MAF turbo (1 Viewer)

[Cattledog]

Tiorio

"As for turning up the boost because it's addictive, well that's just stupidity and there's no accounting for stupidity."

When it come to more acceleration most people get stupid quick when it is adjustable...

"So what I think you're saying is that you have to use the right turbocharger for the conditions. Which is just like saying you have to use the correct blower and pulleys etc. for a supercharger installation."

Correct.
To be more specific turbochargers will compress air at a different rate based on the exhaust gas flow and heat. Engine loads and other engine related variables would effect the flow velocity and heat content of the gas. That is why proper tuning is more time consuming and difficult with turbocharging. MAF kit sounds great currently.

Positive displacement superchargers are easier to tune. You don't have to deal with variable intake gas flows as with a turbocharger.

"Exhaust pressure is paramount"

No, exhaust gas energy specifically heat energy is paramount. The expansion of the gas across the turbine converts the heat energy to mechanical energy to perform the work by the compressor to compress the air. Heat energy accounts for about 80% of the work done Vs 20% of the gas flow. I would recommend Corky Bell's book "Maximum Boost" ISBN# 0837601606

Wasn't there a whole thread on getting a group-buy on Safari turbo kits a few months ago?

Did it happen?

Thanks for your comments.

Junk,

Good point lets see the MAF kit when it is done. I am hopeful. But a blown 454 would rock and could still run on 87. :flipoff2
:

 

[Curran]

I'm thrilled that this kit is comming out.
My main concern though is the price point. I think that Steve is right that there is a growing interest in 80 as play trucks that will help provide potential customers. However, one of the reasons it is becomming a viable wheeler for many folks is that the price of a second or third hand 80 seems to be dropping fast (didn't someone mention they picked up one for under three grand last week?) I can imagine a ton of folks wanting a turbo kit. But as the cost of that kit escalates toward the resale value of some of our rigs, that capital expense of the added power becomes harder and harder to stomach.

 

[acolella]

acolella, by no means do I want to pick a fight, but I do dissagree with some of what you have stated. Because turbos are exhaust driven, and superchargers are belt driven, there is less work the engine has to do to run a turbo. Adding another pulley to the crank causes more energy to be wasted. Again, I am in no way picking a fight, just stating my opinion. I to would like Dan's opinion on this. We have spoke on the phone about it before, but I would love for him to chime in.

Steve.[/QUOTE]

Steve,

Your statement above is a indisputable fact.

Now back to the piston. Another fact is the piston designed for the turbo will have aspects that reflect the fact that it will be exposed to higher combustion temperatures and higher cylinder pressures. First of all the turbo pistons tend to be flat tops ; a shape typical of lower compression engines. The crown area will tend to be thicker in order to withstand the higher pressures and temperatures. The first ring will be farther down the piston in a more dimensionally stable area away from the heat. The alloy used may have a lower coefficient of thermal expansion, high silicon content & heat treated.

The piston from a normally aspirated engine will have a shaped top that will fit into the combustion chamber in order to get the smaller squish volume. The other aspects of its design will be tied to higher velocities. For reduced friction, thinner (and lighter) rings and smaller piston skirt areas are used.

Steve, I glad we had this discussion and look forward to your comments about this. Any verification from your engineering dept would be great.

 

[cruiserdan]

Great, you want me to step into the ring....

'K, guess I will then.

Force-feeding an engine is, well, force-feeding regardless of the method used to compress the air ingested into the engine. The net result of X pounds of boost applied to Y compression ratio is going to result in essentialy the same outcome no matter how the over-atmospheric pressure is generated. In that light the argument about one type of forced induction being more destructive than another doesn't hold water. Without question a belt-driven compressor uses crankshaft power to turn and will certainly use some percent of the engine's output to operate it. That power consumption needs to be considered when the bench-racing about which is better gets hot and heavy...

In that light I won't go into the fact that top-fuel cars use blowers exclusively to develop more horsepower than we could ever possibly deliver to the pavement. I have owned and built more than my share of forced induction powerplants and when it comes to gasoline powered engines I prefer a blower to a turbo and on a diesel the turbo is the cat-daddy. The gasoline engines I have fooled with seem to have fewer drivabiltly issues with a blower vs a turbo, albiet the turbo motors when running properly produce more power.
The turbocharger requires a thoughtful owner in order to prevent damage from heat-soak from an improperly shut down engine and the under-hood temperatures in my experience can be excessive.
I very much like my blower set-up in the 80 but it is not perfect. I have had fuel delivery issues that I would have had regardless of the choice of forced induction that made it a challenge to realize the full potential of the boost.

I also wonder about a turbo installed on a vehicle that may need to go for a swim to get from A to B. Tell me, with a straight face, that a turbine housing, at operating temperature, is going to react favorably to getting quenched in a stream crossing. I don't think so. That particular point could certainly be considered picking nits and I would agree with that but it still could be an issue in isolated cases.

As far as the suitability of the 1FZ to be fitted with any sort of forced induction, I point to the oil nozzles that spray oil on the bottom of the pistons in order to cool them and on the opposite end I must add that the head gasket may be suspect.

Regardless of the type of boost selected it is CRITICAL that the head gasket and the cooling system are ABSOLUTELY PERFECT AND FUNCTIONING AT 100% CAPACITY. The extra power developed by a force-fed 1FZ produces more heat than the cooling system was originally designed to dissipate.

In closing I would like to add that I am confident that the MAF setup will work and be a hoot to drive and it is important to remember that.... SPEED COSTS MONEY, HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO? The average NASCAR engine costs 50 grand EACH. Grab yer billfold or shut up.

Oh, the only way to get a 1FZ to produce "seat of the pants" power increases is to pump it full of extra air or go the Robbie route and build an over-bored, hand-ported, hand-buit example.

D-

 

[Cruiserhead05]

As far as price is concerned, would boring an engine out when your rebuilding be a cheaper method of getting some extra HP out of the 1FZ?

BD

 

[Mr.Bryan]

You guys are all missing a really big point. Cast Iron I-6 and Toyota... don't = speed.

 

[reffug]

how many people on this board are running safari's? I thought at most 3 or 4? Any show of hands?

reffug slowly raising hand.

More boost is addictive...

True Dat!

 

[Steve-O]

MOT:

Not at all, the safari turbo is a great kit, we just wanted to make it a little better. You can always change your mind to our kit if you like!

DAN:

Goods points as usual. One thing you may like to know about the turbine though, it will be mounted about level (or higher) than the valve cover. But you are right, driving a turbo around and then dunking it in water would be quite the mistake. I havent seen anyone do this before, and I would worry about a lot of other engine components before that, but still a concern. I will very much agree with you that the the engine cooling system must be in optimal condition, as well as the head gasket. This goes for any method of forced induction. Back to the turbo vs. supercharge issue. Tell me, with a straight face, that top fuel cars use the same engine for the life of their career? I am not top fuel expert, but I cant see those motors going more than about a mile. I love hearing from you about this stuff Dan, I appreciate your input.

Reffug: You like your safari though right?

Curran: I like your point on the 2nd or 3rd owner thing. But I look at it as, anyone who is willing to put that sort of money into their cruiser, probably isnt planning on parting with it anytime soon. We all love Cruisers, I think most of us want to keep them forever, so why not put exta cash into it to make it even more awsome?

acolella: I agree about the piston thing with you, stock pistons are designed one way, and low compression pistons are different. But unless you are really going way above and beyond, I dont see an absolute must for changing to lower compression pistons. You can crank the boost up to hell yes, but for what? Sure you get massive amounts of power, but then your really pushing the envelope of that engine. We are making a kit that puts out a lot of power, but at the same time, it must be reliable. We have changed pistons with turbos before FAST IFZ, it ran faster than Junk could say "frickin hoot" but overheated a lot. You can read about all of the other things we did to keep it cool.

Steve

 

[chacoetaco]

Perhaps I missed it?

Steve, do you have an approx date for the purchase by customers of your turbo system? Thanks!

 

[Steve-O]

Perhaps I missed it?

Steve, do you have an approx date for the purchase by customers of your turbo system? Thanks!

Do you mean when will it be ready? Either in the next 6 months, or the next year, maybe two years, maybe its just a unicorn. Honestly though, I did put myself down for 6 months, it should be ready for sale pretty soon.

 

[joker]

i'll believe it when i see it. it's been "coming soon" too long.

and i'm still waiting...

i agree, boost is boost.

i would be interested to see a poll showing length of time/mileage you guys have been turboed or blown.

 

[cruiserdan]

Mine's been on for over 50,000 miles.

 

[turbocruiser]

i'll believe it when i see it. it's been "coming soon" too long.

and i'm still waiting...

i agree, boost is boost.

i would be interested to see a poll showing length of time/mileage you guys have been turboed or blown.

Mine's been turboed for 60000 miles.

 

[Tom Doniphon]

I have a Safari Turbo on my 1996 and it has 20K on it with no problems other than a bad Unichip. I would have to guess that the unichip was always bad since removing it made the vehicle faster. It eventually failed completely after about 3K miles. I have been driving for some time without it and it works fine without the chip. I live in Phoenix and use it with stock computer currently. During 110 degree+ days I do get a bit of detonation at full throttle using 91 octane Premium. The use of an octane booster additive fixes that.

From what others have told me who have TRD blowers, in Phoenix they always run a little hot. The Safari kit does not at all. As far as whether you should get a turbo or a blower the first question should be what does it cost to get a new FI Chevy V8 installed. The cost of a V8 at the time I put the turbo in was to high.

 

[1000-oaks]

They don't have an application for the 80 series, but I'll bet it could be made to work:

www.ststurbo.com


I've been in a few STS-equipped vehicles and they are insanely fast.