Garf
|
 posted on 18/4/04 at 07:49 PM |
|
|
Turbo Engines ....
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 !
|
|
|
|
|
theconrodkid
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 08:13 PM |
|
|
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
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
Mark Allanson
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 08:19 PM |
|
|
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!
If you can keep you head, whilst all others around you are losing theirs, you are not fully aware of the situation
|
|
|
macspeedy
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 08:24 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
spunky
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 08:49 PM |
|
|
200+BHP from the 2L Cossie
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 09:33 PM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 09:41 PM |
|
|
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!!)
<ahem> Old, maybe Possibly from the days of non-intercooled turbo engines?
I know of a lot of people with turbocharged engines in their se7en-alikes, and all of them swear by them. You only have to drive around the engine
characteristics when there is something wrong with the setup you're using. Either get it setup, tuned, or bin it and fit a decent lump with a
proper turbo system!
I had the pleasure of a Rover T16 turbo powered locost (as well as a couple of 620tis, and various other Rover Tubbys), and I can swear by this
engine. It runs a T25 turbo, and has only a mere hint of lag. Changing down and charging at the horizon in the correct gear certainly seems to show no
signs, even in a car two thirds the weight of the saloon.
I still stand by the fact that, you use a crap engine, you end up with a crap car. Swing by sometime and I may just take you out for a ride!
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 09:57 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:08 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:30 PM |
|
|
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)
Speaks for itself there fella to be honest. Big horse monster, tuned to run with an ALS(?), and to probably quite a peaky rally spec.
quote:
Yes the small turbo/low lag thing is fine but how much power (proven)??
200bhp standard, 230bhp witha bleedvalve, 280bhp, and you have to open it up and change some bits, and change the management from standard
Taking it further? Wellllll, how much money do you have? 400bhp has been attained before, with people like Grant [forget his second name] running at
TOTB in his 620Ti proving this.
All attained by myself from previous experiance, and recognised to be universally true by all Rover folk.
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.
That's fine, but I find it quite bizarre that ytou need to think that way. THis is 2004, we don't have boat anchors like the Cossie, with
very questionable breathing characteristics. Don't get mme wrong, it's a nice engine, but it's just getting rather old now...
Oh, and whilst we are at powerbands, Rover T16 turbo. Peak torque = 2100rpm, peak power = 6000rpm. 3900rpm power band. Thankyouverymuch
[Edited on 18/4/04 by Fatboy Dave]
[Edited on 18/4/04 by Fatboy Dave]
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:34 PM |
|
|
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.
Oh dear, that's cr4p and you know it. Just because an engine has no motorsport following, does not mean it's not quality. There was a one
make series for this engine (Rover Turbo cup).
I find it quite bewildering that you can take the stance that an engine that does not feature in motorsport is not 'quality'?! Forgive me,
but I don't see too many RS turbos, or Nissan RB26DETTs [first examples plucked from my head] in that much motorsport, or are they not
'quality'?
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:39 PM |
|
|
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' 
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:41 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:45 PM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:46 PM |
|
|
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]
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
macspeedy
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:47 PM |
|
|
staying within a budget i would keep it turbo'd but if costs allowing 290bhp is possible n/a with the yb
|
|
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:52 PM |
|
|
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.
I have that effect on people 
I fully stand corrected on the RST. I don't go much on front drive Fords of this sort, so I'll blame ignorance before opening gob.
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 10:56 PM |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 11:03 PM |
|
|
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...
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 11:08 PM |
|
|
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!!!!
|
|
|
Fatboy Dave
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 11:11 PM |
|
|
Gah, I don't like you no more 
How did you know I wanted an Ultima Spyder for chrimbo
Dave
Stop the planet, I want to get off
|
PLEASE NOTE: This user is a trader who has not signed up for the LocostBuilders registration scheme. If this post is advertising a commercial product or service, please report it by clicking here.
|
NS Dev
|
| posted on 18/4/04 at 11:13 PM |
|
|
wouldn't mind one myself but my 2p budget fell a bit short!! Doh!!!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 10:40 AM |
|
|
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).
Are you sure? 10 mins ago i would've bet my left dangly on the standard 'vitesse turbo' having 180bhp (the 16inch wheel model) and
the vitesse sport (the one with 17inch rims) having 197bhp.
this is supported by the few i've driven, the sport model was definately faster - the boost rose for longer, and kept pulling.
admittedly the bleed valve mod brings the normal models up to scratch.
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 11:23 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
A Badger
|
| posted on 19/4/04 at 11:29 AM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
