Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 129

Thread: Development of the Turbo engines

  1. #81
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor glhs0075's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    579

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    I have only been to one SDAC. It just happens to be the 2012 one in Detroit. I drove the 1900 miles (one way) from Calgary, Alberta to Detroit, this was my "trip of a lifetime", and the tech session was the highlight of the trip. Thank you for sharing these incredible stories Mr. Davis, I think I speak for a lot of us here when I say that we love this history, we love these cars, and we love hearing the stories about how they came to be. Please keep them coming, we really appreciate them and all of your work.

    Again, Thank you!

    Stephen: 1987 GLHS #0075, 1965 Polara 880 convertible
    SDAC National- proud member
    Western Canada SDAC- proud member
    www.wc-tm.com
    "I am not a number. I am a free man!" Number 6

  2. #82
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    san diego, california
    Posts
    1,548

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    seriously mind blown again! thank you for all your information and ingenuity even if the bean counters couldn't see the how much better the end result could have been! cant imagine how much farther these cars could have advanced at such an earlier date had some of your technology been installed!

  3. #83
    Mitsu booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    30

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Very rare to meet someone who has an almost "Mirror" view of things. Where have you been all this time! So much to share, I hope you don't get burnt out responding to every ones Q's.

    So did things develop basically in the order that you put them? ie. Header and large diam. exhaust ports ect first, then big cams came later?

    I only ask this because, while the tube header didn't seem to make much difference with stock cam vs exhaust mani, you may have found that the accelerated exhaust velocity of the header could allow you to run more overlap, and a more N/A profile of cam.
    No, we found overlap was bad as at any engine speed about about 3600rpm there was more pressure in the exhaust than there was boost (like almost +20psi higher in the exhaust at peak power). Under that kind of pressure, you want to get the exhaust valve closed as soon as possible to prevent backflow of exhaust into the fresh air in the cylinder. We learned the hard way that things that worked on N/A engines did not necessarily carry over to turbocharged engines. And we were ALWAYS fighting the people for packaging space and cost. While the header May have had to potential to do some good, we'd not be able to afford it on high volume cars. That cast log was dirt cheap, and that's what they wanted. It was quite a fight to get the 1987 Turbo II 2-piece manifold through the system with a high temp exhaust manifold alloy. I was out sick for a few months and when I saw the 1988 intake, i asked "who F-d up my system???). As I was out sick another guy had to do the dyno mapping and tried his hardest. But the airflow dynamics were horrible and the efficiency fell off at high revs. He spent months mapping the fuel/spark curves and sent the package to the Proving ground for emissions calibration. They didn't like what they got and tossed one of my 1987 T II cals in it and it ran better. So they said they were "keeping Stu's Cal". It violated the new, lower cylinder pressure goals, exhaust temps and spark knocked a little. But made the car run better.

    In one meeting the head gasket guy wanted me to keep the same cylinder pressures as the N/A cars of 850psi, when I was up at 1350pis (vs a 1270 mandate) and pushing for more. I asked him (in a pretty sarcastic tone) What do you think makes the piston go down harder?? it's the pressure! He had no clue. But at over 1150psi we started snapping 10mm head bolts. I wanted 12mm studs and NOT 11mm head bolts, as it would have been "bullet proof" and let me get closet to the 200hp I wanted. But the assembly plant said their assembly stations could not handle a mix of bolts and studs. So i had to de-tune the engine and stick to a maximum of 1250. Later we found that if you were to re-torque your head bolts to 90#/ft AFTER it was heat cycled and run hard, they'd last a long time. Even thought the engine plant did a WOT run on every engine, they did not want another operation to re-touque on just the turbos. Time was money and they wanted engines built and shipped.
    Last edited by stuartshomepc; 06-18-2017 at 03:51 AM.

  4. #84
    Mitsu booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    30

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    One engineer was helping us try to Turbo a 3.3L v-6. We were trying to do a "low pressure" 5psi system. He had a GREAT sense of humor in his status report one week. We measured "Beam Torque" off the dyno housing and could calculate engine torque and HP from that.

    He said (something along the lines of) "A sudden loss in beam torque was noted. Upon inspection it was found that the lower and upper halves of the engine had separated and the crankshaft and connecting rods being co-located on the floor was detrimental to producing engine power".

    We blew the B-tch in half in a glorious fashion. From the core plugs the top went up a foot, and the whole bottom end was a mess of parts on the floor. Oil, coolant and engine parts were everywhere. Clean up was usually done with a mop, this time it stated with a shovel as the cast crank was in 3 or 4 pieces. His humor just flew thru the system and the people that had to read/approve it didn't get the joke that the engine blew up. But we sure found the 3.3/38L block was pretty weak.
    Last edited by stuartshomepc; 06-26-2017 at 07:01 PM.

  5. #85
    Garrett booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Southeast VA
    Posts
    138

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Is this the same 3.3 Turbo mentioned above?

    http://www.allpar.com/history/interv...-turbo-33.html

  6. #86
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Aubigny, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    5,088

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by stuartshomepc View Post
    Later we found that if you were to re-torque your mead bolts to 90#/ft AFTER it was heat cycled and run hard, they'd last a long time. Even thought the engine plant did a WOT run on every engine, they did not want another operation to re-touque on just the turbos. Time was money and they wanted engines built and shipped.
    Again, Very interesting to read this now, all these years After having to figure this out and how similar the end result was.

    The first 11 second S/C we built (02-03 I believe) we tq'd the head bolts to 90ft/lbs after 1 good heat cycle. lol (coincidence?) I was trying to figure out what to TQ to for higher boost/ power, most were saying you needed to o-ring the block. Pretty sure i was reading the factory manual where is says to check all the head bolts at 90ft/lbs with TQ wrench that lead us to use that as our Initial high boost TQ.

    Some years later, and after conversations with several others (Stephan, Stramer) I now reTQ through 2 or 3 heat cycles at a slightly lower (87 seems to ring a bell) TQ. The Charger holds 39psi with a decent sized turbo @ around 600WHP using that sequence.

    Hard to believe that most thought you needed O-rings just to run 20+psi back in the day.........

    Robert Mclellan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wambNdfnu5M
    10.04 @ 143.28mph (144.82 highest mph)
    Worlds fastest 8v MTX Shelby Charger
    Manitoba's Fastest 4cyl!
    8 valve, No Nitrous!
    New clutch combo is the SH!T!

  7. #87
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor GLHS60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Sherwood Park Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,640

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    The retorque coincides with what Dave Zelkowski recommended way back before there was even a T-M site!!

    Interesting to read Stu's comments on pressure ratio, pretty much coincides with what you discovered way back.

    Aft the Turbo!!

    Thanks
    Randy


    There is no logical reason to call an Engine a motor.

    Randy Hicks
    86 GLHS60
    86 GLHS 373 : SOLD, but never forgotten
    89 Turbo Minivan
    83 Turbo Rampage : SOLD
    Edmonton,Alberta,Canada

  8. #88
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    2,133

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    Again, Very interesting to read this now, all these years After having to figure this out and how similar the end result was.

    The first 11 second S/C we built (02-03 I believe) we tq'd the head bolts to 90ft/lbs after 1 good heat cycle. lol (coincidence?) I was trying to figure out what to TQ to for higher boost/ power, most were saying you needed to o-ring the block. Pretty sure i was reading the factory manual where is says to check all the head bolts at 90ft/lbs with TQ wrench that lead us to use that as our Initial high boost TQ.

    Some years later, and after conversations with several others (Stephan, Stramer) I now reTQ through 2 or 3 heat cycles at a slightly lower (87 seems to ring a bell) TQ. The Charger holds 39psi with a decent sized turbo @ around 600WHP using that sequence.

    Hard to believe that most thought you needed O-rings just to run 20+psi back in the day.........
    You should see the torque procedure for the pentastar v6.

  9. #89
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Aubigny, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    5,088

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by GLHS60 View Post

    Interesting to read Stu's comments on pressure ratio, pretty much coincides with what you discovered way back.

    Aft the Turbo!!

    Thanks
    Randy
    It's actually the thought process that we have in common, as I never did any pressure testing till just before the F4 cam went in.

    So speculation at that time (and I still hear it now some times) was that the factory exhaust mani was the Big cork in the system. My Lizard brain Knew that could not be the case, and that the turbine wheel/housing combo would always be the greatest restriction. Knowing this, and also understanding that the greatest efficiency that can be obtained from turbocharging (on the exhaust side) comes from the greatest pressure drop, before vs aft the turbine wheel, my focus quickly moved to Improving flow After the turbine housing/wheel.

    So we both focused on the pressure ratio, but I had no hard data to back up my thinking. Just a hunch that I was thinking about the system correctly.

    I'm sure you will remember when I finally placed the pressure tap in the Charger, everyone thought I was going to be at 3:1 or worse because of the power the Charger was making, the boost I was running (37-39psi) and the misconception about exhaust flow coupled with "brainwashing" the community into thinking the stock exhaust mani was some Wall of lost power that had to be the Cork.

    I will admit, even after everything I had done to improve flow, I still believed the Charger was going to be somewhere in the 2:1 range.

    So it was a shock to see just how close to 1:1 it was back then, and how well everything had worked. That should have been a "holy cow" moment for the whole community, but changing minds after so many years of Believing something different is not so easy.

    Robert Mclellan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wambNdfnu5M
    10.04 @ 143.28mph (144.82 highest mph)
    Worlds fastest 8v MTX Shelby Charger
    Manitoba's Fastest 4cyl!
    8 valve, No Nitrous!
    New clutch combo is the SH!T!

  10. #90
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Notre-Dame de L'Ile Perrot, QC
    Posts
    716

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    It's actually the thought process that we have in common, as I never did any pressure testing till just before the F4 cam went in.

    So speculation at that time (and I still hear it now some times) was that the factory exhaust mani was the Big cork in the system. My Lizard brain Knew that could not be the case, and that the turbine wheel/housing combo would always be the greatest restriction. Knowing this, and also understanding that the greatest efficiency that can be obtained from turbocharging (on the exhaust side) comes from the greatest pressure drop, before vs aft the turbine wheel, my focus quickly moved to Improving flow After the turbine housing/wheel.

    So we both focused on the pressure ratio, but I had no hard data to back up my thinking. Just a hunch that I was thinking about the system correctly.

    I'm sure you will remember when I finally placed the pressure tap in the Charger, everyone thought I was going to be at 3:1 or worse because of the power the Charger was making, the boost I was running (37-39psi) and the misconception about exhaust flow coupled with "brainwashing" the community into thinking the stock exhaust mani was some Wall of lost power that had to be the Cork.

    I will admit, even after everything I had done to improve flow, I still believed the Charger was going to be somewhere in the 2:1 range.

    So it was a shock to see just how close to 1:1 it was back then, and how well everything had worked. That should have been a "holy cow" moment for the whole community, but changing minds after so many years of Believing something different is not so easy.
    I still don't believe it.

  11. #91
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Aubigny, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    5,088

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaboon View Post
    I still don't believe it.
    Too Funny Bro!

    Robert Mclellan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wambNdfnu5M
    10.04 @ 143.28mph (144.82 highest mph)
    Worlds fastest 8v MTX Shelby Charger
    Manitoba's Fastest 4cyl!
    8 valve, No Nitrous!
    New clutch combo is the SH!T!

  12. #92
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor mopar-tech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Oakdale CT
    Posts
    2,419

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post

    So it was a shock to see just how close to 1:1 it was back then, and how well everything had worked. That should have been a "holy cow" moment for the whole community, but changing minds after so many years of Believing something different is not so easy.
    Reliant was 1:1 as well.


    Working on clearing the decks.

  13. #93
    Slugmobile & MeanMini Caretaker Turbo Mopar Contributor wheming's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Raleigh Area, NC
    Posts
    4,809

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by mopar-tech View Post
    Reliant was 1:1 as well.
    Where are you checking the pressures for this ratio?
    Wayne H.

    '91 Dodge Spirit ES 2.5L turbo 5spd
    '05 PT GT 2.4T HO autostick (RIP)
    '89 Plymouth Acclaim 2.5L turbo auto, "Slugmobile" yes, THE Slugmobile!
    '89 Dodge Caravan SE 2.5L turbo auto, "Mean Mini" yes, Gus' Mean Mini! (Current best 11.699 @ 114.43 mph! - Oct 15th, 2022 Cecil County Dragway, MD)
    MeanMini dragracing videos: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...URZLB1RxGYF6vw
    and other cars, trucks and motorcycles
    https://www.youtube.com/user/SlugmobileMeanMini

  14. #94
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor mopar-tech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Oakdale CT
    Posts
    2,419

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by wheming View Post
    Where are you checking the pressures for this ratio?
    I did instrumented passes up at NED- I had pressure taps before the intercooler, in the power brake booster bung in the intake, in the number one exhaust port runner, before the turbine inlet and on the outlet side of the turbine as well.

    The results were illuminating.

    Intercooler was badass with no pressure drop noted and there was a slight pressure difference between the exhaust runner and the turbine inlet.

    Next outing will have a tube header to fix that and I was going to replace the intercooler with a smaller unit.


    Working on clearing the decks.

  15. #95
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Aubigny, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    5,088

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by mopar-tech View Post
    Reliant was 1:1 as well.
    That was with the TBI header, correct?

    Robert Mclellan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wambNdfnu5M
    10.04 @ 143.28mph (144.82 highest mph)
    Worlds fastest 8v MTX Shelby Charger
    Manitoba's Fastest 4cyl!
    8 valve, No Nitrous!
    New clutch combo is the SH!T!

  16. #96
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor mopar-tech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Oakdale CT
    Posts
    2,419

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    That was with the TBI header, correct?
    Correct


    Working on clearing the decks.

  17. #97
    Rhymes with tortoise. Turbo Mopar Staff cordes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tuscola, IL
    Posts
    21,441

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    What a thread. Thanks for contributing Mr. Davis.

  18. #98
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spearfish SD
    Posts
    2,038

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    any more juicy info stuart?
    89 Voyager LE, 2.5T2 - rest in peace
    87 Charger Shelby T2 (2.4 conversion in process)

  19. #99
    Mitsu booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    30

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by wowzer View Post
    any more juicy info stuart?
    I'm digging up more information and pictures. Apparently the interest in the history was noticed and I;ll be a "guest speaker" at the SDAC-27 convention to talk more about what we did. Along those lines I am framing a "straw man" for a good flowing discussion, and digging out more pictures. So that's keeping me a little busy.

    BTW, when I try to post any pictures here I get the message "Sorry, you don't have permission to upload photos." I've emailed in asking how, but received no reply.

  20. #100
    Mitsu booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    30

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    It's actually the thought process that we have in common, as I never did any pressure testing till just before the F4 cam went in.

    So speculation at that time (and I still hear it now some times) was that the factory exhaust mani was the Big cork in the system. My Lizard brain Knew that could not be the case, and that the turbine wheel/housing combo would always be the greatest restriction. Knowing this, and also understanding that the greatest efficiency that can be obtained from turbocharging (on the exhaust side) comes from the greatest pressure drop, before vs aft the turbine wheel, my focus quickly moved to Improving flow After the turbine housing/wheel.

    So we both focused on the pressure ratio, but I had no hard data to back up my thinking. Just a hunch that I was thinking about the system correctly.

    I'm sure you will remember when I finally placed the pressure tap in the Charger, everyone thought I was going to be at 3:1 or worse because of the power the Charger was making, the boost I was running (37-39psi) and the misconception about exhaust flow coupled with "brainwashing" the community into thinking the stock exhaust mani was some Wall of lost power that had to be the Cork.

    I will admit, even after everything I had done to improve flow, I still believed the Charger was going to be somewhere in the 2:1 range.

    So it was a shock to see just how close to 1:1 it was back then, and how well everything had worked. That should have been a "holy cow" moment for the whole community, but changing minds after so many years of Believing something different is not so easy.
    This is actually quite true.

    The best way to think of these engines is an "airflow processing capability". you want to get a lot in, and a lot out. So one would be wise to look from the point air goes in, to where it comes out (the tailpipe).

    The exhaust manifold design sure looks like a piece of crap, designed by a bad plumber (no argument there). We worked on that and even designed a nice long runner tubular header for the T II engine. We were all kinda shocked that it really didn't help. The way that the Turbocharger inherently works produces high back pressure. At times I saw upwards of 45psi in the inlet to the turbine. With those pressures, the goal is to just get the exhaust gas out. Larger runners or a more elegant design would only work with a larger turbo, that had reduced turbine inlet pressure. But a larger turbo gave us more lag at launch, something the executives didn't want.

    This high turbine inlet pressure is one reason we went to very low, or no overlap camshafts. As first we applied "naturally Aspirated" thinking and increased overlap, and kept loosing power. We finally realized that we were blowing 12psi boost in, bit were working against 35 to 40psi in the exhaust manifold. So until we went to zero degree overlap cams. or a 5 degree clocked a bit, we picked up power. With any overlap on the cam, we were letting exhaust back into the engine.

    We had a restrictive exhaust system too, especially with the mandrel bends behind the catalyst. We fought hard for an improved exhaust system and it just added cost and most did not see the Return on Investment (ROI). I set up one of our executives wit a 2.5" mandrel bent exhaust and a reduced back pressure catalyst and muffler. It still met emissions and noise requirements and it "woke the car up". Even with that car, and a high level executive pushing for change, there was a "why bother" attitude. Our transmissions/clutches were barely holding up and they didn't want more power. And the Torque steer would just get worse. So getting more power beyond the stock Turbo II was not a priority; launch feel and getting a quicker boost rise was. And the suggestion was for a smaller turbo. I had to put on on a car, even though I tried to explain the dynamics and how it was going to become a "choke point". Well, the car launched great and squealed the tires when it launched. Everyone seemed happy, until the engine "tried" to go above 4800rpm, and was "self governed" as the back-pressure was so hihg not enough inlet air could get in. The proverbial "potato in the Tailpipe". So we were kinda stuck as Garret had noting to offer us. And it was their internal oil ring seal that was an issue as it sealed well, but was to tight is caused a HUGE amount of drag on the turbine at idle. And that is when I got permission and started looking at turbo's from KKK, IHI and finally Mitsubishi (MHI). I set up 2 identical cars and took the executives into a small lab where we had equipment to measure turbine speed. At idle, the Garret turbo was sitting there at 0rpm. The MHI was spinning at 13,000prm already. Typical turbine speeds at full output would be ion the 150,000rpm range, so "starting from something" was better than nothing. And the car with the MHI turbo and equivalent a/r and compressor trim launched much better than the Garrett Turbo. Garrett's response was pretty much "this is what we sell, buy it" yet MHI wanted the business and made multiple changes to accommodate us, including a bit lower internal back-pressure.

    The .48a/r Garrett turbo was all I had to chose from as the .63a/r (aka:"super 60") introduced too much launch lag. I was always beaten up for "turbo lag". They wanted quick boost, and low back pressure at Wide Open Throttle. But twin scroll turbo's were in their infantries then. so the MHI was the best I could get. The VNT was an interesting attempt, but we had extreme difficulties controlling it with modulated pressure to the vane actuator can. It BEGGED for a linear actuator for control, but none would stand up to the heat. Build variability exceeded what our control system could manage. And when the carbon/unison ring (the ring that turned the internal vanes) started sticking, there was nothing we could do to control it. Some would only make 7psi "out of the box", while other screamed up to 20psi and him the maximum boost fuel shut off. And the program died quickly.

    The T III was more of a politically driven desire to get Lotus involved. We could have done it, but were not given the task to develop the head. Public relations and executive agenda's made the decision to build that head with Lotus. A 200hp/liter engine was promised by Lotus, and Chrysler engineering could have done it (given the chance). Within the first week I heard of their peak RPM target of beyond 7000rpm. It brought up an issue that I fought for year of fuel injector minimum flow (needed to be stable and consistent for good idle quality) and the maximum flow (called "turn Down Ratio"). The bottom like was there was not enough open intake valve time to get the fuel in at higher engine speeds, and still get a decent idle quality. I was told I was wrong. Same thing on the way I designed the Charge Air Cooler (intercooler) by routing the hot air into the bottom (the cars of that era had a high pressure air zone below the bumper, so I put the hot air part of the where the most cold air was coming in. Lotus put the hot air in the top, charged Chrysler $250,000 for a wind tunnel study to show it worked better with the hot air going into the bottom of the core (just like I designed it) and I blew a gasket. I was supposed to spearhead the T III program but I knew it was going to be a fight of "we're smarter that you are", and I asked to be removed. In the end, they had to ramp the boost down from 12psi to 9, as gee, they were out of injector flow. And the Turbo they picked was wrong and was turning so fast it was way out of it's efficiency zone, resulting in very high turbine out temperatures. just like I had told then in the original meetings. The engineer that had to do the calibration had an awefull time with it. He kept fighting to get 12psi through the rev range and called me down to the dyno to get my opinion. I was one of the quickest and best WOT fuel/spark mapping people, but there was nothing I could do. Exhaust gas temperatures were too high, it was too lean. After about an hour I said "this will never work. Match the boost to fuel flow". He did it and it brought everything down where the target temps needed to be. But when he had to inform management about the boost reductions at high engine speeds, they didn't like the facts and had him try again. It was a lost cause. I was SO glad that I stepped out early. Did they make their goals? yeh, Could it have been a better performing engine?? Some of your members showed it could have and DID get more power out of it.

    BUT, even on that motor, the exhaust manifold was crap, but it did make decent power. The Maserati Turbo exhaust had some good qualities, but the runner diameter was too small.

    In the end, we decided that the exhaust manifold design was really not as important as matching the right turbo and getting a good calibration. So we put our available hours there.

    So was the manifold good? Nope. Did it matter as much as other things? Nope. So why optimize what had little return on investment? We had to "pick our battles" as we were such a small group.
    Stuart

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Engine (2) Older turbo engines FREE
    By mpgmike in forum Parts For Sale
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-15-2013, 06:25 PM
  2. Why do turbo engines have such low oil PSI?
    By 87yorker in forum 2.2L/2.5L 16V Hybrid conversions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 08:32 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •