just hope a spambot doesnt havest all these addresses...maybe we should have used (at) instead of @......

No just leave it with @ cause there is no way I am typing 20 addresses

Thank you goatnipple, for your hard work and dedication. We are eternally grateful. Thanks for the responses and pictures, now i'm wondering how someone does the exhaust plumbing to the turbo and away from the turbo.

quote Originally posted by SCCA FIERO: I have an old Miller-Woods turbo kit in my 88 IMSA t-top. I've hacked up the kit a tad and will add a bigger turbo after I finish with the body. I've added a Spearco liquid intercooler and a Tial blow off valve with a Johnson water pump pumping coolant through the exchangers mounted in the sidescoops. Nothing was cut out to make it all work. The motor is a crate shortblock with a few goodies including a Crower turbo grind cam. It ran a 14.5 at 93 MPH with the old tiny turbo. I never did get a real good run in and pretty sure it's a high 13 second car.

Thanks for the pix. Yours looks like it was a reasonably straightforward installation.

I've two questions about your project with that Miller-Woods turbo kit whose answers hopefully you can share with us:

1. Do you recall the compression ratio you were running successfully before adding the intercooler you mentioned?

2. Do you recall the intake and exhaust duration specs for that "Crower turbo grind cam" you mentioned? (I don't see any cam in Crower's current on-line catalog that they've highlighted as being useful for 60-degree V6 turbo motors, so I'm guessing the Crower turbo grind you mentioned either was a discontinued grind no longer available off-the-shelf, or a custom grind that would one have to request from Crower if one gave them the general specs for it.)

am i coming in to late for that PDF manual? marcus_lucero@hotmail.com

nope ill send it to ya to give Goatnipples a hand

[This message has been edited by jstntlvr (edited 09-15-2007).]

quote Originally posted by jstntlvr: nope ill send it to ya to give Goatnipples a hand

Can you send it to me, I still haven't gotten it. 10Q

Sorry I haven't sent it. I will. I work 25 hours just between sat & sun. I get a break today I only work 9.5 instead of 10.5 hours, but tomorrow is 8am-9:30pm.

E-mails sent.

I don't check my PMs very often, but I did just now.

[This message has been edited by goatnipples2002 (edited 09-15-2007).]

Now you can download the Chevy Power Manual from my website.

LINK

Sweet...You should start another thread titled something that will be easily found through the search.

[This message has been edited by goatnipples2002 (edited 09-16-2007).]

quote Originally posted by project34: Thanks for the pix. Yours looks like it was a reasonably straightforward installation. I've two questions about your project with that Miller-Woods turbo kit whose answers hopefully you can share with us: 1. Do you recall the compression ratio you were running successfully before adding the intercooler you mentioned? 2. Do you recall the intake and exhaust duration specs for that "Crower turbo grind cam" you mentioned? (I don't see any cam in Crower's current on-line catalog that they've highlighted as being useful for 60-degree V6 turbo motors, so I'm guessing the Crower turbo grind you mentioned either was a discontinued grind no longer available off-the-shelf, or a custom grind that would one have to request from Crower if one gave them the general specs for it.)

My engine is a GM shortblock with stock pistons and rods. The compression is stock 8.9-1.

I have a timing spec sheet I got with the cam... I just need to find it. I called Crower and talked to a guy that helped me spec out a cam for this motor. Basically I told him what I had and what I wanted. It's a mild cam, but has less overlap to trap boost. I'm also running 1.6 roller rockers.

Plumbing the intercooler wasn't too tough. I had to reclock the turbo and run the pipes from the turbo to the IC under the tranny. The hardest part was finding a place for the IC and not cut anything. The fuel vapor canister is mounted where the air intake water trap was. The vacuum can for the cruise control (this needed to be relocated for the intial kit install) is now mounted behind the driver's rear tire up in the bumper.

I also have a stock 87GT 5 speed and the difference in power is very noticable.

quote Originally posted by SCCA FIERO: My engine is a GM shortblock with stock pistons and rods. The compression is stock 8.9-1. I have a timing spec sheet I got with the cam... I just need to find it. I called Crower and talked to a guy that helped me spec out a cam for this motor. Basically I told him what I had and what I wanted. It's a mild cam, but has less overlap to trap boost.

Thanks for your answer about using stock compression (8.9:1) with that Miller-Woods turbo kit on your 2.8L.

If you find the spec sheet for that Crower turbo cam, that would be VERY helpful, as the information I've been able to find on turbo cams sometimes seems contradictory. One thing that IS consistent is a desire for minimal overlap with a turbo cam (to trap boost, as you've mentioned).

However, I sometimes see recommendations that a turbo engine should use a cam duration on the INTAKE that is longer (numerically higher) than that on the exhaust, which is the complete OPPOSITE of what one sees with any split-pattern cams (unequal intake and exhaust durations) for normally aspirated engines.

Regardless of whether your Crower cam spec sheet calls for that longer duration on the intake or not, I'd find your cam specs useful because I want to try the same thing you did in the early stage of your build: a turbo kit, no intercooler, mild compression, mild boost, and a mild turbo cam.

By the way, how many pounds of boost were you running successfully prior to installing the intercooler?

If anybody else wants the power manual, PM me from now on.

Isn't a compression ratio of 8.9 to 1 just a bit too high for turbocharging or is the cut off at 9 to 1???????????????/ Ed

quote Originally posted by Firefighter: Isn't a compression ratio of 8.9 to 1 just a bit too high for turbocharging or is the cut off at 9 to 1?

Although I wish it were, the compression issue unfortunately is just not even nearly that cut and dried.

Maximum recommended compression for a turbo engine is a function of several things, including (but definitely not limited to) the amount of boost one is running, the presence or the absence of an intercooler, and even the camshaft's specs.

Those are some of the reasons why I was hoping SCCA Fiero, with his Miller-Woods turbo kit, would be able to advise us of the amount of boost he ran successfully before he added an intercooler to his 8.9:1 compression engine, and in particular, I'd hoped he would be able to locate and fill us in on the spec sheet for the Crower cam he was using with that amount of boost.

I don't see any cam in Crower's current on-line catalog that Crower has highlighted as being useful for 60-degree V6 turbo motors. Therefore, I think the specs for the Crower cam SCCA Fiero was using would be especially interesting because it sounds like his was a custom Crower grind (or a discontinued one), as opposed to a currently readily available, "off-the-shelf" cam.

quote Originally posted by Firefighter: Blacktree: That's a good point. I had to install a larger metal shield around my ignition coil and I do know some guys who moved it completely to a remote location on the rear firewall. Also with the K&N filter setup, - I melted the rubber housing connector on one before I installed a metal shield to keep it away from the cross over pipe. Ed

There's a real easy way to get the coil away from heat, just turn it 180 deg and put it on 1.5" standoffs, we provided them with our headers, but it will also work fine with a stock Y pipe. You can see pics on my 87GT build thread

------------------
[IMG]



Trueleo.com/fiero.htm
RSpiderII@aol.com

quote Originally posted by project34: Those are some of the reasons why I was hoping SCCA Fiero, with his Miller-Woods turbo kit, would be able to advise us of the amount of boost he ran successfully before he added an intercooler to his 8.9:1 compression engine, and in particular, I'd hoped he would be able to locate and fill us in on the spec sheet for the Crower cam he was using with that amount of boost.

When I first did the install I had a different motor, another 2.8, but with about 120k hard miles on it. I also ran a Crane cam. I couldn't help myself and turned the boost up to about 12 psi and flogged the crap out of it. It lasted about a year before I spun a bearing racing a TT300ZX (Lost by a fender to boot).

I still can't find that spec sheet, but I did find the receipt for the cam, lifters, and springs. This is the only thing I can see that might be a part # (or Work Order#?).

W.O. #E47655

Maybe you can call Crower and get the specs with that? (619-422-1191)

Cam cost was $180.29, Springs were $165.17 if you're curious.

[edit] I have the specs posted here on PFF somewhere, but after searching for an hour I gave up.

[This message has been edited by SCCA FIERO (edited 09-19-2007).]

Found it.

SCCA Fiero, thanks for locating and posting that turbo cam spec sheet!

Do you recall the number of pounds of boost you were running successfully with that cam and your Miller-Woods turbo kit before you installed your intercooler?

quote Originally posted by project34: ...... In marked contrast to the majority of split-pattern cam profiles like the Crane H-260-2, which has the typical split-pattern cam's longer duration and higher lift on the exhaust rather than on the intake, the turbo-specific Crower cam SCCA Fiero is using actually has more duration and lift on the INTAKE than on the exhaust! Outside the turbo world, cam specs like those seem to be rare to nonexistent.

thats a good eye - and that makes much sense - get as much air packed in as possible. with no boost - the lack of vacuum at the very beggining and end of the piston strokes, would actually cause a loss, due to expansion from the heat - but under boost - just keep packing it in.

It's all about pressure differential. The goal is to have the intake under more pressure than the cylinders. This helps to force fresh air into the cylinders during the intake stroke. In a normally aspirated 2.8 V6, this is accomplished using extra exhaust valve lift. The exhaust gas exits the cylinders more rapidly, reducing the pressure inside the cylinders. The lower pressure helps to suck in more fresh air. With a turbocharged (or supercharged) 2.8 V6, the intake air is already pressurized. The extra exhaust lift isn't needed. Instead, extra intake valve lift is used to allow more intake flow.

Interesting.
I wonder if this is the same Crower cam in my turbo 3.1... Odds are yes as the lift #'s Voytek quoted me sound the same. I'll have to dig up his emails and check...

This is a very nice thread you guys have going here. The cam profile info is something I'd never heard of before & it makes so much sense! My car has the old Miller Woods setup and I'm trying to figure out how to mount an intercooler on it without doing any hacking up of the car. If or when I do something I'll be sure to post pics of it here.

Thanks!

quote Originally posted by project34: SCCA Fiero, thanks for locating and posting that turbo cam spec sheet! Do you recall the number of pounds of boost you were running successfully with that cam and your Miller-Woods turbo kit before you installed your intercooler?

I'd run 12 psi. It might not be a good idea, but I don't care. If it blows up, I'll build a better one like I did the last time it blew up. I just recently installed the intercooler and have not really driven it since.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: Interesting. I wonder if this is the same Crower cam in my turbo 3.1... Odds are yes as the lift #'s Voytek quoted me sound the same. I'll have to dig up his emails and check...

lou_dias, please keep us posted on what you learn about your cam's specs from your search.

I think it would be instructive for all if you also posted us on the compression ratio and number of pounds of boost you've successfully run with the turbo on your 3.1L, as well as whether or not it was intercooler-equipped.

quote Originally posted by project34: lou_dias, please keep us posted on what you learn about your cam's specs from your search. I think it would be instructive for all if you also posted us on the compression ratio and number of pounds of boost you've successfully run with the turbo on your 3.1L, as well as whether or not it was intercooler-equipped.

It's running 8.9:1 compression with no intercooler and boost capped at 8psi. It was done by a shop in Canada which normally puts them on 3.1 Cavaliers. The turbo is a KKK K26/6. In 5th gear, the car goes from 80+ to 120+ much better than my 150rwhp 3.4 did. In a few months, I will look for the K26/8 hotside and have the cold side machined to accept a K27 compressor. A K26 can go as high as 16psi and make close to 300HP. A K27 can make 550HP. The hybrid can make 400-450hp... These turbos can be found on ebay. They spec up well against a T3 (K26) and T4 (K27). It uses an external wastegate. These turbos are found in Audis, Volvos and Porsches.

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: It's running 8.9:1 compression with no intercooler and boost capped at 8psi.

Thanks, lou_dias. That information is good to know because although you may modify it further, it sounds like you're quite pleased with the set-up you already have:

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: In 5th gear, the car goes from 80+ to 120+ much better than my 150rwhp 3.4 did.

86_IRM_TURBO and others, could you post the same type of basic information (along with any other turbo specs you'd like to share) that I'd asked lou_dias to post?

More specifically, for your engine (whether it's a pushrod 2.8L, 3.1L, 3.2L, or 3.4L), could you post whatever you have on the following:

1. The compression ratio you're running.
   
2. The number of pounds of boost you've been running successfully.
   
3. Whether or not your engine is intercooler-equipped.
   
4. Your engine's cam specs (or the cam manufacturer and grind number).

With this type of information, then we'll be able to begin building a basic knowledge bank of sorts on this subject.

I'll post as much as I know. I bought this car from someone that was selling it for Jim Sutter when he sold off his IRM shops.
I don't belive the cam or pistons were changed at all from stock when the Miller Woods Turbo was installed in the car.

It's set up to run at 7 PSI and is not intercooled. The only change I made to the car after I purchased it was to have a friend of mine burn a new EPROM for it. I took it to his house and he connected his PC to the car and we basically drove the car and kept re-flashing the EPROM until we got the best acceleration W/O running into detonation. He used a cal that he had set for his 2.8 Turbo car and dialed it back for mine. He had gone "all out" on his and made over 300 RWHP with an intercooler. I'm not sure what all he did to the motor when he built it up, but he ended up pulling the intercooler out later.

------------------

quote Originally posted by 86_IRM_TURBO: I don't belive the cam or pistons were changed at all from stock when the Miller Woods Turbo was installed in the car....It's set up to run at 7 PSI and is not intercooled.

Thanks for posting those specs, 86_IRM_TURBO.

To date, the sample size for the information all have posted still is quite small. The good news is that for those who were looking to run no more than 4 to 6 pounds of boost to avoid major problems with their pushrod 60-degree V6 engines, it appears that running a bit more boost safely seems feasible, even without reducing the engine's compression, or having to add an intercooler.

For example, both lou_dias and 86_IRM_TURBO reported successfully having run 7 to 8 pounds of boost in their engines with the stock 8.9:1 compression and no intercooler.

From the candid SCCA Fiero, we've learned that 12 pounds of boost presumably is over the limit for a 2.8L with a Miller-Woods turbo, stock 8.9:1 compression, and no intercooler.

However, in fairness to SCCA Fiero, one should remember he spontaneously pointed out that his earlier, non-intercooled 2.8L with 12 pounds of boost had about 120,000 "hard miles on it" but still "lasted about a year before I spun a bearing." (I wonder how many others will be equally straightforward about sharing their turbo experiences. Remember also that we have SCCA Fiero to thank for that very interesting Crower cam spec sheet he posted earlier in this thread.)

In any case, so far it looks like one can successfully run 7 to 8 pounds of non-intercooled boost in the 60-degree pushrod V6 without automatically creating a "self-destruct" problem, and that running only 4 to 6 pounds of boost to avoid having such a problem just isn't necessary, even with the stock compression (around 8.9:1) and no intercooler.

My first motor died because I was turbo-stupid. I ran 91 octane fuel, synthetic oil, but it was detonating like crazy. I've seen my old posts in the archives saying I thought my BOV was being forced open and I could hear a flutter and lost power at the same time. What I didn't know is it was detonating. Thinking back... that motor held up for a long time considering how much it was detonating. My reason for running 12 psi was because the internal wastegate opens way too soon set around 8 psi. Compared to it cranked closed to run 12 psi, it hit boost fast and hard. During autocrosses it would light the tires up in 2nd if I turned the wheel just a little... it was fun.

That's what this car is - fun, not my daily driver or even my only Fiero. I still run 12 psi on the new motor(before the IC), but it doesn't detonate at all. Maybe my old motor had carbon built up on the tops of the pistons and bumped the compression up?

I just have to add here - the amount of boost you run really is NOT an issue. it is the power you are creating. the crank is the limit. 7000 rpm. 300 hp. that is the spec'd limit of the hardware. (not sure about the 300hp - just heard and respouting) a spun bearing is not turbo related failure. you can EASILY wreck a brand new rebuilt stock 2.8 with 4 pounds boost. like SCCA mentioned - predetonation. THAT is the killer - not boost. yes, boost makes predetonation more likely.

keep in mind that I am using a knock sensor and aftermarket coil...with a Buick module to read the knock sensor and retard timing.
I believe Voytek had it up to 12psi in this configuration for some stints.

At 8 psi, I believe I am at ~180-195rwhp. At 16psi this turbo can make close to 300rwhp, but I think the 19# injectors are only good for 250rwhp. So 12psi may be the max I can support without changing injectors...

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: keep in mind that I am using a knock sensor and aftermarket coil...with a Buick module to read the knock sensor and retard timing. I believe Voytek had it up to 12psi in this configuration for some stints. At 8 psi, I believe I am at ~180-195rwhp. At 16psi this turbo can make close to 300rwhp, but I think the 19# injectors are only good for 250rwhp. So 12psi may be the max I can support without changing injectors...

You might want to seriously consider getting some higher-flow injectors. 19# injectors won't support much more than 180hp (crank) at 80% duty cycle. For 250 crank horsepower, you need something like 26# injectors to be within a safe duty cycle range.

Maybe you're thinking of a v8? An engine with 8 19# injectors could come close to supporting 250 crank horsepower safely.

[This message has been edited by Fiero Brick (edited 09-21-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I just have to add here - the amount of boost you run really is NOT an issue. it is the power you are creating. the crank is the limit. 7000 rpm. 300 hp. that is the spec'd limit of the hardware. (not sure about the 300hp - just heard and respouting) a spun bearing is not turbo related failure. you can EASILY wreck a brand new rebuilt stock 2.8 with 4 pounds boost. like SCCA mentioned - predetonation. THAT is the killer - not boost. yes, boost makes predetonation more likely.

Your point about the spun bearing not being a turbo-related failure is an interesting one.

What then is the amount of non-intercooled boost you feel one could safely run in a turbocharged 2.8L in good shape, with stock 8.9:1 compression, but not any special modifications to handle that boost?

Do you feel there is no upper limit because "the amount of boost you run really is NOT an issue"?

I don't dispute that quote. I merely don't understand it, given your comment that "boost makes predetonation more likely."

Yes, I was thinking along the same lines. Like any engine there must be a limit to what the lower end can take without failure. Not nessesarily due to turbo boost, SC or nitrus. But rather the ammount of pounding the rods, bearings and or crank can absorb without failure. Thats why we have 2-4 and six bolt main bearings right?

quote Originally posted by project34: Your point about the spun bearing not being a turbo-related failure is an interesting one. What then is the amount of non-intercooled boost you feel one could safely run in a turbocharged 2.8L in good shape, with stock 8.9:1 compression, but not any special modifications to handle that boost? Do you feel there is no upper limit because "the amount of boost you run really is NOT an issue"? I don't dispute that quote. I merely don't understand it, given your comment that "boost makes predetonation more likely."

quote Originally posted by project34: Your point about the spun bearing not being a turbo-related failure is an interesting one. What then is the amount of non-intercooled boost you feel one could safely run in a turbocharged 2.8L in good shape, with stock 8.9:1 compression, but not any special modifications to handle that boost? Do you feel there is no upper limit because "the amount of boost you run really is NOT an issue"? I don't dispute that quote. I merely don't understand it, given your comment that "boost makes predetonation more likely."

The amount of boost to safely run is probably around 7 PSI. It really depends on a bunch of different things (turbo size mostly - that is if timing and fuel are in check). I run as much boost as the motor will take until it blows up... then back off a bit.

A motor running 10 psi can see 2000 pounds of force pushing down on the piston. You can imagine what that number can be if the fuel lights up as the piston is still rising. You can also see why the piston or head gasket or rod/rod bearing is first in line to let go.

Boost making detonation more likely is because of heat and/or timing. Compressed air is hot, hot air and gas being compressed can fire before the spark plug lights it.

quote Originally posted by SCCA FIERO: I run as much boost as the motor will take until it blows up... then back off a bit.

That is a very interesting tuning philosophy, although likely well beyond my budget for me to emulate it (and I don't think I'm known for being a cheapskate). Nonetheless, budgetary issues aside, and after some reflection, that philosophy is not at all flippant, even though it first sounds that way. Rather, it reminds me of some advice I once heard: "To best understand how any system works, you must first understand what makes it not work."

In fact, were it not for the monetary constraints, I could have great fun evaluating the results from different experiments with boost. For example...
...Ka-blooey! ===> "That doesn't work!"
...Ka-blooey! ===> "That doesn't work, either!"
...Vroom, vrooom! ===> "Now, that works!"


In all seriousness, whether you were joking or not, what you'd mentioned sounds to me much like "failure testing," described in wikipedia as "...the operation of a product until it fails, often under stresses such as increasing vibration, temperature, and humidity."

quote Originally posted by project34: Your point about the spun bearing not being a turbo-related failure is an interesting one. What then is the amount of non-intercooled boost you feel one could safely run in a turbocharged 2.8L in good shape, with stock 8.9:1 compression, but not any special modifications to handle that boost? Do you feel there is no upper limit because "the amount of boost you run really is NOT an issue"? I don't dispute that quote. I merely don't understand it, given your comment that "boost makes predetonation more likely."

I forgot we are talking fully stock. but - either way - 300 HP's. whatever amount of boost in your setup - thats the line. now, if you can reach that, without intercooling - I dunno - now I see what y'all are trying to figure out.

quote Originally posted by Fiero Brick: You might want to seriously consider getting some higher-flow injectors. 19# injectors won't support much more than 180hp (crank) at 80% duty cycle. For 250 crank horsepower, you need something like 26# injectors to be within a safe duty cycle range. Maybe you're thinking of a v8? An engine with 8 19# injectors could come close to supporting 250 crank horsepower safely.

Well since the 100% duty cycle period would only be required during full boost, I don't see what's wrong with that. Also, 100% duty cycle adds up to ~225rwhp which is right around what I should make at 12psi which correlates to what Voytek told me about how much boost I can support based on fuel delivery.