Twin Turbo 3 liter vs V8 Powerplants

[pparaska]

I like that, "ohhh, sh!t....here comes the boost" feeling.

 

That kick in the back just signals to me that I was MISSING power before it kicked in. Kind of like I was missing something I wanted earlier. Of course, with a large enough engine, with adequate compression, etc., the amount you were missing before the turbo started delivering may not have been too bad anyway.

[EvilRufusKay]

 

PS' date=' there's instant power for sale in my signature.

 

Owen[/quote']

 

Owen,

 

I went to your site and saw a picture of your engine but no info...whatcha got man?

[Guest tony78_280z]

I may as well jump in here. Seems everyone else has. I've got to agree with the NA engine and go for the simple and easiest to work on. My swap began because I was tired of the complex EFI system. Particularly a 25+ year old one. I wanted it simple, and something I could work on. Isn't it odd how you desire to simplify something, and then confuse it with the complex. Instead of putting on a carbed manifold and keeping the L6, I jerked the motor and dropped in an v8.

A stock small block chevy v8 has 230-250hp. Add a good carb headers and stronge ignition system it should be at the top of that range. From my research one can take a stock v8, and can safely run 100 shot of NOS. That is about 350hp and the best bang for your buck. A simple, reliable, easy to work on, and mostly street friendly daily driver with push of the button get up and go.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

[Guest bastaad525]

Having owned several V8 muscle cars ('68 Ford Galaxy, '68 Ford Mustang, '81 Chevy Camaro) and only the one turbo car... I gotta say I like both of them

 

 

Dunno about Cyrus' 2JZ but I've been VERY surprised by just how smooth my 20+ year old L28ET can be. Also I think it has a GREAT exhaust sound, an almost-V8ish burble at idle, and a roar somewhere between a fighter jet and an uncorked race car at full blast. Yeah a great V8 will always sound better to my ears but the L28 does by no means sound bad at all.

 

 

I agree with Drax's comments about the actual ADVANTAGES of what most would consider lag. My car is SO easy to drive normally and smoothly, all that extra torque is only there when I want it, but stay off the pedal and it drives like a normal Z but even more sedate. Boost builds smoothly on mine, it's not at all like an on/off switch, I get good boost even at mid throttle and if I roll into the throttle it accelerates like any car. But yeah... sometimes I do wish for a lag-free V8... though as long as I'm in the right gear for it (revs above 3000rpm) I get near instant boost and acceleration when I do just stomp it.

 

 

I will agree that a carbed V8 is a much simpler setup that is probably a lot easier to deal with than the L28's sometimes buggy EFI... never had an EFI V8 but I've seen a few and they didn't look nearly as simple so IMO an EFI V8 and an L28ET are probably very similiar in complexity. But a carbed V8 is about as simple as it gets, no arguing that. There's also the fact that I would feel MUCH safer pushing a N/A V8 to it's limit for a longer period of time than I do with my turbo... I always feel like if I really get on it I'm gonna blow/melt something.

 

At my power/boost level I easily get away with 91 octane and could drive the car every day in any kind of traffic no problem... as a matter of fact I used to do just that, and I live in L.A. so it was L.A. traffic

 

If I somehow got the opportunity to build another I really couldn't say for sure which I'd go for if I could choose turbo or V8 (I know I'd want close to 350hp), but right at this moment I'm leaning more towards a really well done turbo setup...

 

Seems to me, in the end that they both can and will accomplish very similiar things with similiar levels of work, mods, and money. Just depends what you want really, but I would scoff at anyone who dares say that one is clearly better than the other.

[Phantom]

Bastaad525,

Dude - I hate to burst your bubble but none of those cars were muscle cars. The era was gone and those cars were overweight and underpowered by earlier standards unless, of course, they had some serious aftermarket modifications.

[cyrus]

I read a lot of talk about weight, heres the scoop

 

THe turbos weigh 96 pounds with manifolds, don't believe me look it up.

 

Total swap with all intercooler on identical set up cars was 200 lbs more for the 3 liter over the LS1 V8.

 

But people have missed that turbo car IS making MORE power. +80RWHP

[Drax240z]

I should add as I think it is relevant, I have put 20,000 miles on my swap, daily driven rain or shine. During this time I have autox'd between 30-40 events. The only reliability issues I have had were not engine related. (worn out 30 year old parts)

[Owen]

Owen' date='

 

I went to your site and saw a picture of your engine but no info...whatcha got man?[/quote']

 

Yeah, haven't touched the site in a while, no time.

Here's what's for sale.

http://www.v8zcar.com/s30z/4sale.htm

 

I'm currently in talks with another member so he has first rights. Otherwise it goes on ebay.

http://www.v8zcar.com/s30z/4sale.htm

 

Owen

[Owen]

That kick in the back just signals to me that I was MISSING power before it kicked in. Kind of like I was missing something I wanted earlier. Of course, with a large enough engine, with adequate compression, etc., the amount you were missing before the turbo started delivering may not have been too bad anyway.

 

Good point. So just think of it as building up an ejacul8tion !

Owen

[cyrus]

So to sum things up each has very unique characteristics. And the ultimate combo would be a engine that was big enough to supply good off-boost power then be insane on the top end with some boost. So start building those turbo LS1s.

[Mikelly]

That is what I would do... Except I'd leave off the turbo part...

 

Drax, I drive V8s, and suffer very few failures... As a matter of fact, I'm knocking down 25pmg today in the Vette, and I'll have it at the track in three weeks for another track day, and it has yet to strand me, at 114K miles... No oil loss, no smoking, no engine trouble to speak of... Car is tip top and I could drive it to canada and back without worries...

 

Mike

[Phantom]

Cyrus,

Lone Star 1 hasn't posted here in some time but he is running a magnacharged LS1 backed by a 4L60E. Last I heard he had dyno'd at 420 / 420.

[Mikelly]

Just to give a comparo...

 

My tired old LS1 with some headers and ls6 intake, ported TB and 3 inch exhaust turned 335HP and 353#ft. torque... My new heads cam motor should spin the rollers at 430HP... No boost...

 

Mike

[Michael]

I think that it's important to make the distinction between:

 

1. Serious performance engines built by professionals or knowledgeable amateurs

2. Amateur jobs done on a "budget", generally lacking the proper experience or tools

3. Bone-stock engines.

 

Mostly we've been debating engines that fall under (1) - and there, indeed, the turbo vs. displacement debate will rage on forever. But I would argue that in category (2), the larger-displacement n/a engine has an advantage: it's easier to half-a$$ your way to a reasonably well-running n/a engine, than a turbo.

 

Now for an example from category (3). I used to have a 1987 MK III Supra turbo, 5 spd. 3600 lb car. High 15's in the quarter mile, with 110,000 miles on the engine and me driving (first time at the track). Very unfortunate combination of high weight, small displacement and laggy turbo. That was the car that motivated me to do a V8 Z. By way of comparison, some years ago I drove a stock turbo Eclipse. While not as powerful as the Supra, the throttle response felt much smoother, and turbo lag was far less.

 

What applies to amateur engine-building also applies to amateur driving. Off-idle throttle response and a smooth, flat torque curve may not be critical for an expert driver in carefully-controlled circumstances, but they're important for an amateur driving an all-around car.

[crazy280]

It sounds like those who hate turbo'd cars are the same people who hate high revving cars, for the same reasons. And it occurs to me that its because they are lazy drivers: driving turbos/high revvers quickly requires a little extra effort to keep the engine in its powerband that some people would rather not deal with. Obviously both types (big n/a and small turbo) are competitive in racing, so this discussion is more about personal driving preference. I have driven a number of large displacement n/a v8s, as well as smaller displacement turbos, and I like them BOTH for different reasons. The large displacement N/A makes it easy to drive fast, b/c you don't have to worry about rpms/gears as much and you always have instant torque, while the turbo is more docile at low rpm and better on gas at low rpm, with the bonus of "up the boost- up the power". BTW, the fastest car (stock) I've ever had the honor of driving was a newer 911 turbo. The car was awesome: there was no lag, no problem hooking, and it had instant power whenever I wanted it. That was with the 3.6L twin turbo F6 making around 420 hp DIN.

 

ps: Phantom, 1968 was pretty much around the peak of the muscle car era, sounds like you are confusing it with the mid-70's.

[pparaska]

It sounds like those who hate turbo'd cars are the same people who hate high revving cars, for the same reasons. And it occurs to me that its because they are lazy drivers: driving turbos/high revvers quickly requires a little extra effort to keep the engine in its powerband that some people would rather not deal with.

 

"Lazy drivers"???? Generalizations are always dangerous.

 

Just because I don't want to drop down a gear while cruising but want immediate thrust doesn't make me lazy. It just means I want to have thrust in the cruising gear I'm in- so I can do it seamlessly. If you DON'T want that immediate thrust in a cruising gear, then that's you're perogative, but don't call those of us who want it lazy. I also don't want to cruise around at rpms that would have me in a position to feel the thrust I want in a small displacement NA or turbo'd car - since that RPM means that I'd be wasting fuel, and making noise that I don't want to make (drawing attention).

 

That's not laziness, it's a driving experience that I want out of my car.

 

Obviously both types (big n/a and small turbo) are competitive in racing, so this discussion is more about personal driving preference.

 

Correct. Street driving preference. And my preference is to be able to push myself back in the seat with authority WITHOUT having to drop down a gear or cruise at a higher rpm that makes a bunch of noise, wears out the engine and draws attention. I love being able to pull away from little buzz-bomb bumble bee sounding Honda's while in 5th gear at 55mph. So little effort to do, so much fun!

 

I have driven a number of large displacement n/a v8s, as well as smaller displacement turbos, and I like them BOTH for different reasons. The large displacement N/A makes it easy to drive fast, b/c you don't have to worry about rpms/gears as much and you always have instant torque, while the turbo is more docile at low rpm and better on gas at low rpm, with the bonus of "up the boost- up the power". BTW, the fastest car (stock) I've ever had the honor of driving was a newer 911 turbo. The car was awesome: there was no lag, no problem hooking, and it had instant power whenever I wanted it. That was with the 3.6L twin turbo F6 making around 420 hp DIN.

 

That's the only way I'd design a turbo car for the street - one that had no lag in 99% of the situations I'd be in on the street. Note that that turbo 911 you drove was the recipe I was speaking of to get that kind of operation - a nice 6 cylinder of adequate size (3.6L) and compression ratio (8:1). It's obvious that the Porsche engineers know how to tune that engine system to get it to not have lag - something that isn't so easy for the amateur, as Michael was alluding to.

 

ps: Phantom, 1968 was pretty much around the peak of the muscle car era, sounds like you are confusing it with the mid-70's.

 

Oh, I don't know. Some think 1970 was the last year. But the 455SD Firebird of 1973 was no slouch.

[crazy280]

Hey, easy there big fellow, I wasn't trying to insult you

I have no preference for either setup, and I totally understand what you mean about cruising at high rpm, etc, but I still think laziness is responsible for not wanting to drop a gear every now and then. If you don't like shifting, maybe you should get an automatic? Nothing wrong with that, many people do it. My point is that while I do enjoy the instant response of say, a chevy 350, I wouldn't knock a turbo car just because it needs to be shifted more, becuase that doesn't bother me. (then again I'm still a "youngen" lol ) Like I said, it comes down to personal preference.

[Mikelly]

Tell you what, Go view my footage from VIR and tell me how "Lazy" I am being... Spinning a motor up to stupid high revs to MAKE THE SAME HP has NEVER made sense to me... But then again I'm not into swapping blown head gaskets or fretting over EGTs and AFRs...

 

Lazy?

 

Mike

[johnc]

Spinning a motor up to stupid high revs to MAKE THE SAME HP has NEVER made sense to me...

 

But it is a very effective technique for making power. Even the NASCAR boys have recognized that and have implemented their own version of rev limits via rules limiting rear end gearing. Anyone remember seeing the data feed from Newman's Dodge at Pocono last year? It just touched 10,000 rpm on the backstraight.

[Pop N Wood]

Don't the NASCAR boys also rebuild their engines between every race?

 

I know you have to pay to play, but I can't afford to play that hard.