Bolt on turbo kit (4 Viewers)

[spyduh]

Pipe shop inspected and said no issues at all.

Would it be easier to find a donor 80 cab/frame and do a motor swap with the original 80 ICON engine? The only thing they are really testing is the engine if it's CARB compliant. Really the frame/cab doesn't have anything to do with the emissions test.

Wouldn't that save some time and not having it all retested again? Would they be able to pickup where they last left off and complete the testing. This is obviously a unique situation and they might be able to accommodate such request.


Just thinking out loud as that might be an option.

 

[NLXTACY]

No. I need turnkey. I'm not going to add more unknowns to this.

 

[NLXTACY]

Nothing super exciting but I just got in the little exhaust plates in that connect the downpipe to the bellhousing. It’s progress.

 

[mehbohdi]

I just ordered 2 in 1 AFR/Boost gauge and there are many wide band sensor options is there a preference? Thx
AEM – 30-4113, 30-4123, 30-4213, 304223
Dynojet – Wideband Commander
Innovate – LC-1, LM-1
PLX – M-250, M-300, R-300, R-500, SM-AFR
TurboXS – Tuner REG, Tuner PRO
WMS Racing – WBS1, WBS2
Zeitronix – Zt2
These are the ones that work with gauge manufacture

 

[scottryana]

I don't understand the part numbers listed?

For instance the AEM part numbers are for the gauge and the sensor. I would imagine you only want the sensor if you are using your own 2-1 gauge??

The Bosch 4.9 Sensor has an AEM part number 30-2004
The Bosch 4.2 Sensor has an AEM part number 30-2001

The Dynojet Wideband Commander doesn't even exist anymore, it was replaced by the Wideband 2, which is still a controller.

Same with the Innovate part numbers, those are gauges and sensors.

I would seek out from whatever gauge company you are using what sensor their gauge needs. More than likely if it is a modern setup it will be the Bosch 4.9

I just ordered 2 in 1 AFR/Boost gauge and there are many wide band sensor options is there a preference? Thx
AEM – 30-4113, 30-4123, 30-4213, 304223
Dynojet – Wideband Commander
Innovate – LC-1, LM-1
PLX – M-250, M-300, R-300, R-500, SM-AFR
TurboXS – Tuner REG, Tuner PRO
WMS Racing – WBS1, WBS2
Zeitronix – Zt2
These are the ones that work with gauge manufacture

 

[Mudder]

LM-1 is a stand along unit as well that has been replaced by the LM-2. Not what I'd use for a turbo vehicle. It's more for tuning multiple vehicles.

 

[mehbohdi]

scottryana
What I posted is a copy and paste from instruction with gauge. When I have it in my hand I will go from there. I did notice that most of the numbers are a little dated. Instructions also state that it will work 0-4V or 0-5V linear output.

 

[scottryana]

Yeah man wait until you have the gauge in hand, and then you can see what the input looks like. If it just has bare wires I guess you could wire in any sensor, but if it has a pigtail with a plug it should match one of the wideband O2's.

scottryana
What I posted is a copy and paste from instruction with gauge. When I have it in my hand I will go from there. I did notice that most of the numbers are a little dated. Instructions also state that it will work 0-4V or 0-5V linear output.

 

[Peluo]

Is the turbo would be able to work fine with bad/low octane gas. What about mileage if you are frugal with the skinny pedal? The answer i am looking for is it right for Overlanding/long range/multi country trip?

 

[duggy]

So is the turbo kit done yet?

 

[Heckraiser]

Is the turbo would be able to work fine with bad/low octane gas. What about mileage if you are frugal with the skinny pedal? The answer i am looking for is it right for Overlanding/long range/multi country trip?

Those questions have each been answered a dozen times, but I'll forgive you not for searching since the thread is huge.

1) High octane is recommended. If you have to run on low octane or crappy gas, you can, but you'll want to baby it and keep it out of boost as much as possible. Not sure where you're located, but anywhere in North America, you can find at least 91 within 100 miles. Not sure how that applies in central/south america.
2) Fuel economy will be unchanged if driving habits don't change. Real word fuel economy tends to improve vs. stock if you do a lot of mountain driving. Fuel economy will suffer if you drive like a jackass--but no worse than if you drive around flooring and redlining your stock rig. Fuel system is unchanged from stock.

 

[NLXTACY]

Ok granted, it’s not very exciting. But with the 1FZ downpipe needed to be secured to the bellhousing. This clamp was perfect because the only thing needed was a new slotted bracket. There is new hardware supplied and the act of tightening it down will form the slight angle needed to secure the
Downpipe.

All of the clamps arrived today. Hardware tomorrow. Again, small step but a step nonetheless.

 

[Enders]

I’m guessing nylocks are less effective with the temperatures this will see. I expect it will push the 300° limit on regular locktite, but will the EGT’s be enough to heat it past the 450° of red locktite?

 

[HDJdreams]

So, I need to factor in the cost of getting another vehicle after the Turbo shows up? Because my 17 and 16 year old boys are NEVER EVER touching my Turbo 80 with Stage 4 Slinky kit!

 

[VanSyncro]

TUUUUUUUURBO	Factory Crank	Stock Dyno	Turbo Dyno
HP	212	121	214
Torque	275	170	277
Loss at crank stock (delta)		% loss	% at wheels
HP	91​	0.429245283​	0.570754717​
Torque	105​	0.381818182​	0.618181818​
Turbo crank power
HP	214 = .57*X	214 / 0.57	374.9421488​
Torque	277=.618*X	277/.618	448.0882353​

			​

Doing the math based on reported 212/275 from the factory and dynoing at 121/170 stock would be a 42% hp and 38% ft/lb torque loss. Applying the same percentage of drivetrain loss to the turbo numbers does give 375/448. I don't believe this is accurate but i did the math a few different ways and got the same results. I think there is some non-linear aspect to powertrain loss that can't be accurately accounted for here. Low power motors use a lot more of their available power to get things moving (high loss percentage). When you up the numbers that percentage would be considerably lower. By applying the same percentage from stock to the turbo there is no way to account for the actual loss.

I think that your assumption about percentage is not correct. Drive train losses should be relatively constant regardless of power plant. So based on this philosophy the drivetrain is eating 91 horsepower and 105 ft*lbs. So simply adding the losses to the turbo dyno numbers of 214 horsepower and 277 ft*lbs yields 305 horsepower and 382 ft*lbs at the crank estimated.

 

[HDJdreams]

My estimates would be you would need an engine that made

Around 310-330 crank hp and 400-420ft/lbs to equal the turbo kit.

Woo Hoo! So the Turbo 80 WILL give the 200 a series challenge climbing Vail Pass!

 

[scottryana]

Yeah that doesn't work either. If it was a constant 91hp and 105ft/lbs when you swapped in a 125hp 4BT you would only have 34awhp. I feel like there is a happy medium.

I think that your assumption about percentage is not correct. Drive train losses should be relatively constant regardless of power plant. So based on this philosophy the drivetrain is eating 91 horsepower and 105 ft*lbs. So simply adding the losses to the turbo dyno numbers of 214 horsepower and 277 ft*lbs yields 305 horsepower and 382 ft*lbs at the crank estimated.

 

[scottryana]

At the top of Vail Pass a turbo 80 should have more power and less weight than a 200 series..... How it plays out with gearing and the 200's automatic I am not sure.

Woo Hoo! So the Turbo 80 WILL give the 200 a series challenge climbing Vail Pass!

 

[VanSyncro]

Yeah that doesn't work either. If it was a constant 91hp and 105ft/lbs when you swapped in a 125hp 4BT you would only have 34awhp. I feel like there is a happy medium.

It is only an estimate, there are a lot of factors to be considered. remember the numbers given are usually peak numbers which occur at different engine/ drive speeds. So it's not a simple calculation to get to exact numbers but not a bad estimation of what crank numbers could be +/-50.

 

[scottryana]

I am so tired of the argument. The best way to do it is based off of the BSFC, the amount of air the compressor map of the turbo pushes at the pressure ratio, and the fuel pushed by the fuel injectors.

You can't make more power than the fuel you have, or the air you are using.

It is only an estimate, there are a lot of factors to be considered. remember the numbers given are usually peak numbers which occur at different engine/ drive speeds. So it's not a simple calculation to get to exact numbers but not a bad estimation of what crank numbers could be +/-50.