BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 2/12/12 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
I thought diesel turbos where supposed to be a bad idea on petrol engines - something to do with the exhaust gass temperature. Petrol is a lot higher
and destroys them or something. Am i wrong?
Very interested in this as I've been wondering about supercharging a xflow recently.
What did the bloke do to reduce the compression in the engine?
Hi,
That a good point, i have heard that a few times now, to be honest i'm not sure if its true but we have used turbos from diesel engines several
times before without a problem.
I think the issue here (as always) is proper tuning, we spend hours getting the engine tuned 100%, making sure the fuelling is spot on, making sure
engine temps are fine and so on.
Another point is reducing the compression of an engine ready to fit a turbo is not what we do, we leave our turbo conversions at stock CR. Reducing
the CR of an engine increases the exhaust gas temperature and so would increase the risk of turbo damage.
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 2/12/12 at 12:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve m
"of course, you know what would be good, a turbo pinto!! 500BHP possible!! "
but you would need a chassis, built like the titanic to hold it 
And look what happened to the last one of them
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 2/12/12 at 12:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oddified
For me part of the reason for playing with a fun car, is the tinkering and playing about with ideas which to me is all part of the fun
There maybe a few reasons not to turbo a 1.3 xflow, but why not if it puts a smile on his face, good on him and respect
Ian
Thats exactly how i look at it!!!
Lets not forget, you could turbo a 1600/1700 xflow, zetec, CVH, XE as well!!
The owners logic for doing this (and not changing the engine for a better/bigger one) is the fact that the 1300 xflow ready fitted was in good order,
nice and sweet, and the customer was also concerned about MPG so fitting a bigger engine mite effect the fuel economy. The turbo conversion should
make it better on fuel assuming it is driven steady.
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
Paul Turner
|
| posted on 2/12/12 at 01:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance
The 1.6L/1.8L/2.0L zetec (iron block) shares the same bolt pattern with a X flow/pinto.
The later zetecs (1.2L/1.4L) are not the same
Fully aware of that, been using Pre-X-flows, X-Flows, Pintos and Zetecs since the early 70's.
quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance
A totally stock 2.0L zetec will make 175BHP, with cams 190BHP.
If you only made 178BHP with cams you tuned it wrong - FZ2002 cams are not that wild, so with proper tuning it will drive very near to a stock
engine.
A stock Silvertop that has probably been to the moon is unlikely to give 175 bhp, Weber/Dunnell/Raceline only quote 165 bhp for a fit engine on Weber
45's and they have built way more engines than me. I was delighted with 160 bhp. From memory Kent quoted +23 bhp for the cams but claims are
never achieved in the real world, was delighted with +18 bhp. Tried cams with various timing settings, the best power was of 178 bhp @7300 was
achieved with stock timing using the slots. The max torque was 148 ft/lbs at 5600 rpm which I found a little disappointing but it was very smooth.
Retimed cams to Kents figures, 176 bhp @ 7000 rpm and 155 ft/lbs @ 4500 rpm, on paper way better but was quite "snatchy" low down (never
had a progression problem using 3 hole Webers with the standard timing or with standard cams). On the sprint tracks the best times were virtually
identical.
On a 2.1 with ported ahead and the FZ2002 cams we saw 208 bhp @7200 using MBE ECU and Jenvey 45's. Great on th track but wasted on the road.
quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance
The key to it is proper tuning - you have an expensive ignition box with carbs, you would have been better using EFI with a cheap ECU such as
megasquirt. Carbs are a waste of time, but if you must use carbs Dellortos are better for drivablity.
Car now has a totally standard Blacktop with MBE ECU and Jenvey 45's. Set up by myself and gives 175 bhp @ 6800. Drives like a shopping car and
has averaged 31 mpg since fitted.
|
|
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 2/12/12 at 01:38 PM |
|
|
"Car now has a totally standard Blacktop with MBE ECU and Jenvey 45's. Set up by myself and gives 175 bhp @ 6800. Drives like a shopping
car and has averaged 31 mpg since fitted."
Yep, thats what we see on our blacktop engines, glad you have seen the light and got rid of the carbs!
http://baileyperformance.co.uk/?p=184
there is very little power difference between a silvertop and blacktop on jenveys, 5bhp.
mileage has little effect on power unless the engine has been abused, in fact we have seen smokers still make good power
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
scimjim
|
| posted on 3/12/12 at 02:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaileyPerformance
lets go old skool!
Essex 3.0L next after the pinto?
Robin Rew did an AC3000M in 1980:
http://www.race-cars.com/carsold/other/1130618461/1130618461ss.htm
and various Scimitars - still some running like this but turbo technology has progressed somewhat :-)
and this:
|
|
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 4/12/12 at 01:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steve m
Im interested!
please post pics, of the setup
Steve (1700 crossflow)
Hi Steve,
I have spoken to the owner of the Escort, he is hoping to get a feature in a mag soon so would prefer it if i didn't distribute any pictures as
he would like to keep them fresh for the mag.
If you are interested in doing a turbo conversion of your own i can advise you of what to use and how to do it - FOC!
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 4/12/12 at 02:35 PM |
|
|
I'm in agreement with BT here - seems like a whole heap of effort and expense to get sod all power out of an anchient piece of hardware, and I
can't really see any advantages. OBviously "because I can" is a valid point, but still not sure I understand the reasoning.
|
|
|
CNHSS1
|
| posted on 4/12/12 at 02:50 PM |
|
|
whilst i have to say on the face of it, a xflow with a wind pump is flogging the proverbial dead horse to some, when it comes to competing then things
take a different slant.
getting 140hp out of a xflow takes a huge amount of money, machoining etc whereas adding a light pressure turbo setup gives the power without the
bucks, and isnt an engine change so doesnt chuck you into sports libre automatically.
for 2013 i think the need to stay in original capacity class for sprints and hills has gone (havent got my copy to hand, but believe so), so we could
see more peeps adding turbos and blowers to cars rather than swapping engines. Back to the days of austin 7s with howling superchargers!
the other almost always overlooked area is weight and packaging. A xflow is dinky and looks lost even in a 7type engine bay. all modern stuff tends to
be ally blocked which are always bulkier than their iron equivalents and then they have a 'muffin top' cylinder head with eleventy valves
in it! whilst modern twin cams are fine in most 7types, a small hillclimber or similar is a different matter. The turbo and ancillaries can often be
packaged easier than the bulkier modern engine.
as for essexs, dont get me started... yuk 
[Edited on 4/12/12 by CNHSS1]
"Racing is life, everything else, before or after, is just waiting"---Steve McQueen
|
|
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 4/12/12 at 03:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CNHSS1
whilst i have to say on the face of it, a xflow with a wind pump is flogging the proverbial dead horse to some, when it comes to competing then things
take a different slant.
getting 140hp out of a xflow takes a huge amount of money, machoining etc whereas adding a light pressure turbo setup gives the power without the
bucks, and isnt an engine change so doesnt chuck you into sports libre automatically.
for 2013 i think the need to stay in original capacity class for sprints and hills has gone (havent got my copy to hand, but believe so), so we could
see more peeps adding turbos and blowers to cars rather than swapping engines. Back to the days of austin 7s with howling superchargers!
the other almost always overlooked area is weight and packaging. A xflow is dinky and looks lost even in a 7type engine bay. all modern stuff tends to
be ally blocked which are always bulkier than their iron equivalents and then they have a 'muffin top' cylinder head with eleventy valves
in it! whilst modern twin cams are fine in most 7types, a small hillclimber or similar is a different matter. The turbo and ancillaries can often be
packaged easier than the bulkier modern engine.
as for essexs, dont get me started... yuk
[Edited on 4/12/12 by CNHSS1]
Hi, i would chk the reg book carefully, normally added forced induction i say a 1300cc engine would put you in the 2000cc class. But, as you say the
xflow is a very compact little engine and fancy parts such as ally heads are now available so it is possible for it to loose some weight.
The owner of the Escort says it goes really well, looking at the power curve i can see why, it has more low down power than a 2.0L pinto with less
weight.
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
CNHSS1
|
| posted on 4/12/12 at 04:47 PM |
|
|
yes the BB has always had a 1.4x for circuits and 1.7x capacity hike for speed events (sprints/hillclimbs) but it looks like the need to stay within
capacity 'class' has been removed for 2013 speed events, so that whilst say a 1300 with a turbo would be over 2000cc now, it could still
stay in Roadgoing or ModProd and not bung you in Sports Libre as was previously the case, just move from class 3A to 3C in modprod for instance
"Racing is life, everything else, before or after, is just waiting"---Steve McQueen
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 4/12/12 at 05:45 PM |
|
|
I still don't see it, the added mass for a turbo including manifolds and generally an intercooler too is in the region of 10-15kg, sure a turbo
addition is a bit easier to position than a whole bulkier engine and maybe I'm just not appreciating the size difference but it seems relatively
minimal.
|
|
|
Dualist
|
| posted on 4/12/12 at 05:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
I'm in agreement with BT here - seems like a whole heap of effort and expense to get sod all power out of an anchient piece of hardware, and I
can't really see any advantages. OBviously "because I can" is a valid point, but still not sure I understand the reasoning.
Probably 'cos it was fun, if you can get the bits cheaply then why the hell not.?
Rotary build coming soon...
quote:
Originally posted by RichardK
I recently discovered that pigs can p i s s sideways when being transported 
|
|
|
mark chandler
|
| posted on 4/12/12 at 06:10 PM |
|
|
It's not because you can get more power more cheaply, it's just something that is nice to do.
No engine or gearbox changes
No chassis mods to suit
It's Bolt on power, when I turbo'd my blade engine I could have sold the package, stuck £££ on top and dropped in something more powerful,
instead chose to fiddle around relatively cheaply and derive the same power with what I had.
Run on optimax, not available 30 years ago, and away you go.
Vecta turbo is only £30 on eBay and its all transportable anyway so nothing lost if you decide to change the lump.
If I had been as capable when I was 20 as I am now I would have shoved a turbo on a few of my cars that's for sure.
|
|
|
BaileyPerformance
|
| posted on 4/12/12 at 07:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mark chandler
It's not because you can get more power more cheaply, it's just something that is nice to do.
No engine or gearbox changes
No chassis mods to suit
It's Bolt on power, when I turbo'd my blade engine I could have sold the package, stuck £££ on top and dropped in something more powerful,
instead chose to fiddle around relatively cheaply and derive the same power with what I had.
Run on optimax, not available 30 years ago, and away you go.
Vecta turbo is only £30 on eBay and its all transportable anyway so nothing lost if you decide to change the lump.
If I had been as capable when I was 20 as I am now I would have shoved a turbo on a few of my cars that's for sure.
Yep, i built myself a turbo XR2 when i was 19 using a sierra engine (1800CVH) cosworth T3 with 1 3/4" SU on the intake "such thru
system" it ran 16PSI, no idea of the power but estimate 170BHP.
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
