turbo performance
 

I know there a few people out there with turbo 4's. Does anybody have any performance or reliability figures.

I never dyno'ed my car, all I gots is seat of the pants figures and some formulas that predict how much power it should have made.

I know I could beat a 2001 mustang V8 car (with modified exhaust) in a drag race at 9 psi, but it wasn't a mustang GT.

Those poor 4 cylinders, they just don't react well to heat. If you do it right, ie oil squerters, dry sump system, LOTS of oil radiators, over head fan for better cooling, you can make some awesome reliable power. Not to kill the cool idea of turbos, but its cheaper overall to get a 3.2 six.

Till it breaks.

uh, sammy the only mustangs they made in 2001 that came with v8's were gt's... and cobras.

Jake, probably... but at least you'll get 200K miles of fun as apposed to 20,000 miles of equal type 4 hp...if your lucky. So my math would be as fallows, 200,000 divided by 20,000= 10, 10 times (what do you think it would run to rebuild a type 4 everytime something goes wrong? $1000?) so 10 times $1000 is $10,000. That would be one bad ass rebuild with an autothority mass airflow sensor and a chip to boot.

Granted i agree thats alot of dough up front, sertainly any amount i don't have. But i'd rather save up and do it right, being patient is rewarding.

Done right a TIV will last way more than 20K. With some things I'm working with now they simply won't wear- just like the -6.

Really? whats the HP your expecting? and whats the cost your shooting for? Wearing wasn't really my issue, just most of the parts inside don't seam to be designed for high HP applications. Now i'm partly skeptical about type 4's cause i've had 2L cranks bust in 2, rings go, heads crack, valves snap, rocker arms brake, rods blow, etc etc etc.

Now with your P&C's, scat crank, forged rods, etc, it would be a reliable high HP motor. For spending that much money, i guess i just have a hard-on for the 6. Did you go to the Dunkel Brothers fest 2 years ago?

Ummn, The main bearings in a TIV engine are bigger than a big block chevy- They are not exactly weak. The connecting rods are short and heavy and not optimum but I have seen them take 300HP and a 75 shot of Nitrous with just better bolts installed.

My test engine with my new heads will make 250-275HP at only 10:1 static CR. It doesn't take a SCAT crank to make the bottom end strong, we use stock cranks all the time for well over 50HP per cylinder.

The -6 is one of my least favorite engines, I build them (2.7 and older) and have never been impressed by them. The cost associated with just a stock rebuild is unreal... I'll take a Chevy anyday over spending 10K for a stock rebuild on anything.

Until the last 7 years the TIV engine was pretty lost. Thats when I decided to make as much new technology work with it that we can- Those who have purchased my upgraded engines can testify (and they do all the time) that what we do works.

I have never been to the Dunkel's show... I'm always busy making things happen and don't have time to see what else is going on.

Re: turbo performance
 

So Jake, tell me how you really feel about the 6? Haha.

I haven't worked extensively on the 6's, but 90% of the time people never regret going to the 6 (expecially the 3.2). 9% change back, after asking a few questions i come to the conclusion that the reason why was because they tried to cut corners and then blamed it on the 6. and the 1% is people like you, who just don't like the 6, period. And thats cool, i agree $3000 in materials for a rebuild plus labor is high.

But V8's are a dime a dosen, my tastes buds have always been for the rare, not over cooked. I like having something very few people have. Even if its my own version of what everyone has, its unique, not the "run of the mill". Plus OEM, stab a 928S motor in a 914, thats unique.

Jake, do you have an answer for andrew4266?
P.S.: i never said anything about the main bearings

With the right amount of cash (or credit cards), any idiot can do a /6 conversion, there is nothing "magical" or difficult about it, there are probebly more 914-6's right now due to how easy a conversion is....

The buyer of Ed's CIS turbo /4 supposed to be taking his car to the dyno in the next few weeks from I hear....

Hi mike,
So what makes it so easy now? Nothing has changed over the past 30 years... Or is it the notion that 30years worth of going threw TIV's has lead people to realize " I should of just installed the 6". That would be my guess as to why there are more 6's now than ever. But, i'll agree that many aftermarket parts that have been starting to show up are helping to drive the cost of the overall instullation down. Your right, "with the right amount of cash(or credit cards)", but the "any idiot can do a /6 conversion" has got me thinking about that 9% that cut corners and testify that the TIV is the best. But is that magical? is it credit card debit? or logic?

Mike, can you prove that the roller bearing bushings for the 911/914 suspension are better than the bronze bushings? Both are relatively new products, so the facts on both are still premature. 30 years worth of people finaly putting the 6 in and being happier than ever tell me something... no magic, maybe some credit card debit, and words of wisdom: "Just save up and put in a 6" or " If i could afford it, i'd put in a 6".

My goal here was not to bash the TIV, and thats what i'm being marked for. It does what it was designed for... affortable mass market transporation. Sure you can make a sprint car out of a Ford model T, i'm sure its been done. But Ford has made motors for the sole purpose of high HP, and the model T was transportation. Raby, your business is TIV engines, and the fact that you have an engine dyno means have lots of knowledgable information to those who are trying to make higher HP TIVs. You have a test track at your fingertips. But if you can sell me the parts to make a TIV motor that will produce close to the same torque and HP #'s as a freshly rebuilt '84-'89 3.2L Carrera, i'll buy it. BUT, its gotta be able to live as long as the 3.2 (excluding an over rev or some operator malfunction) I consistanly hear that the 3.2 will go 200k-300k miles. From what i hear your P&C's go for $3k... isn't that the same price as a set of factory P&C's?

30 years ago, there were no kits to stuff a 911 engine into a 914. Now there are several, from cheap to expensive. I think that's what Mike was alluding to.

The $3000 P&Cs are Nickies, where are also available for the 911, and are even more expensive since there are 6 of them instead of just four of them. Actually, I think the $3K is just for the Cs, not the Ps. Top quality stuff, but not necessary. Just like a Piaget watch isn't necessary, but if you can afford one, it's nice to have one.

The 3.2 will probably last longer than the gearbox its attached to, so I'm not entirely certain that's a valid point. The 3.2 is also a LOT heavier than a Type IV. A turbo Soob engine will probably outlive either one, with better power, and a Chebby will certainly outpower either one, and will be a lot cheaper to maintain and rebuild later. Whatever floats your boat. Trying too hard to apply logic to something like what engine you're going to swap in is a waste of time, which is why this argument always sparks religious wars.

30 years ago, there was a kit... i beleive it was factory parts?

$2000 for TIV nickies + $1000 forged pistons. Pretty close for $3000 factory 3.2 P&C Mahles.

The topic of this forum is performance and reliablilty. If we're talking about same HP numbers, than the trans doesn't matter. A high HP 4 or 6 will do the same damage.

What is "A lot" heavier? 50lbs? 100lbs? What is the dry weight of a TIV, 6, and the V8 (and what kind of V8?). Back in the day when i considered doing an 8 conversion, i was told it only adds 200lbs at the max and lots more power, making it like a motorcycle with a rainsuit.

The logic is the longevity. I said it once, and i'll say it again, it would be cool to have a turbo 4. I love seeing people with odd ball motor 914's at shows and around town (excluding anything having to do with Saab). I'm mearly saying, longevity, eas of mind, OEM, re-sale value, the Porsche 911 3.2 is it. Not the 3.6, not the 2.7, the 3.2.

I won't piss in this contest.....

Real Porsche's have 4 cylinders and the first one was built in a shed in the town of Gmund, Austria in 1948. It was as simple as the People's car that it shared so many design ideas with.

I like the Type IV because its literally just as simple, or simpler than the the very first engine for car that Porsche built to bear his name. It doesn't take 10 million dollars in tools to work with and does its job as intended very well, and handles MY modifications well enough to show it was well over built in its era. 50 hp PER CYLINDER FOR A PUSHROD ENGINE ISN'T TOO SHABBY IF YOU ASK ME! The TIV doesn't have anything that it doesn't need, and to me that means everything to me. (that probably doesn't mean much because most guys don't consider being able to rebuild your engine completely with a pair of pliers a huge benefit- I have done it.)

These engines got a bad rep because they were not understood- they stilll are not by many. I have built one blindfolded in front of 500 people from the ground up, I have made it a life to understand them. I have made it a point to share what I have done to make these engines into something they have never been to this point.

Hell, hopw many guys will ever put 200K miles on their 914 these days? Most of these cars are toys... If you have the time to drive your toy 300k miles in a lifetime you should be driving a Ferrari- not a 30 year old Porsche.

There is nothing wrong with a six, as long as one don't end up in my car I could care less!

You said "nothing has changed in 30 years", and clear a lot has changed. 30 years ago, only an idiot would have converted a 914/4, when a real 914/6 only 2-3 years old could be purchased for less money than it would cost to do the conversion. I wasn't buying cars then, as I was only 10, but I'd be willing to bet you could buy a 1970 914/6 for LESS money than a then brand-new 1974 914/4 2.0.

A 911 engine is only better over, say, a turbo Subaru or a Chevy because of sheer snob appeal (well, and the fact you get to keep your front trunk). No logic there. You certainly can't reasonably say a 3.2 is more reliable than a small-block, so the "longevity" and "ease of mind" bits don't apply. You can rebuild a small block several times for the price of one 3.2 rebuild, and you'd have to do it no more often.

On weight numbers, I can't quote anything exactly. TypeIVs seem to be in the 275lb range, and SC era engines seem to be over 400lbs. The last mag cased sixes were around 375lbs, and the 3.0 and 3.2 engines are a good bit heavier than the 2.4 or the 2.7. I'd have to hunt for the data, but at least one person has noted an aluminum-headed small-block weighs LESS than a recent 911 engine, though that may have been the 3.6. Adding the 200lbs to the car with the V8 sounds about right (most seem to weigh around 2400lbs complete).

The thing I hated most about my 2.4 911T engined 914 was the noise. That huge fan points right at the upper firewall, and it's VERY loud inside the car. Same problem in any of the air-cooled sixes. I will never build another one as a result.

I appologize if i was pissing... I try not to do that in public.

But your first statement says you are. "Real Porsches have 4 cylinders". Why is it they kept the 3 peice case even though they finaly developed the 2? Why were they're fastest motors dual over head cams? Pre- your knowledge of 1948, Dr. Prof. Ferdinan Porsche worked at Mercedes of Austria, developing much bigger motors than the flat 4. AND, the only reason he developed the flat 4 was because of cost. His original design for was a 5 cylinder radial motor years before Hitler came along, but was too expensive. Do some more homework.

Please forgive me if i was overly emotional about the 6 cylinder. But i tried to use facts and reasonable explinations. You, Jake, have been nothing but an A-hole. Driving a Ferrari? Now theres something you spend little money on. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO DO A 6! You have made that appent, but please, without blowing smoke up my ass, is the typical mileage one will get out of driving your motor? And NOT driving Miss Daisy!

I'm not to much on the snob appeal, more like sound appeal. Some people like the V8 rumble, i love the 6 scream. Lap, try a fuel injected 3.2, and put the sound deading pad back in!

As always happens whenever a topic gets highjacked to argue the "Big-4/Turbo-4 vs. -6 vs. V8" debacle ad nausea, out come the horns and there goes the civility. :rolleyes:

In case anyone forgot ...

http://www.pelicanparts.com/pmpre/im...WavingFlag.gif
http://www.pelicanparts.com/pmpre/images/Rouser/GWB.jpg
http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg

I thought i ended it with this, an honest question to the "Master TIV" guy. But ironically jake, mike, and Lap wanted to play "avoid the question at hand cause this snob only likes the 6". I started with the 4, i love the years i had with it and wouldn't traid it for anything. I learned a lot.

Bush Cheney huh? you figure out how to use the ballot this year?

Being a ******* is a talent...
I wan't trying to exercise it today but perhaps I did.

This is getting no where, and I'm outta here- I have a 275HP 4 cylinder to assemble.

Yep; piece-of-cake, just like in 2000.

Democrats might have a tough time with it, though; it still requires them to read it.

http://www.pelicanparts.com/pmpre/im...WavingFlag.gif
http://www.pelicanparts.com/pmpre/images/Rouser/GWB.jpg
http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg

hey BigD9146gt, not ignoring you, just watching the NBA Finals on the edge of my sofa :) GO DETROIT !!!!!

Damn, they just lost :(

Obviously I have some love for the Porsche /6....got a 3.6 that I drive pretty hard, first left hand corner leaving my house has plenty of rubber melted on it from getting the car sideways ;)

I started a /6 conversion, had a 2.2 motor I was going to rebuild...a "proper" rebuild would cost more than I was willing to spend at the time...for some reason all I could think about was taking all that time and money and make 1 bad shift and scatter the damn thing all over the ground....does not matter if it's a /6 or not, all motors have a rpm redline before something goes "boom" :)

If money was not an issue, I'd throw a 3.6 in my 914 in a minute, but for now and for me, the /4 is the best bang for the buck.

now back to the turbo /4.........cannot wait to fire up mine...gotta get the darn motor to fire up in it's normally asperated state first
(which has nothing to do with the type of motor, it's my miswiring of my aftermarket fuel injection...doh!!!!)

Awesome mike, please post it when you get done. One of my buddies was saying that for turbo aplications, vanogon heads (bus heads) work well because they do not have the coppor exhaust gasket. They have the typical exhaust type gasket, like what the 944 has. This helped seal the exhaust gasses better to the turbo, plus he had NOS on it, which helped with the turbo lag, and keep the engine cooler. He could run past 911's all day, but he didn't want to run it too high to keep with the 930's for fear of... sorry to be the guy to say it, but more power=heat=BOOM.

Sorry to drag the 6 thing on, but what you said about the 3.6 in the 914, from what i've heard, the 3.6 is a pain in the 914. I'm in the same boat with you, if i could afford it, the 3.6 would be in. Heck, i'd drop a spec 3.8 RSR in a heartbeat, if money was no object. But time and time again, the 3.2 is the most reliable, easiest, no extra cooler needed, change oil and travel across country, works with 901 trans, bullet proof motor there is. Its predisessor, the 3.0 had a very good record, but with the motronic injection, is darn near perfect.

What size motor 4 you making? What kind of fuel injection did you get? Post pics!

Thanks, Don

I think the real reason the Vanagon heads are better has been shown in a Shoptalk BBS thread that I linked to in a note here. The thread shows cutaway photos (they took the heads to a band-saw) of the exhaust ports for several Type IV heads. The "square port" Vanagon ones have a ton more metal in the exhaust, which means you can actually do some porting and do some good with it!!

Check down the board a few pages, you'll see the note with the link in it.

--DD

Does "square-port" always = "2.0 bus heads" (for the Type IV, not the Type II).

Lap, the 80-82 "Vanogons" had the square port exhaust with the composit type gasket, as apposed to the copper TIV "bus heads" which were just like the 1.7/1.8 914 heads. later on they went to the 2.0L bus heads, but had the 4 stud intake mount (as apposed to the 914 2L 3 studs), and kept the top spark plug angle(like the 1.8/1.7 914)

The square port has a longer short radius and has the capacity to actually allow some modern bowl shapes and bends to be applied to the port.

We use them on the higher end engines over 2400ccs, as the best oval port head is maxxed out after a 2270. This is why a Turbo 914 has never made good sense to me, since the exhaust ports are so restrictive. Turbos make their benefits by using heat and exhaust pressure to spool up.

To make a Turbo Type IV, square ports should be the first thing you invest in. Don't fool with used ones because they sucked from the factory, and now they have been pushing a 5,000 pound bus and will becracked from hell.. buy a brand new pair and then rebuild them, port them and make your combo based on their flow performance..

Jake,

do the exhaust ports of the Vanagon heads face downward like the stock 914/4 heads or are they Type I based?

What kind of cash is required to purchase these heads brand new? After the initial purchase, how much more money needs to be thrown at them to make 'em work for us?

VW doesn't have any factory new ones anymore. All you can get from the factory is AMC italian nock offs that suck major ass. If you have a core, I know of a company that will rebuild the factory heads just like they were new for $400. But that wouldn't be any good for what you want, just find some used ones and have a machine shop go from there. Cracks and broken stuff can be welded, i used to do it for a reputable machine shop in Mountain View CA, Ellsworth Machine Shop. We got all the bad stuff from all the local Porsche mechanics. Even fixed a V12 Ferrari head who's owner thought he could do his own valve adj job... Bent most of the valves and broke the cam bearing towers... Went back like new.

There were 2.0 Bus heads that are not "square port" heads. The square port ones are also called Vanagon heads.

Mueller, find the link I posted earlier, it will answer your questions. In short, yes it has the Type IV exhaust port location.

BigD, you used to work for Ellsworth? Wow... Umm... Let's just say I had a couple of "bad experiences" there and leave it at that.

Oh, and AMC is Spanish--not Italian. (The Spanish are not nearly as known for automotive design as the Italians, so that isn't necessarily a plus.) I have heard that their basic castings are fine but that the seats/guides/etc. are not that good and that their heads should be treated as cores. I've had one of their heads in my hands at SEMA a few years back, but didn't have any way to go over it in detail...

--DD

The AMC castings are fine, I have used them to make 240 daily driven HP. They MUST be rebuilt right out of the box, but all you want is a crack free core with the newer aluminum alloys that they use. The old square ports are just terriable in their metallurgy.

The V-gon heads do have a square exhaust port in the TIV location, it does use a better method of attaching exhaust and flows up to 20% more than any other TIV exhaust port. we actually break 170 CFM with these!

The Type I exhaust port design is what my new heads have... So far we have gotten 255 CFM out of my exhaust port with a 43mm exhaust valve, that should make my 3.0 peak out at 270 ponies! We were able to exactly get our 80% I/E ratio with these heads, and thats something you can only do with a stock casting if you don't port the intakes at all!

"rebuilding" the new AMC heads is no big deal for me, I might just bite the bullet and grab a pair from aircooled.net (do you sell them Jake)..unless your heads will be available in the next 6 months and not be too terribly expensive :)

i'm still going to throw the small turbo on my 1.8 that is in the car right now....I'll need new heads for my 2.0 that you and Brad have of mine since I put those rebuilt 2.0 on my 1.8.