Richard,
Better get a tighter grip on that $100.
richard nichols wrote:
>
> David Guard said:
>
> Without *both* rules, wouldn't I still be able to:
> - add (I mean backdate to) a turbo on my '93 Cobra (remember,
> there were turbo Mustangs & SVO is listed on the same line as V8).
>
> Time for some Listers to study up on the thermodynamics of
> automotive turbochargers!
>
> Have a $100 bill here that says it can't be done. :)
Never tell an engineer it CAN'T be done :) Your $100 might
not be a large enough budget, but "can't be done"???
>
> The SCCA might have let you (before the latest revision to 14.10)
> but Mr. Physics wouldn't have.
>
> Add the SVO turbo to the Ford V8, and you'd get to experience
> first hand the terrors (OK, so I engage in a *little* hyperbole)
> of compressor surge, exhaust backpressure, constant boost, and a
> continuously open wastegate.
>
> The SVO turbo is about the size of a concrete drill, and just right
> (literally) for a 2.3. Can you spell "broken"?
Nope just needs tuning, SP cars are never broken :)
You must have made some implementation assumtions (e.g. plumb *all*
the exhaust gas through the turbo unit ?). I never said you could
run it at the full boost capability it gives on a 2.3L, nor did Isay it
could create the same HP increase. But more air is more power.
>
> That's leaving aside the engineering problems including
> manifolding, 'cause given sufficient motivation, imagination
> and skill, these things c/b overcome.
Already solved by aftermarket turbo kits (single or twin)
for the 5.0L Mustang.
>
> Oh, you say you were going to run *two* SVO turbos. Someone
> would have to study up on whether that would have flown under
> the old rule -- doubt it, though. :) But Mr. Physics would
> approve, if you did everything else right.
I like how you think. Yeh, I have two 4cyl exhaust systems.
That's the ticket :) Maybe even one of the smaller turbos and
throttle it in early and then one of the larger ones to carry
the power through the top end (kinda like the last gen RX-7).
I'm sure the rulebook already precludes this but a nice though
indeed.
>
> Don't even *think* about the turbos or turbomotors from the
> 79 or 82/83 Mustangs. Those setups had just about everything
> left off, that should have been put in a turbocar (the 79s
> were actually carburetted), including important features on
> the turbos themselves.
But what A/R ratios did the early turbo's have ? They might not
have been optimal for that motor but will it make for power on
mine (gee, that argument sounds familiar) ? And your right their
boost control system might just be primitive enough to not get
in the way.
>
> 'Course you could have (and I guess still can) drop in the
> complete SVO motor, so long as you've a Fox body (79-93).
> It's a conversion that makes a lot of sense in the Pinto, and
> it's been done a lot because an early model weighs in at less
> than 2000 pounds. Different classes, of course. But if the
> 2.3TII works in the SVO Mustang, why wouldn't it work well in
> the 93 Cobra R (lighter -- less filling)?
Off track a bit but OK, it would work. Use a '87 -88 light weight
coupe though, the '93 Cobra R wasn't all that light (~3100 lbs).
A stripper '87-'88 5.0L LX notchback could be configured (no
options, A/C delete etc...) under 3000lbs. A turbo 4 with the SVO
interheater would be even lighter. We did this to my brother's
CP car, although his is a LX hatchback.
Back to SP turbos mix 'n match:
Other combo's ?
What about the Garrett T3 turbo in the 1989 Trans AM ? That's a
pretty big unit and could be slapped (OK, major simplification)
on a 1LE or whatever the Pontiac equiv.
What about the 1980 Turbo V-8 Trans AM. This opens up Turbo'ing
for the '70.5-'81 F-bodies too.
I think the point is still valid. If the turbo is treated as part
of the unrestricted intake & exhaust system we have lots of combo's
and potential power-adders for the rules to comprehend. If the turbo
is treated as part of the motor, all else falls into line.
Richard, don't worry your $100 bill is safe - from me anyway.
Thanks,
Dave
|