This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------D6F66E6CC45F71CD3F664605
Grant Galbraith wrote:
> The nice thing about the turbo is that you can develop HP at lower RPM. Small
>engines
> that are normally aspirated engines require high RPM to develop HP. Leo, who
>I'm
> working with on his 292 dragster has run it up to 10 grand at the strip. The
>turbo
> engine will not see this kind of RPM, likely not more than 6. Also the
>stress on rods
> is more from high RPM than HP developed. The real enemy of the turbo is
>detonation.
> Intercoolers can reduce this problem, water injection is more of a band aid.
>I'm not
> an expert here, just trying to learn as I go along but It seems the turbo or a
> centrifugal supercharger really take advantage of many inline 6's
>characteristics
> (torque) while not being too adversely affected by it's shortfalls like
>limited
> breathing head. Roots blowers look cool but are not as efficient as a
>centrifugal
> blower. Good advice to start off with low boost and go from there. We have
>heard some
> saying about, "If turbo charging you have tried, surely a piston you have
>fried". I
> think this pertains more to racing but is something to be aware of.
>
> Grant
> 50 Chevy 3100
> 52 GMC 150
>
> ADvent@thuntek.net wrote:
>
> > One thing I would not ry to do is extend the rpm range. I would start out
>at a low
> > boost, like about 2 or 3 pounds and see what happens. And go up from there.
>The
> > 235 and its cousin's will die the same fate as all turbo engines. More
>power now
> > means less power later. the engine will wear out sooner with the turbo. And
>theres
> > the extra expense of buying ethyl instead of low grade gas.
> > new mexico jim
> > 51 two ton
> > 50 ½ ton
> >
> > CLLLSLS@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > This question would prolly get the same number of replies if I sent it to
>the
> > > whole list or just Grant Galbraith, but you never know.
> > >
> > > Just out of shear curiosity, how many of our chevy/GMC I-6's have actually
> > > successfully been turbocharged? I know about Leo's 292, but AFAIK it's not
> > > actually running yet. Are there any others that are contemplating turbos
>or
> > > who have actually done it? I know a few people through the net that have
> > > turbocharged AMC and stude I-6's with amazing results, but their engines
>are
> > > very different from ours with stouter bottom ends and better head
>designs. It
> > > would really be nice to talk with someone who could offer up what I should
> > > expect in terms of limitations and pitfalls when turbocharging my 270.
>Thanks.
> > >
> > > Dustin
> > > 50 & 53 GMC 1/2 tons
> > > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
> >
> > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
--------------D6F66E6CC45F71CD3F664605
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <38AB12E2.3A302F9F@javanet.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:13:09 -0500
From: Grant Galbraith <trks@javanet.com>
Reply-To: trks@javanet.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ADvent@thuntek.net
Subject: Re: [oletrucks] I-6 turbo wonderings
References: <d9.146e062.25db84bf@aol.com> <38AAC21D.8F37563D@thuntek.net>
The nice thing about the turbo is that you can develop HP at lower RPM. Small
engines
that are normally aspirated engines require high RPM to develop HP. Leo, who
I'm
working with on his 292 dragster has run it up to 10 grand at the strip. The
turbo
engine will not see this kind of RPM, likely not more than 6. Also the stress
on rods
is more from high RPM than HP developed. The real enemy of the turbo is
detonation.
Intercoolers can reduce this problem, water injection is more of a band aid.
I'm not
an expert here, just trying to learn as I go along but It seems the turbo or a
centrifugal supercharger really take advantage of many inline 6's
characteristics
(torque) while not being too adversely affected by it's shortfalls like limited
breathing head. Roots blowers look cool but are not as efficient as a
centrifugal
blower. Good advice to start off with low boost and go from there. We have
heard some
saying about, "If turbo charging you have tried, surely a piston you have
fried". I
think this pertains more to racing but is something to be aware of.
Grant
50 Chevy 3100
52 GMC 150
ADvent@thuntek.net wrote:
> One thing I would not ry to do is extend the rpm range. I would start out at
>a low
> boost, like about 2 or 3 pounds and see what happens. And go up from there.
>The
> 235 and its cousin's will die the same fate as all turbo engines. More power
>now
> means less power later. the engine will wear out sooner with the turbo. And
>theres
> the extra expense of buying ethyl instead of low grade gas.
> new mexico jim
> 51 two ton
> 50 ½ ton
>
> CLLLSLS@aol.com wrote:
>
> > This question would prolly get the same number of replies if I sent it to
>the
> > whole list or just Grant Galbraith, but you never know.
> >
> > Just out of shear curiosity, how many of our chevy/GMC I-6's have actually
> > successfully been turbocharged? I know about Leo's 292, but AFAIK it's not
> > actually running yet. Are there any others that are contemplating turbos or
> > who have actually done it? I know a few people through the net that have
> > turbocharged AMC and stude I-6's with amazing results, but their engines are
> > very different from ours with stouter bottom ends and better head designs.
>It
> > would really be nice to talk with someone who could offer up what I should
> > expect in terms of limitations and pitfalls when turbocharging my 270.
>Thanks.
> >
> > Dustin
> > 50 & 53 GMC 1/2 tons
> > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
>
> oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
--------------D6F66E6CC45F71CD3F664605--
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|