to my friend) He doesnt say how much shelbys engine missed by (it might have only been a few ponies - manufacturing variability).
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
