OK I've been discussing my thoughts/hopes/dreams regarding my '64 292 in many threads here. My most recent got a reply from Jerry, where He asked me what I expected/needed from it.
Oddly, I never actually defined that in my mind until then. I'd always considered all the options available, and how I might improve on them, and then apply the best ones. Be done with it, and enjoy
I mean, I wanted more
-- a lot more. If I could get it, and that's about as far as I ever took it.
Well, after being charged with a specific definition, and after carefully pondering the issue. It was clear that ideally
I simply wanted more "grunt". That is (mostly) more of the torque I already enjoy with the 292. So That was my answer. Which lead me to start researching how I might best achieve my newly acquired goal. In the end, I decided that I really only needed (wanted) low MPH power. You know, somewhere in the 0 to 50mph range. But it'd be nice if I had the option to pass someone without difficulty if I needed, or wanted to. Even better if the velocity of my passing them took the side-view mirrors of their rig as I passed.
Anyway. I think the best way is to target RPMs, as the MPH will then take care of itself. So after contemplating all the ways I could think of, and all the ways it's been done. I figure the most expedient route would be Turbo.
I figure if I keep the boost somewhere in the 8 to 14 range, I can use the stock rods, and pistons. It appears that a TO4E-60 STG V .68 A/R, or a TO4B / SH STG V .68 A/R, will give me some 400Hp @ around 2000. A "best guess" on torque seems to be about 500ft-lbs @ roughly the same RPM.
I figure I can take the exhaust after it leaves the waste gate, and coil it around a 30 gallon drum of sour mash, and produce all the methanol I need to keep the engine cool, and the pistons from self destructing in the bores.
I guess I'm looking for opinions here. I haven't done any real "performance" turbo for a few years now, only "maintenance" work, and the technology moves pretty fast. I'm open to alternate methods. But I guess I'd have to say, my minimum
"target" would have to be 300/300 HP/Tq.
Thanks for any input.
Look at the so-called "atheletes" who enhance their performance by using steroids. They get a short-term gain in performance, and all it costs them is irreparable harm to their bodies, chronic illnesses, psychological episodes including domestic violence, and occasionally suicide.
Turbochargers are the steroids of the automotive world. Unless an engine is built from the drawing board to the finished production model with a turbo in mind, there will be a big increase in performance for a short time after the turbo is installed, followed by a blowup of epic proportions. Invest in a few big boxes to haul the pieces of your engine home- - - -you'll need them!
Yep. I knew I'd hear something like this -- and rightfully so. Turbo generates a lot of heat, the number one killer, or life shortener of an engine. heat = friction = (premature) death.
Still, I'm not (yet) convinced the 292, properly setup, couldn't easily handle an average 8lbs of boost, combined with a goodly amount of alcohol/water.
I'm only really looking for 300/300. It's practically already at 300lbs torque now (stock).
Thanks (as always), Jerry!
Start out with a set of tool steel connecting rods (Carillo for instance) at around $2500.00 a set. Then buy some custom forged pistons, Venolia or something similar- - - -$1,000.00 +, then fabricate a set of cooling nozzles to spray a constant stream of oil at the underside of the pistons to keep from melting them under full power. That's going to require a very high volume oil pump- - - -possibly a belt-driven one from the crankshaft hub since the distributor shaft and gear won't be able to handle that kind of load and a standard-type pump won't be able to supply enough volume. Once you get the bottom end beefed up enough to survive, then turn your attention to the cooling system- - - -run a BIG oil cooler and an oversized radiator, plus an air-to-air intercooler to make that extra air the turbo is pumping into the engine dense enough to be worthwhile, not so hot and thin it does you no good. Now for the cylinder head- - - -break out another few thousand for a highly modified head to handle all that extra intake volume, and a carburetor big enough to flow the air and mix enough fuel with it. Then build a huge exhaust system to handle the turbo outlet volume.
After you give your checkbook CPR for a while, sit back and admire your handiwork. You can do that every time you nail the gas pedal while you're waiting for the turbo to spool up and develop some boost!
Alternate suggestion- - - - -purchase a bone-stock Cummins turbo Diesel in a RAM pickup, and start out with more HP and torque than the 292 can ever hope to make- - - -with a factory warranty to boot! And spend a lot less money!
Jerry, you forgot about the head studs for another $1000.
I'm waiting to see the results of throwing a turbo on a 292.
To the OP: Turbos only work well at higher RPMs, and won't give you much low RPM "grunt". For that you need a supercharger rather than a turbocharger. The difference is the turbocharger is driven by exhaust spinning a turbine which spins a compressor wheel in the intake, while the supercharger is a mechanically driven compressor wheel, not depending on exhaust flow to spin it.
Well spoken -- assuming 1000Hp.
Honestly, I actually have
been doing my research. It appears (given about a dozen "real life") examples. That a number of people did more than create a Wish List. They bellied up to the bar, and said "what's the minimum it'd take to get some decent
street performance, and whats it cost to for respectable strip
performance? I've (got, or been wanting to build up a/my 292). I've heard that some notable people in the past swear by StoveBolts."
Turns out it's "doable" on stock @ low R's with a stock (exhaust) manifold w/2, and a half inch out. 2, and a half turbo intake, about a .68 - .84 vanes, and a 2 inch waste (gate). .68 is apparently "mild" enough not to torture a stock set of pistons, and rods, and as mentioned, delivers ~400Hp.
OTOH, I saw a video of one of Tom Lowes trucks pulling a 7.6 1/4 mile. He did it in a rig setup almost exactly
as the setup you suggested. That
delivers some 915Hp, and uses a great deal bigger turbo, and boost.
Good call, Jerry!
Indeed those were always my understanding, as well. You want some instant grunt on the cheap? Go to the speedways, (drag) strips, and get a blower for cheap from some of the pros. They have a great deal stricter tolerances for their mills, and given they also have sponsors. Would rather retire/sell their old mills, than try and rebuild them. Also a pretty easy way to get a 426, or 392 HEMI on the cheap. No good for the "pros", but perfectly fine for the "weekend warrior".
It had also been my understanding that turbos were really only good for freeway boost. Given the time it took to spool up the desired boost. But i read a couple of actual examples that provided reasonable boost as low as 2 grand. While that's not great for a city stick shift. Works pretty well power braking it in an automatic.
Anyway. That's what I gathered searching the interweb, and some of the other inline blogs, and past references to inline GURU's.
Thank you both
for the feedback!
Doing race stuff on the street is very seldom successful- - - -I started trying in the early 1960's and I haven't figured out how to do it yet. However- - - -I've bought a lot of groceries, raised a family, and paid off a hundred acres of backwoods Tennessee in the process of helping other people throw wheelbarrows full of their money away trying. Hotrodding, or circle track racing is always a lot more fun when I'm spending somebody else's money! Keep it up- - - -there will always be somebody out there willing to tell you what you want to hear, and stick a vacuuum cleaner into your pockets in the process!
I guess that might be part of my problem. I've spent all my life dreaming up things (mostly "hot rod" related), but the cost of raising 2 girls, and a family got in the way -- a good
But now that I've survived the cost of an "X". I've now managed a chunk of property, and a house (paid in full). Along with a wife of 20yrs that shares most all the same interests as I. Not the least of which, old rigs!
I guess now that I'm in a position that I pretty much pick, and choose my jobs (work). I'd like to revisit some of those accumulated (vehicle related) aspirations, and build up something I can get in trouble driving.
But you're probably right. I knew
the heat, and subsequent (additional) pressure would take it's toll. I guess I was hoping to live in denial, and believe that something that sounded too good to be true. Would actually be true. :P
So I came here for a Reality Check, and thankfully
, got it!
Really appreciate your candor, Jerry. As well as everyone else's -- I love
It would appear that Fall is starting to settle in. It's starting to rain. So I'm going to pull the '86 735i out of my nice big 2, and a half car garage. So I can roll the original 292 in.
When I get 'er all torn down. I'd like to reopen this conversation. Maybe get something more realistic
on the table.
OH, while I'm thinking of it. Would you be remotely interested in cleaning up my crank, Jerry?
Oh boy- - - - -making a few snarky answers to that question are tempting- - - -but this is a family-friendly site! Unfortunately, we're almost as far apart as the geography of the country allows (I'm in south central Tennessee) and I don't have a crankshaft grinder. I do have an old lathe without a working gearbox that I use to polish bearing journals, but that's no substitute for a good regrinding job. Have you measured the journals for diameter, taper, and out of round? Sometimes a simple shoeshine motion with a long piece of extra-fine emery cloth is all that's necessary to clean up a crankshaft journal, as long as it's within limits of the current diameter specifications. I usually use "out-of-round" limits of .001", and taper from front to rear of the journal needs to be within .0005". If there's a way to slowly spin the shaft between centers and use a powered belt sander with a 400 grit or finer belt, it's a lot easier to do a good polishing job. I made my own crankshaft polisher from a Harbor Freight angle grinder, a piece of 1" square steel tubing, and some aluminum round stock machined into shouldered pulleys to carry the belt. I've got less than $100 invested in a tool that usually costs $500.00 or more. I've also seen polishers made from a retired Skilsaw and some tubing and pulleys.
BTW- - - -that Federal-Mogul shop specification manual I mentioned a while back- - - -I found one in much better condition than the one I
've been using for years on Ebay and ordered it. It's enroute to me now.
You could always just do an LS swap like all the youngsters are doing now. There were quite a few of those at the KC Truck show this weekend.
Ahem... I asked you for a "clean up". Not to polish
Sure. Understood. I know, it is
about as far as I could ever hope to ship it. But it's comforting to have someone your confident in do it, than someone
. When I was doing this full time. I'd occasionally need to hunt for someone for my machine work. As my go-to guy(s) would relocate, or just be too backlogged to get timely results. I remember sending a head into "someone" I hadn't delt with before, to get it resurfaced. When I got it back. I discovered DA marks, not mill marks on the head! So I guess when I get the crank off, I'll mic it, and if it's in fair shape, I'll take your advise. But I'd really like to get it balanced, and "trued" as good as possible. As I hope to build the motor up, and hope to never have to crack it open again. I know, wishful
thinking. I'll see if the local NAPA has any good leads for me. Unless
someone out here on the peninsula happens to catch this thread, and have a recommendation.
Thanks for the reply, and
the secret snarky comment.
I'd say that nitrous oxide would be the least expensive modification that will still convert your well tuned 292 into a scattering of all of its many parts along the roadside...
Dang'it, Carl! That was my next
You could always just do an LS swap like all the youngsters are doing now. There were quite a few of those at the KC Truck show this weekend.
Heh. Might as well swap in a Cummins. But where's the fun, and challenge in that?! Altho both of those would be more practical
Thanks for the reply, Rusty!
Fortunately, there's a guy about 20 miles from me who has been grinding crankshafts for me for about 30 years. If he ever decides to retire, I'm not sure what I'll do, but he's a few years younger than I am and he's got a son primed to take over the shop. Here's a little anecdote from back in the mid-1980's- - - -I had sent an Olds 455 crankshaft in for an index and regrind job. My buddy called me up to tell me about a blemish in the shaft and asked me if I'd like to grind the rod journals down another .010" to clean it up. Here's the conversation:
Him: "There's a little low spot on one of the rod journals- - - -do you want to go 20 under instead of 10?"
Me: "How big is the spot, and how low is it"?
Him: "It's about as big as a pencil eraser, and it's .0002" low
Me: "That's a strand of hair sliced 10 times- - - -I think I'll run it like it is!"
I never had any reason to question his work after that!
Lets not forget the billet crank for a few thousand. I'm building such an engine and Jerry is correct I has to be built from the ground up. 14 lbs. of boost with stock pistons and rods won't run long enough to get warmed up. It can be done but take my word for it your build will be measured in the 10's of thousands of dollars. Also keep in mind that most of these parts are a one off. When Crower made my billet crank I had to send them a stock crank to work off of and Crower has been making billet cranks forever and it was their first 292. Go for it but make sure you know what you are getting into. I'm looking at 5 to 8 pounds of boost.
Turbochargers were pretty much a back shelf item when they were "dumb". The Corvair Spyder and the Olds F85 Jet Fire were early ones but they had a very conservative 5-7 pounds of boost. The Jet Fire used a alcohol/water mixture to control combustion temp plus it was all aluminum which carried heat away quicker. The Corvair had a fan that blew air down through finned cylinders which gave a quicker response than heat into coolant, coolant into radiator, and finally coolant back to heat source. A more successful "dumb" system was the centrifical supercharger like used on 57 T-Birds. Once systems became "smart" with a bunch of sensors and a central processing unit to INSTANTLY make adjustments for changing conditions then turbos started popping up everywhere. Even with all the controls a turbo engine is best if built from scratch to handle extra heat and stress. When right a turbo engine is awesome with huge torque figures. For kicks watch the McClaren 720S (256ci twin turbo V8) and in street clothing blow the doors off a purpose built for drag Hemi Demon.
400Hp @ around 2000
That's over 1,000 ft/lbs
There are no cheap 392 or 426 hemi engines.
The most obvious “alternate method” that I think has been left out so far is.....
A Diesel engine! They make serious torque and most (nearly all modern ones) are designed for, benefit from, and come with a turbo.
Your HP and torque dreams are readily achievable in an engine that fits in your vehicle, a diesel.
Now I see Jerry already suggested a diesel for this application. That’s saying something from a guy that otherwise has very little good to say about Diesel engines.
You should take it seriously and consider this option.
There are no cheap 392 or 426 hemi engines.
Sure there are. 392's if you know where to look. I haven't found the 426 tree yet.
392's are over-rated. I'll stick with my 331. I'm replacing my ZZ502 with a bored out 331. I'm going for twice the weight and half the horsepower.
Almost all of the 392 engines I've chased since 1964 turned out to be:
1. 1951-53 331" with the extended bell housing
454's make better boat anchors, and they're more plentiful and cheaper!
Yeah, but not correct for some of the stuff we do.
Another Tennessean, but this time a real hillbilly from the mountains of East Tennessee with a little experience with mash barrels. Ethanol or ‘white lighting’ is what you get from mash, not methanol.
No comment on a turbo for a 292; never done it, don't know.
Have been fascinated by turbos since 1964, when a friend bought a Spyder.
In 1979, special ordered a 2.3 factory turbo (that company whose name rhymes with the last name of a well-know Tennessee country singer). Have had a chance to compare the guts of a turbo engine to the guts of the same engine (hehe) without the turbo. The only thing shared is the displacement! Different block, crank, rods, pistons, rings, valves, springs, bolts, etc.
After taking delivery of the car, called the factory, and got lucky, as the turbo project lead engineer happened to be available. Wonderful guy, lots of helpful information. Suggested using special oil in the engine, as the turbo used crankcase oil. He also suggested ALWAYS allowing the engine to idle for 30 seconds before shutdown to allow the turbo to spin down. Also told me about the adjustable wastegate that the sales department replaced with a non-adjustable wastegate. Now factory 5.25 # boost adjusted to 7.5 # boost.
How does it run? With a 5.0 litre in the same year, make, and model AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THE RPM BETWEEN 5000 AND 8000 RPM. Forget ANY torque below 2500 RPM, and very little below 3500 RPM!
Great fuel economy, but DEMANDS a minimum of 93 octane AKI. With less, severe detonation, even though the special electronic distributor is connected to a boost sensor, and retards in two stages of 6 degrees each for a total retard (from normal) of 12 degrees once the boost is over 3 #.
Would I buy another FACTORY installation? YES! Bought a second one used for the wife.
Would I try to modify any engine NOT designed for a turbo? Not only NO, but ****NO. I don't walk as well as I once did, but a whole lot better than I would if my legs were sawed off at the knees!
Would I try to talk a friend out of doing it? YES!
My only personal experiences with living with a turbo.
EDIT: I still have the original, but we traded the wife's turbo for a mini-van.
Turbo inline 6?
Cool factor = priceless.
All the other opinions are just that, someone else's opinion.
Skip all the drama and let somebody with a few million dollars do the R&D on a turbo inline six- - - -Transplant a 3.0 Liter Toyota Supra turbo engine into your truck. I've seen dyno run information on some of those engines in the 700-1100 HP range with just a little tinkering with the fuel injection system and some extra boost.
I went with the 4-71 roots blower and 3 Roch 2 bbl on my 292, yes carburetors, those things Porsche's don't have. Simple, instant torque. To be honest the best reason is always "chicks dig it". All kidding aside I'm old school. I didn't grow up with turbo's. They were that thing Porsche's did have. I understand the concept but that's about it. My engine is all about flow. I don't understand restricting the exhaust. I'm trying to learn more but not real hard. I have been watching drag week the last few days and turbo's are everywhere so that must mean something. To each his own there is room for all.
I think anybody thinking of adding a turbo should heed Jon's (carbking) advice above.
I became interested in turbos when Buick installed them in the Regal. Seems lots of Mustang, Camaro and Corvette owners were left wondering why they couldn't keep up with Grandpa's car! However, a turbo is not exactly a simple bolt-on item. Buick did their research. Detonation was probably the biggest issue. Testing showed problems with crankshaft and piston durability. I have attached a summary of a report if you are interested. I won't scan the whole thing as I'm not sure about copyright issues...
Gord - before I purchased the Ford, I tried every way I could think of to talk Buick into building a turbo Skyhawk. I just couldn't find the right button to push. I even offered to do field testing and they could simply badge the car in a normal fashion. Just could not get any interest. No way would I consider doing it myself, so I special-ordered the Ford.
With the turbo boost maxed out, Dad's B-17 could out-climb a P-51 Mustang to 20,000 feet. Of course, having 4800 HP to play around with might have had something to do with that!
Turbo Skyhawk.... You must have been inspired by the Kenne-Bell Turbo Skyhawk which was around for at least a year before Buick offered a turbo in a production car.
Didn't know the B-17 could climb that fast. I know a fully loaded DC-6 water bomber only climbs at about 500 fpm.
Those Wright Cyclone engines were rated for 1200 HP each, and there was a "war emergency" turbo boost setting that was off limits for normal operation. It was rough on engines, but the power was there for short bursts of max effort flying. They could outrun some of the older fighter planes like the P-40 in straight and level flight.