Waxing Philosophical On Engine Swaps

[Kevin G.]

I'm a little curious...

With all of the 3.6 swaps going on, not to mention a few 3.2 swaps and a 2.7 into a 356...

Why is it we never seem to get any turbo motor for n/a motor swaps? I can't believe it's more difficult than popping a 3.6 into a long hood. Are good turbo motors that expensive and hard to find?

A few years ago I toyed with the idea of converting my 2,2 motor into a 2,1 Turbo ala Martini Racing in the early / mid 70's. I could never find the specs of the motor, not even the turbo used.

It's early, and the dreams of a 3,8 Twin in my '72 haven't been washed away by the coffee yet.

[jpachard]

I have often wondered the same thing. I would LOVE to build up a 934 or 935 baby motor. 500BHP out of a 2.0L is enough, thank you. The bigger 935 motor is just a monster(700+ Hp). I have seen the turbo units for sale here and there. I believe Gunnar Racing had one for sale awhile ago. The 935's were just beasts to drive, when I was at the Rennsport Reunion at Limerock, the front wheels would be 8 inches off the ground when they came over the crest of the uphill

Cheers, James

[Dantilla]

Sounds like a greart project, for a track car. Pretty miserable to live with on the street. The high power race engines use cams with a wild amount of overlap that are usefull only at 4000 rpms and up.

[RoninLB]

I'm not looking for a turbo.. but if I was, I don't think I'd want used.. turbos wear an engine quick.. it would have to be a personal connection with the owner for a used turbo, IMO.

[JTO]

yeah, but why doesn't someone put a 930 or the like in a older car? Hey, '74-77s are pretty cheap due to the maligned 2.7. Why not dump the 2.7 and put a 930 engine in one? I've toyed with that idea a few times....

Troy

[Kevin G.]

Ron -
In terms of gut feeling, I am inclined to agree with you on the perspective of excessive wear. But it is totally based on the feeling that you've gotta pay the price for that power.

I cannot remember ever viewing a post that alluded to abnormally fast engine wear vs a NA motor, though. Are there any 930 owners out there who can vouch for the longevity of their mounts?

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by Kevin G.
Ron -
In terms of gut feeling, I am inclined to agree with you on the perspective of excessive wear.

Are there any 930 owners out there who can vouch for the longevity of their mounts?

yep.. gut feelings.. it's kinda scary that you could be paying big bucks for big problems.. and would probably have been cheaper to build your own turbo..

if the turbo is your baby and well taken care of I'm sure it'll last.

anyway, I'd buy the pieces.. rebuild them.. put it together.. and party hearty... that would relax me/whatever

[rick conrath]

Depends uon your driving style, and perhaps a bit about your personality. I am never one to leave things alone, care less about reliabilty and more about pushing the limit. That said, I am modifying my single 3.3 to a twin setup. I agonized over this decision. Was this the best value $/hp, would the engine last..etc? In the end, I have shopped wisely and will end up with a motor that meets my personal needs. It is a balancing act between patience, and coming across parts that sometimes sway the direction of your project. I started my project as a 3.6 transplant, but decided to stick with the 3.3 since I was 90% there with my 930 already. As for reliability, I find it difficult to drive 5-10 k a year right now. That gives me 5-10 years of troublefree service, unless I race every weekend. I think that holds true for any engine configration. Yes there are tons of gaskets and piping in my engine bay, but it is far outweighed (in my opinion) by the sub 5 second blasts that clear my head.

[MyTurbo3.6]

The 3.3 transplant into early cars is really not more difficult than the 3.6 swap. Having done it a couple of times, I would highly recommend it. If you stick with a pre-C2 Turbo engine, the swap is even easier.

You still have the same issues to deal with such as Oil Cooling, Brakes, Fuel Supply, Exhaust, Electrical, Tail, etc. that you have with the 3.6…just more horsepower and a huge kick in the pants.

I think you see fewer of these conversions since there were far fewer Turbos produced and even fewer that have been totaled with the engines available for sale. Additionally, the Turbo engines are selling for 2-5K more than the 3.6, depending on mods.

As for reliability, I think this is much like the early 964 head leaking issue…I think it is significantly exaggerated. The 3.3 engine is quite reliable.

[Bill Verburg]

I think that there are 2 types of people. Those that like cams/compression/displacement and headers and those that like boost. Driving style and purpose may be part of it. But I suspect that the more the visceral aspects such as sound, power delivery characteristics etc are just as important. I grew up w/ motorcycles where the former were paramount and never out grew it(sort of like music). I have owned and currently own turbo cars but find them less than satisfying in general.

[cowtown]

I think it's mainly the cost issue. A 3.6NA engine has a lot of power, less complexity, and costs less. Plus you get nice linear power delivery and arguably better sound.

Now, having said that, take a look at my sig.

[Embs]

When you can easily acheive 285 to 350 DEPENDABLE HP out of a NA 3.6 or 3.8 in a car that weighs 2600 lbs., why would I want a turbo? This is already way more power than I can honestly utilize in most situations.

I have owned several turbocharged cars, a 94 Dodge Stealth Twin Turbo (a fun 3900 lb. Mitsu produced tank) and a 98 Toyota Supra turbo (a very fun car) boost is great fun but ALWAYS at a price. Turbo cars cost more to operate and properly maintain, period.

I'll take my NA 300HP 3.6 in a car that weighs 2600 lbs. and be a happy fellow for a long time.