After driving my mates Escort RS Turbo Ive decided that Turbo is way forward, quickly !
What common (and reasonably cheap)turboed engines have been put into a Book Chassis ?
After searching I conclude that the ERST lump has been done. 1.6 pinto with a different head have been done ... any one know anymore info ie links
.... ?
Cheers
Garf !
i belive chrisw still has an 1800 cvh engine with 1600 head that brings comp ratio down to turdo levels,might be a better option to look at
Even a very average family saloon engine in a locost wll rip the knickers off a RS Turnip, if you are on a post uni budget, try a simple, book build for speed and costs, or you won't be finished before you have to start paying back your student loans!
i saw a complete 2 ltr cosworth engine from a 4wd for £1500 not sure on power but lots of potential this is the route i will take if the pinto with 45's ain't enough ask me if you want the web site for the cos
200+BHP from the 2L Cossie
Sorry, I'm going to upset a few people with this one (again) do NOT put a turbo engine in a locost, it's a good way to wreck a good car! A
turbo is great for the first time wow factor of "cool, that felt really fast" but will quickly become a complete pain in the arse as you are
constantly trying to drive around the engine characteristics. You can get round this a bit by using 4wd, but then that's getting all together
more complicated. Why turbo anyway? A Vauxhall 16v on throttle bodies will make just over 200 hp with no internal mods (mine does on the dyno) and so
will be quicker than most turbo CVH's anyway (I know a lot CLAIM outrageous power but usually this is either unproven bullsh1t or totally
undriveable as the power comes in one wallop)
Most of this is spoken from experience as I have used a (dyno proven, 310hp, de-restrictored, group A rally spec engine but without anti-lag) Sierra
cosworth 2wd for some time on the road in the past, and whilst this was extremely fast in a straight line, the turbo made it a complete pig to control
in any semblance of a bend (e.g. gently accelerate through first and second gear, changing up before the boost came in, then change to third,
accelerate again gently, hit 3300ish rpm and watch as rear tyres loose traction and the car yaws sideways, this is on a dry road in a heavy sierra)
now try it in a locost 2wd.
DONT DO IT!!
I may sound like an old tw4t but if you do it, I'll wager you'll regret it!! (and I'm not old anyway!!)
PS, Mark Allanson is right, even a boggo pinto in a locost will wipe the floor with 99% of RST's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (and it's not flipping
crappy front wheel drive!!!!)
[Edited on 18/4/04 by NS Dev]
quote:
I may sound like an old tw4t but if you do it, I'll wager you'll regret it!! (and I'm not old anyway!!)
Possibly from the days of non-intercooled turbo engines? No, just from the days of a non-antilagged group A sierra cosworth rally engine fitted in a road car (5 years ago)
Yes the small turbo/low lag thing is fine but how much power (proven)??
Unless it is proven at over 230hp on a 2.0 I'll stick with naturally aspirated, much nicer to drive, no elastic power band.
Another quick aside here....you can usually make a reasonable assessment of an engine's quality by the prevalence of it's use in competition... I will say no more.
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
No, just from the days of a non-antilagged group A sierra cosworth rally engine fitted in a road car (5 years ago)
quote:
Yes the small turbo/low lag thing is fine but how much power (proven)??
quote:
Unless it is proven at over 230hp on a 2.0 I'll stick with naturally aspirated, much nicer to drive, no elastic power band.
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
Another quick aside here....you can usually make a reasonable assessment of an engine's quality by the prevalence of it's use in competition... I will say no more.
And as a quick aside here, don't feel the need to pick on the poor ol' T16 turbo. I plucked this out of the air to try and get you to think
modern. I'm sure there are many better examples out there.
Mind, I'd like to get hold of a Cossie YB and 'do it properly' 
Exactly, that's why I was saying NOT to use the cossie, or any other turbo engine (I know about all the tweaks, but I know what was faster when I
raced it!)
The old adage (and I hate these but here goes!) is that to equal a naturally aspirated engine around a track you need 40 to 50% more power.
Most club motorsport has been/is dominated by the Vauxhall 2.0 XE 16v for good reason, they make good power for reasonable money and are a very well
proven unit.
I thought the stock rover T16 turbo made 180hp, but maybe that's an older model?
I don't really want to get into another argument here so i'll sign off by saying that, whilst I have learnt over the years (despite
initially liking them) to hate turbo cars, I am rapidly becoming a fan of the latest developments in mechanical supercharging, with the newer, less
"agricultural" superchargers giving superb performance with no lag, exhaust heat, "elastic" acceleration etc.
I'm getting drawn in again, I can feel it!! I dislike the CVH turbo engine, but it was indeed designed for motorsport from the outset! Touring cars and rallying in fact, hence the mk1 rst which was a homologation special really.
That's fair enough.
The XE is a good engine. It reigns from an era when 'proper' 16v engines ruled. Non of this emissions cr4p started to sap the returns an
engine made.
The stock Rover makes 197bhp at the flywheel. The Vitesse makes 180bhp, the Sport 197bhp. All other Rover turbo engines are 197bhp.
I don't want to get into an argument either, so I will sign off saying, that come and take a look around some of my toys sometime, and I may just
make you have second thoughs about the XE 
[Edited on 20/1/06 by Fatboy Dave]
staying within a budget i would keep it turbo'd but if costs allowing 290bhp is possible n/a with the yb
quote:
Originally posted by NS Dev
I'm getting drawn in again, I can feel it!! I dislike the CVH turbo engine, but it was indeed designed for motorsport from the outset! Touring cars and rallying in fact, hence the mk1 rst which was a homologation special really.
OK, cheers, wouldn't mind a look as at the end of the day all (well, most) cars are great and I am really interested in anything mechanical to be
honest!! (and I have to confess that a tt Rover V8 is an interesting prospect, even if i dislike turbos!!!!)
Where abouts are you in the country?
Best be quick, I have a habbit of building them and blowing them up. Did I also mention that I am an outright V8 monster? Current builds include
assorted cheap twin turbo Rover V8s too. The T16 T25 turbo is quite a good pairing for the 3.5 engine
Oh, and I'm in Hampshire...
Have to say that I am a big v8 fan!! Can't really justify one myself as I have load of Vauxhall 16v's laying about (although I do have a
rover 3.5 sat forlornly in the corner of the workshop not doing a lot!)
My mate (and his dad) run Ultima Sports Cars and so I have experienced a few 500+ hp chevy's, they are addictive! The 650hp (naturally aspirated
too) one we took out last year was certainly memorable!!!!
Gah, I don't like you no more 
How did you know I wanted an Ultima Spyder for chrimbo
wouldn't mind one myself but my 2p budget fell a bit short!! Doh!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Fatboy Dave
The stock Rover makes 197bhp at the flywheel. The later Vitt. Sport makes 180bhp <sigh>. Sport model with a lower output... (this is when Rover changed from forged Mahle pistons to cast AE jobbies).
The Vitesse Turbo Sport is the more powerful and the only model that retained the original big front brakes.
Lovely lovely engine but over kill for a Locost, which id better suited to a light free reving responsive normal aspirated engine.
Love the idea of a nice modern turbo engine to replace the boat anchor (pinto) once SVA'ed but I've got my doubts.
In real terms (i.e. actually putting the power down) how much faster is a 250+ BHP car than a 200 given that all other things are equal? I bet even on
the track most normal drivers would be having just as much fun in the lower power car driving it harder that trying not to spin the higher powered
one. The optimum BHP/FUN ratio might actually be less in a seven due to it's lack of weight.
Throwing another spanner in the works for a turbo car, heat and space. Compared to a N/A lump you've got to find room for an intercooler, maybe
oil cooler too, the turbo itself and get ride of all that extra heat. Then there's the tranmission that will need uprating to cope etc etc.
A well sorted 150-200BHP ish machine has got to be the way to go. Spend the money on better shocks, brakes and tyres rather than silly power.
Andrew
Im not looking for big BIG power. 150 - 200 will certainly keep me happy. Would definately keep to low boost for most of the time.
Just interested to see whats been tried and tested. Any websites out there ?
Garf !
Well,
I'm aiming for a reliable 200-220bhp on my n/a vx XE, but having said that you can get 300bhp easily out of its turbo big brother, the c20let as
found in the calibra (400bhp has been known to0, but similar money to an rs500 engine i imagine).
I'd go for a jap engine if i was to start again, an all ally, maybe vvc honda, nissan or toyota if i could find a suitable gearbox. the nissan
turbo (something or other DET i think) I've heard is a good little turbo powerplant. But a turbo engine from experience unless completely
standard will cost more than a n/a lump.
I have been in hicost' car, running approx 400bhp/400lb/ft with a very well setup management system, anti lag and a smooth and progressive boost
setup imho. He didn't get overtaken by anything at donington iirc and uses his car for 'proper' rallys.
Ned.
I agree with ned (speaking sense as always). If you want cheap and reliable turbo power go for the engine and box out of a Nissan Sylvia (8v CA18det
I think?) or 200sx (16v). I once bought a Sylvia for £35 and the engine was a cracker. The 8v lumps are very simple but better engineered than a pinto
and you can easliy 200bhp out of them.
Thats the problem with a turbo lump, you can very easily get good power gains out of them for not alot of cash.
If you wanted to get 220bhp out of a N/A zetec for example you would have to spend a fortune on cams, headwork and induction system.
And here's a question... what would be more reliable?
A 200bhp 2ltr engine running 10psi of boost and running to 6000rpm.
or
A 200bhp N/A engine running to 8500rpm?
Doug.
My vauxhall XE 16v engine cost me £400 for the engine and then about £600 for the throttle bodies, management etc. It is standard internally apart from ARP conrod bolts, and made 204 hp at the flywheel, 176hp at the wheels on John Wilcox rolling road in Hinckley, leics, and it does not rev to 8500 rpm. Peak power is actually 7000, and I rev it to 7500 max.
I was going to fit my 200sx engine, ca18det, but ithe electrics beat me. pitty as it fits perfect. Very minor mods gave 175 rwbhp and a standing 1/4 of 14.1 secs. Thats at 1220 kg. Dunno what s meant by it would be undrivable, look at the jap sports car series, it all just getting the correct set up.