Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 129

Thread: Development of the Turbo engines

  1. #61
    boostaholic Turbo Mopar Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Columbia City, Indiana
    Posts
    1,222

    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.
    Rob, as I was reading through Stu's posts, that was exactly what I thought. It seemed to parallel what you & Gary have been saying for a long time.


    Mr. Davis, please keep posting! I love reading about the experimentation you were able to do being a factory engineer. The history on these cars is absolutely fascinating to me!

    Thank you so much for joining and sharing!!!

  2. #62
    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

    Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge and experience. I appreciate reading about all the development history and anecdotes. The Porsche engineer one made me smile, (I've worked with some Germans, so I could picture it!)

    I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with for your new project. There are some very skilled folks here that have made some products for our small community. And almost everything you point out is put into practice by several of us.
    However even the end user has to deal with compromises from the "bean counters" and the "upper management", since most of us are married!

    I'd be curious if there were any particular items that you might want to develop, or provide engineering for someone to produce that could benefit us?
    There are a few new cam profiles out there, but maybe they aren't fully optimized for our particular dynamics.

    As you can see, lots of us are super excited to have you here, and are loading you up with questions. Please let us know if we need to back off, so we don't run you off!
    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

  3. #63
    Mitsu booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    30

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by crusty shadow View Post
    man that looks a lot like the setup i had in mind for when i plan on going with the big turbo later on down the road. my line of thinking was to use a air to liquid cooler roughly in place of where the air filter housing would be, use a nice thick core with plenty of flow capability and shortest possible charge pipes between the turbo and throttle body in order to help reduce lag. didnt think of installing the charge air temp sensor directly in the intercooler like that though
    hate to say it, but "been there, done that..." it DID work great! We ALWAYS had idiots that somehow got in the management chain and it squashed this idea. I once said it was "water to air (vs antifreeze to air cooled) and he put his foot down that the water would freeze in the winter. No matter how much I tried to get the story straight, it was always referred to as the "water to air" charge air cooler, and given a "thumbs down". I had the luxury of building a 3/4 gallon holding tank under that battery tray, as well as a full size A/C condenser. So we had LOTS of coolant. And with a high flow fuel pump moving the water ('er glycol/water mix) we never had a problem with heating the charge air cooler coolant up. And we beat the crap out of the car. Volume of fluid is good, bigger heat exchange's are better (in my opinion). LOTS of coolant flow is important too! I think my pump was rated at 50gallons/hr at low pressure.

    And I put the air temp sensor there as the "stock" one picked up too much heat from the back of the engine. It's tip barely protruded into the airflow, so I never got good readings. It worked better here in the charge air cooler. If anyone noticed, we took the charge air temp sensor off of 1988 and beyond turbo's (until we needed it again). I had tons of data that showed it tracked within 10 degrees of engine temp. From cold start to WOT runs. Since the sensor and the wiring was $8, per car we took it off. Some of the Europeans put it in the duct prior to the throttle body, probably for the same reason.

  4. #64
    Mitsu booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    30

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    The BIGGEST thing that I can stress is to treat the whole thing as an airflow machine. Production bends in the exhaust are performance killers. A system made from Mandrel bends is great. 2.5” is fine. 3” is hard to package. BUT: Everyone asks me "how do I get more boost" (ie: more air in" but rarely does someone ask me "how do I get it all out more efficiently". Think of a full balloon, discharging through a straw. LOTS of pressure in, not enough flow area out.

    here is a side note front he VNT project. Since we could manipulate the vane angle not only did we determine turbine speed, but exhaust outlet flow area. I had a blue Lebaron Automatic with a VNT when others were doing MTX's. We were up at Pikes Peak (14,000ft) and when I went to move the car, the vnt vanes shut to the min position to get boost. After all, that would make the car move right! (Wrong) The vane angle was so small that the exhaust was choked off and there was very little airflow. We all stood there staring at the car, which had 12psi boost, yet would not move. SO BOOST does not always =POWER. Boost and airflow does! Four of us had to push it down a small hill to get it going. That pretty much cancelled the ATX part of the program. The MTX is a whole different story.

    And I had a friend at Crane camshafts that send me dozens of cams, and I ran them all looking for the "magic one". There was none. Some would give 5ft-#'s at low rpm, some would give 10hp at the top but be a dog below 3600rpm. Now granted, I was looking for one for production and suddenly it you drew a thick marker through all the torque and HP curves, none stood out. Again, that was with a catalyst and standard turbo. We found more benefit with added lift, but then we got into valve spring coil bind and fracture. Nothing spoils your day like a broken valve spring at 6200 rpm, and the piston slamming the valve into the combustion chamber. I'll look at the "mopar performance" cams and see if the "super 60" is like what we were all running in our cars. But zero degree overlap was a good choice. But if you think about a turbo engine and scavaging , these are NOT Naturally aspirated engines where some overlap helps. As usually a NA race engine would have headers that would set up negative pressure pulses at the exhaust port, so some overlap would work with that and "pull" more air through the combustion chamber. That's a WHOLE different airflow scheme. Minimizing pressure drop EVERYWHERE is the key on a turbo.

    One thing that I would develop (again as I did it before) would be a water/methanol (hell, windshield washer fluid) injection. I had a system that I wrote some code, that controlled a power transistor that would duty cycled a spare washer solvent tank pump and ran it thru the baro read solenoid (most of us only need to read baro on key on, unless you live where you are in the mountains). At 7psi it was 25%, 10psi was 50%, 12 psi was 75% and only "burst knock" could trigger a 100% shot.

    I introduced it just prior to the turbine inlet (which turned it blue ) but turned it from liquid to vapor.. but in doing that process the latent heat of vaporization chilled the incoming air down to hear freezing due to the methanol. At firsts we thought "more is better" but soon found we were back on the dyno mapping it out. I "think" we settled on a 0.015" dia orifice (don't quote me on that until I look at my old notes). We seemed to have discovered 2 things;

    1. the methanol being drawn into the turbo (a low pressure) evaporated it (probably the water too). We would see compressor outlet temps drop at least 50 degrees. So that put less heat into the charge air cooler, which is good. As we increase orifice sizes, we didn't see much more of a compressor outlet temp drop and yet we saw a falloff in torque. That perplexed us.
    2. We also saw an increase in efficiency of the charge air cooler (5%, but anything was welcome). We "theorized" it was the water, not the alcohol. We only had a day to do this so we didn't write a PHd thesis on it, just bootlegged some dyno time to see what it would do.

    So we mapped out some boost pressures, water flow rates (ie: orifice sizes) and octane sensitivity. And reach a good "compromise point. We were all "chicken" to put it in our own car so I put it on a test car, but in 87 octane fuel, an 12psi "premium fuel calibration and off we went (half expecting to call a tow truck when the engine blew). But it worked great! Soon dozens of us put it on our cars. Others "po-poo'd" it as a gimmick as they tried "water injection" and lost power (yeah, but we used 50% methanol, but could not change their minds).

    But whatever we did reduced charge temperatures and octane sensitivity, without reducing power. The best part was that "if" something bad happened and you got spark knock, it would give it a shot of this stuff and stop it dead in its tracks.

    The downside (there always is one) is that we just grabbed a bunch of orifices from the old "carburetor lab", and they looked like brass. But once a month is would corrode closes. i would that running the smallest tip cleaning rod from my oxy-acetalyne torch was just the right size.

    So "If" I had a nice mandrel bent 2.5 " exhaust system, no catalyst, a ball bearing turbo, a larger charge air cooler, big valve head (and other know engine mods) and figured "I've done it all, I'd try this methanol/water injection system. Putting it it the production code was hard, but there are controllers like the Ardriono, basic stamp and others that one could put it in. Again, just a little went a long way.
    Last edited by stuartshomepc; 03-23-2017 at 11:14 PM.

  5. #65
    boostaholic
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,241

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Mcmaster stocks stainless sprayer nozzles with built in filter screens. 3178K42 etc $8 or so each. Watercraft N424-36 jets are nickel plated for about the same price. Both would probably would hold up pretty well to a 50/50 mix.

    Best thread evar BTW..
    MinivanRider

  6. #66
    Mitsu booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    30

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    How the Turbo II almost never saw the light of day, or production
    some of us are (well,old enough) to remember the recession of the 1980's. In about 1978 whole area's of Chrysler were laid off and many buildings sat dark. Why turn on the lights if there was no one in there. The complex was huge, yet barely occupied. In August 1982 there were a a few open jobs. Not many. I applied and got rejected (don't know why). My dad (who passed away in 1977) was good friends with Lee Iaccoca. We actually were at his house a few times. So I thought :what have I got to loose and wrote Mr. Iaccoca a letter saying he knew my father and I was friend with is daughter. I got a form letter back from someone under him with a "thanks for your interest but..... (rejection letter). But a week later I got a phone call on Wednesday to come down for an all-day interview on Thursday, and to start Friday. Start what job? it though, but since I had looked from March to August and could not even get an interview, I was not going to turn down ANY paying job.

    They interviewed me in the wiring lab (boring), battery lab, cooling lab (and I though “well, at least that one would be testing, hot trips and stuff in the wind tunnel). It was not what I expected. The last interview was called Advanced Engine Systems Development (AESD). It was an empty room that they wanted to fill with college grads that knew cars and could figure out how to do emissions, fuel injection, calibration and a small group to do Turbo's. Half the lights were turned off and the manager that was to interview me was 1.5hrs late. So I just sat there thinking “looks like I’ll be designing radiators”, and sighed as I was an engine guy.


    Finally the Manager showed up, nearly out of breath and bombed me with the normal interview process (degree, GPA, experience, interests). I did say I liked rebuilding cars and build a hot rod 1969 Camaro from about scratch. He asked if I knew anything about turbo's? “Well, yeh, I have a Mustang Turbo Cobra with an aftermarket turbo, adjustable wastegate from the driver’s seat and water injection. He sat up and said "you know anything about software?" and I said "well, I write basic, FORTRAN, pascal and a little assembly code". Now he was really interested and asked “would you happen to know anything about vehicle emissions?” “I said “sir if you look at my resume’ you’ll see that I spent 3 summers calibrating carburetors for emissions compliance at Ford, even the Turbo Mustang and Capri”.


    He about fell out of his chair and said "You’re hired". I was a bit shy and had to ask "for what?" and his answer was "to work on the initial 1984 turbo problems we have, get them to pass emissions and then get higher output turbos since I've already done some work there". I could not hide my smile.

    He then asked “would you happen to know anything about Turbocharger “A over R” ratio’s, as I need to go to a meeting tomorrow to talk about it and don’t have a clue what it is”. I explained it’s an odd calculation but basically the area of the exhaust outlet of the turbine scroll that feeds the turbine wheel, and the radius of the turbine wheel. (kinda rough but it was enough for him not to be stupid). So he wanted me to come, even though I was not signed on as an employee


    He said “I want you here for an 8am meeting, so show up at 7:30. I asked “aren’t I supposed to sign papers or something? And he said “you’ll do that after the meeting”. That’s when I met Pete Hagenbuch, who was in charge of the main engine development programs. He was trying to figure out compression ratio, turbo size and all the other engine parameters. He was a pretty imposing man (size wise), smart and always had a cup of tea or smoked a pipe. He and I would work together a lot as I tried to push for more performance (like increasing cylinder pressures from 1000psi to 1250 then 1350, and he kept telling me (after a puff on his pipe) “you just can’t do that”. I worked with the engine and gasket people for better parts and 11mm head bolts, and got my 1250psi. After that, he had more respect for me.


    But we were out of ideas for calibration and hardware for performance mods that were "production feasible". Increased boost or compression ratio cause spark knock. Cam phasing or dual cams were too expensive. Some though "this is all we can do".

    I had moonlighted rebuilding diesels (in stinky vegetable delivery trucks, after hours in the worst part of Detroit from 6pm to 5am). So I knew turbo’s and had knowledge of what a charge air cooler was. So I built a matrix of things we “could do”. Some were not practical like Nitrous, but the assignment was to get every and any idea on paper, no matter how “far out” it was. Dual turbo’s was on it, water injection, cam phasing, boost/octane switches, two step cams, a “normal catalyst” and then a bypass to a low back pressure one (for reduced backpressure/more HP), charge air coolers and more. In the end it was a close call between water/menthol injection and charge air coolers. But it came down to the fact that in cold climates we could not rely on people putting “just water” in, which in Michigan would freeze. So only “passive” systems were determined feasible. A lot of other tech (like cam phasing) just was not mature in 1984, and it would cost a lot. So the Charge air cooler won out. It was my preferred choice anyway. And as luck would have it the 1984 SVO Mustang turbo with a charge air cooler had just come out. So the choice was easy. Clearly it “could” be done.


    I obtained both a Renault Fuego turbo intercooled car and an SVO Mustang as “test cars. The Fuego had the intercooler out in front, and the SVO Mustang had it on top of the engine (with air exchange through hood louvers). My job was to identify the strength and weaknesses of each. I instrumented them to collect pressure drop, temperature, boost lag time and more. Then basically “drove it like I stole it!” as they all had to be evaluated in boost conditions.


    Each had its strengths and weaknesses. But I favored the Mustang, for a while. I took the Mustang on a hot trip to Phoenix when it was 128 degrees outside. We had a test procedure where we’d run the cars hard around the track to peak temperature, and then put them in these 3 sided walled area for 30 minutes to keep any wind off. The goal was to see “if” they’d hot re-start. And if so we had to get in them and drive with MAX A/C until the passenger compartment was about 85 degrees. Lucky me, the mustang was black with black leather seats. The steering wheel temperature was 176 degrees one day when I crawled in. It was awful. Later in the day, as we sat in the blazing sun with no shade waiting the 30 minutes, and sweating my A$$ off, as were my colleagues. This was long before the formal Chrysler Arizona Proving grounds were built, and we rented track time at the International Harvester industrial equipment facility. It was rough.



    As we sat there I stared at the mustang and noticed that “mirage” wavy heat line effect, and it was coming out of the hood vent on the Mustang. Of course I thought, “duh it was freaking hot and the only way out for the heat. I talked to my fellow engineers about it and we all thought it was a strange design. If you got in the vehicle from that hot soak and drove it hard, man did it spark knock and retard spark and boost.


    The next day I brought out hot dogs and buns. My friends looked at me like I was an idiot as there was no BBQ grill out there. I did a few “hot laps” on the Mustang, pulled in the soak area and waited 10 minutes. Then put the hot dogs on and listened to them sizzle. After that we nicknamed that design “the Hibachi”. Our management said that we had louvers in our hood and really wanted to pursue a similar design, bet “the Hibachi” story and the fact that we used our hood louvers to let the hot air out so the fuel in the injectors would not boil and make the car not hot start, dropped that “Hibachi” design for us. Especailly as we knew that our cars would not hot start with the charge air cooler blocking the way out for underhood heat.

    But then came the “now what?” question.


    I put charge air coolers out front, with the air running the length of the radiator. The cooling performance was great but the turbo lag was awful. I soon developed a matrix of “maximum volume” for acceptable turbo lag and that included the charge air cooler and hoses. When they saw my target, people said “that’s impossible” as everyone wanted the one out in front of thr radiator, a it was easy to package, but the turbolag was aweful. But I had already stood a Garret/Fuego core up behind the radiator and it had good metrics for lag, but not for cooling performance. It was an aweful core design anyway. Low pressure drop but also low cooling efficiency. But the idea for the “side by side” was cemented in my head.


    So the AESD/Turbo group was some pretty “young” college grads with 2 to 4 yrs of experience. And the other parts of the corporation were those that is not get laid off in 1978, or the “old dogs, set it their ways”. They were resistant to change.


    We had a “mock up” area that was powder blue front end bucks and you’d actually go measure stuff off of them, or try parts on them. We had NO computer renderings, just those phusical assets. I made a “blue foam” mockup of the “side by side” and prior to the weekly design review I had the mechanic pull the radiator. As the review progressed and I was up, I unwrapped it and stuck it in place. To me it was a work of art but to all those who had to do work to change their part, like a throttle cable and bracket, it was “no way”. One by one we got through each issue, except one. There was a gray haired guy that controlled the heater hoses and I needed him to move a plastic 3 way valve from next to the battery to under the battery. I needed that space next to the battery tray to run the lower hose to the charge air cooler.


    “Absolutely NOT!” was his reply. It’ll never pass durability (if you’ve ever seen the Jeff Dunham Ventriloquist, this guy looked like his puppet “Walter”, crossed arms, scowl and gruff attitude). I had the “WTF” look as why won’t it pass by just moving it?? After a few minutes I asked him why it passed now but would not pass under the battery tray?? He just said "it just won’t, we’re not moving it. Finally the program manager (same generation) asked “why, what’s the failure mode that you are worried about?" And the guy would talk to him (but not me, the young kid).


    “Well, the battery acid will eat the plastic valve material”. We all stood there dumbfounded and asked “how come the battery tray can be plastic and it passes?” and he said he did know how as all the batteries leak acid from the caps. I said “we have sealed batteries now, they don’t have caps and they don’t leak acid”. He replied “really, when did we do that?” (About a decade ago gramps….). And with that, he bought off on relocating the valve.


    But the whole program almost got cancelled because this guy had not kept up with technology, and still though that you had to pop the battery caps and add acid once and a while, or that the batteries leaked acid.


    And one small heater control valve placement about cancelled the whole Turbo II program. Every time I see one of those old “squeeze bulb” battery acid testers, I think of how that engineer was so out of touch and about killed my program. And how set in his ways he was.


    As time went on, our manager tasked us with “Challenge the existing paradigm”, basically, don’t let decisions made in the late 1970’s compromise the future vehicles. More new engineers came in and slowly others retired and in about 1990 the company was receptive to new ideas, like “cab forward” designs and more.

    So one little heater conrtoll valve almost stopped the Turbo II design. Hard to believe.

  7. #67
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wastelands of NJ
    Posts
    729

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Fascinating!!!

  8. #68
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor 2.216VTurbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    SoCal the OC
    Posts
    6,675

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    So did someone *eat* those Hibaichi Hot Dogs?

    AJ (no More Alan) 84 Rampage RT TIII/568 Quaife 87 GLHS dealer optioned Red 16V Masi/568/Quaife
    90 Masi 16V White/Ginger/Black
    89 TC Masi 16V Red/Ginger/Black
    86 GLHS #110 RoadRace Built 89 CSX-VNT Recaro Car
    89 Turbo Mini 'Woody' 85 GLHT 'RedBox'
    2014 Explorer DD'r 3.5Twin Turbo Ecoboost AWD and 500HP
    My profile page has over 20,000 views, I'm somebody LOL

  9. #69
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spearfish SD
    Posts
    2,038

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    time to sticky this history....
    89 Voyager LE, 2.5T2 - rest in peace
    87 Charger Shelby T2 (2.4 conversion in process)

  10. #70
    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

    What a great story!!

    No wonder the 1987 T-II cars didn't get cruise control.

    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

  11. #71
    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 stuartshomepc View Post
    Hard to believe.
    Not surprised at all, for years I ran into the "not invented here" syndrome.

    I'd smile and state but like the bumblebee it works.


    Working on clearing the decks.

  12. #72
    Hybrid booster Turbo Mopar Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    long island
    Posts
    333

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Must have been the same guy that ran the brake lines under the Plymouth Volare/ Dodge Aspen battery trays. Yes, Chrysler had a recall for that too. He probably looked like Walter because Chrysler must have ripped him a new one for that screw up.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] 86 Daytona Turbo Z C/S with a full 89 Shelby swap, back on the road and soon to be painted (and lose that Oggie Fisher black) 83 Porsche 944, 5 speed, all stock. 2014 Toyota Tacoma 4x4, 5 speed, daily driver. 2017 Trek 1.2 bicycle.

  13. #73
    boostaholic Turbo Mopar Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Columbia City, Indiana
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Awesome story!

    None of that really surprises me though. My Dad was an engineer for Dana for 30 years. Hose & coupling division. He worked with engineers all the time from the "Big 3" setting up machines to make brake & A/C lines. Some of the absolutely stupid stories he would come home and tell me just amazed me any car ever made it to production & was safe....

    Since he really hated Ford, there were a lot of stupid stories of Ford screw ups, but Chrysler and GM had their fair share as well... I won't dilute this thread with any of those tales, let's just suffice it to say there was some scary stuff that did make it to production, and even scarier stuff that he had to convince them to scrap...

  14. #74
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    2,133

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    I love reading all these old stories about development. I doubt many car enthusiasts have the opportunity to talk with the guys who engineered their cars.

  15. #75
    Garrett booster
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    171

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    You really need to bring that Daytona you acquired from California and yourself to SDAC ... even just bring some pictures and no lectures lol
    86 GLH-S #315

  16. #76
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    san diego, california
    Posts
    1,548

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    just when I though this thread was great, these stories made it the much more awesome! thank you so much for the history, great reads!

    couple things though

    We found more benefit with added lift, but then we got into valve spring coil bind and fracture. Nothing spoils your day like a broken valve spring at 6200 rpm, and the piston slamming the valve into the combustion chamber
    was the problem with coil bind because you couldn't use a different valve spring or installed height, or maybe a longer valve? just wondering why you couldn't (or they wouldn't) let you get around this problem?

    He and I would work together a lot as I tried to push for more performance (like increasing cylinder pressures from 1000psi to 1250 then 1350, and he kept telling me (after a puff on his pipe) “you just can’t do that”. I worked with the engine and gasket people for better parts and 11mm head bolts, and got my 1250psi
    ive been running "t3" pistons and a 287 head, although with "e85" (and I was able to run 14 psi on premium), but the engine loves it, I should really figure out my actual compression ratio...

    did you have any part in flex fuel stuff or just the turbo program?
    Last edited by OmniLuvr; 03-24-2017 at 04:30 PM.

  17. #77
    See me ride out of the sunset... Turbo Mopar Staff BadAssPerformance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Chicagoland!
    Posts
    27,688

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Mr. Davis - Welcome to TM and great to hear your stories and information! Turbo-Mopar and SDAC community appreciates all of your efforts! Please check your Private Messages

    JT
    SDAC Director
    SDAC-Chicago President
    JOIN SDAC and your local Chapter TODAY! - SUPPORT the CLUB that supports YOUR HOBBY!
    87 Shelby Z - 10.50@141.66mph
    87 CSX #751 Clone - 12.88@102.88mph

    www.badassperformance.com
    Check out Turbo-Mopar Times!
    Submit your 1/4 mile times HERE!!

    Support SDAC! Join Today!
    "I'm not some pro athlete with a bajillion dollars, I'm just an every man"
    Note: The information and any images provided in this post are not for distribution outside this forum without the author's permission.

  18. #78
    Mitsu booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    30

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    Quote Originally Posted by OmniLuvr View Post
    just when I though this thread was great, these stories made it the much more awesome! thank you so much for the history, great reads!

    couple things though



    was the problem with coil bind because you couldn't use a different valve spring or installed height, or maybe a longer valve? just wondering why you couldn't (or they wouldn't) let you get around this problem?
    We had stiffer springs that would wear out the "sliders on the camshaft/lifter. We had to like with the stock valve seat position and center-line of the cam, so we could no use longer springs. In the end we ended up with those tapered springs (we called them "Bee-Hive" as they would collapse just a bit inside itself and not go into coil bind. But we pretty much had to five with too much "production geometry" and just could not make it better. [/QUOTE]




    did you have any part in flex fuel stuff or just the turbo program?
    Yes, I worte the software, did about 50% of the calibration work and a lOT of hardware development. A guy named Dennis Soltis and I made the first ones up. I patented the software that adjust the fuel based on the type of fuel and the energy content http://www.google.co.in/patents/US5335637

    We were building Dodge Spirits/Plymouth Acclaim's at that time. Chrysler made a commercial that was broadcast on all the local TV stations, the "gear head ones and even CNN. I was the guy in the commercial. I'll have to see if I can dig up that video. It was qucik and just showed me fueling and driving the car, but I was on TV!

    But talk about a way NOT to run a development program. Dennis and I were given a deadline to go on a hot trip that was alrady planned, and had 2 empty slots on the car carrier. So some brainiac decided to send us and 2 cars. Yet we didn't even have software written or a running engine! We decided to slap a big set of injectors in a regular car (without all the compatible "flex fuel parts like fuel tank and fuel lines, valves and more). I had one week to write the software and I was working feverishly trying to get the "flex" part of the feature working. They were running an engine on a dyno and giving us data, but we didn't know what to do with it.

    Our office was on the 2nd floor and of course the cars were downstairs, but coincidentally Dennis moved the cars right under our windows. The first few software versions either didn't work or things like the fuel pulse width would adjust, but the spark wound not. Some "new" iterations flat out would not start the car. Poor Dennis, he had to get my new software, run down a 2 high flights of stairs and plug in the chip. And another "no Start" or it would fart and smoke or feature would not take the calibration change The back upstairs to wait for me to write another version, and run back down. He got wore out.

    That was Wednesday and we were supposed to have a cur running by Friday. I was working hard, but missing things and something the software would just "lock up". One version turned on the fuel pump and the injectors. Dennis pulled the key out and they all kept running. Fuel even ran out the tailpipe. Thank god the software bug would not let the engine turn over! that would have bent the connecting rods.

    Given the right amount of time I would have flow charted the strategy, double checked it and then wrote it. But we were told we had 7 to 10 days, and then we'd be loading the cars as another group was going to Phoenix, and they figured we'd go too (would have been nice to have a running car when that decision was made). On the 3rd day of writing software Dennis opened the office window before heading down for his first attempt at my "new" version. It was hot out and the A/C was on in the office and I asked him "why", and he said "you'll find out. So that morning I looked at all the code, and wrote a new version. Dennis ran down and plugged it in. It kinda worked but I was still having troubles when we varied the alcohol content (we just hard codded it in RAM vs changing fuel. It was a quick way to check the features. And "my best" didn't work. CRAP! Dennis just yelled into the open window what did/didn't work, and I'd wiz up a new version of software.

    When it was ready I yelled for him to come up and get it. He said "No, bring it to the window!" And there he stood with a baseball mitt and told me to "just throw the chip down!". He caught them and we finally got it working.

    I actually wrote a better version of software and patented it. But few people understood it and what they wrote was not "exactly" what I intended. http://www.google.ch/patents/US5970968

    What I wanted was a system with a "base" fuel table but more importantly a master table of fuel/air vs Speed and MAP. And using a wide range Oxygen sensor I could find out right away if I was at or away for the target fuel air goal. Most engines you could develop this fuel/air vs speed and load table for throughout its whole operating range. And it was done. So I wanted a system that would ALWAYS be in O2 feedback, using a wide range fuel/air sensor. So it would work on any fuel (I even injected Propane into the throttle body and the feature quickly figured out where the pulse width had to be). Not only would the feature adjust for any fuel, it would also build a 2nd adaptive matrix to remember offset form the nominal base fuel maps. So say someone changed a muffler, turbo and sir filter. Rather than need a new calibration, the feature would just change the 2nd adaptive table to update for hardware changes.

    But, Chrysler didn't want to put the $18 in for the wide range sensor, saw no need for my feature, and the patent office wrote it ore along the lines of my other "Gasoline/Alcohol" patents. But we could have had a "self calibrating car" for fuel tables. In the late 1980's, they just "didn't get it", it was too far ahead of its time.

    I also helped build and administer to a Methanol (M85) turbo fleet that we but 20 minivans out in Sacramento California. The "tree huggers" were all on board for methanol, until the toxicity and transportation issue came up. The high octane of Methanol let us run 12:1 compression and 12psi boost. The vans just "hauled ---". They were called "Gasoline Tolerant Methanol vehicles (GTMV's).



  19. #79
    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
    I actually wrote a better version of software and patented it. But few people understood it and what they wrote was not "exactly" what I intended. http://www.google.ch/patents/US5970968

    What I wanted was a system with a "base" fuel table but more importantly a master table of fuel/air vs Speed and MAP. And using a wide range Oxygen sensor I could find out right away if I was at or away for the target fuel air goal. Most engines you could develop this fuel/air vs speed and load table for throughout its whole operating range. And it was done. So I wanted a system that would ALWAYS be in O2 feedback, using a wide range fuel/air sensor. So it would work on any fuel (I even injected Propane into the throttle body and the feature quickly figured out where the pulse width had to be). Not only would the feature adjust for any fuel, it would also build a 2nd adaptive matrix to remember offset form the nominal base fuel maps. So say someone changed a muffler, turbo and sir filter. Rather than need a new calibration, the feature would just change the 2nd adaptive table to update for hardware changes.

    But, Chrysler didn't want to put the $18 in for the wide range sensor, saw no need for my feature, and the patent office wrote it ore along the lines of my other "Gasoline/Alcohol" patents. But we could have had a "self calibrating car" for fuel tables. In the late 1980's, they just "didn't get it", it was too far ahead of its time.


    CMD AFR's back in the late 80's!........So Cool

    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!

  20. #80
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wastelands of NJ
    Posts
    729

    Re: Development of the Turbo engines

    These stories are great! Can you please tell us about the 16V headed engine you had in 84 or so?

Page 4 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
  •