4.0 Turbo

[adsm08]

Who has done it, how hard was it, and what did it cost.

I'm looking to OBDII 4.0 my ranger in the coming years and I'm playing with the idea of some forced induction while I'm already building me a truck.

I don't like super chargers. Two reasons, first everyone and their brother has done it, second they drag on the engine and unless you go huge they often take almost as much power to get going as they give you.

I can deal with a little bit of turbo lag (although I would like a VGT as waste gates annoy me to no end) if it gets me out of having a heavy blower dragging on my engine all the time.

I'm looking for something in the 5 to 7 lb boot range.


Ideas, suggestions, major pitfalls?

 

[multiranger]

Who has done it, how hard was it, and what did it cost.

I'm looking to OBDII 4.0 my ranger in the coming years and I'm playing with the idea of some forced induction while I'm already building me a truck.

I don't like super chargers. Two reasons, first everyone and their brother has done it, second they drag on the engine and unless you go huge they often take almost as much power to get going as they give you.

I can deal with a little bit of turbo lag (although I would like a VGT as waste gates annoy me to no end) if it gets me out of having a heavy blower dragging on my engine all the time.

I'm looking for something in the 5 to 7 lb boot range.



Ideas, suggestions, major pitfalls?

I am looking for the same type of info!!

 

[cammeddrz]

i'm not posting here because i have turboed a 4.0. but because i'm confused

I don't like super chargers. Two reasons, first everyone and their brother has done it, second they drag on the engine and unless you go huge they often take almost as much power to get going as they give you.

if that were true there would be no gains seen on superchargers because the loss would wash the gain due to the parasitic loss

if it gets me out of having a heavy blower dragging on my engine all the time.

 

[steve63]

what about the system STS makes,it fits on where the muffler is,from all ive heard about it ,it works well.

 

[legoms013]

what about the system STS makes,it fits on where the muffler is,from all ive heard about it ,it works well.

You mean their remote turbo kit?

They have a "bolt" on kit for Toyota Tacoma's that everyone on their site that has one rants and raves about how much power they gained. I'm sorta skeptical, but it all seems like good info.

to OP:

They also make a "universal" kit that is more or less specific to your specific vehicle, when you call to order it they can change out parts here and there to work better for your specific application. I myself have contemplated this route.

Of course all it takes is time and money.

I'd like to piece together a similar kit of my own using used parts and cheap stuff to do a remote setup using their kit as a guide on what to get.

 

[RangerSVT]

if that were true there would be no gains seen on superchargers because the loss would wash the gain due to the parasitic loss

For every 100 hp made it takes a supercharger 8 hp to make, net is 92 hp...
For every 100 hp made it takes a turbocharger 3 hp to make, net is 97 hp...
Turbos are a more efficient way to boost, plus when the engine is not under a load, such as highway cruising, your mpg doesn't suffer with a turbo, whereas the supercharger is still having to be driven, so there is still parasitic drag...
SVT

 

[JP02XLT]

I don't like super chargers. Two reasons, first everyone and their brother has done it, second they drag on the engine and unless you go huge they often take almost as much power to get going as they give you.

This statement is way off, Having owned & built 4 SC vehicles & 3 turbo cars I can tell you there is a difference between the two, but for a SC being more of a drag than a benefit you obviously have never experienced immediate & almost endless torque you get with one. If your system is correct, you wont see the SC flatten out in the upper rpms & there is almost no lag in a well designed turbo setup. Each system has its benefits & drawbacks, but both can be made to perform very well when designed properly.


JP02XLT

 

[RangerSVT]

This statement is way off, Having owned & built 4 SC vehicles & 3 turbo cars I can tell you there is a difference between the two, but for a SC being more of a drag than a benefit you obviously have never experienced immediate & almost endless torque you get with one. If your system is correct, you wont see the SC flatten out in the upper rpms & there is almost no lag in a well designed turbo setup. Each system has its benefits & drawbacks, but both can be made to perform very well when designed properly.


JP02XLT

I agree JP, it all depends on what you want to do with it, if you build it for wheeling, you will go with a small turbo with almost no lag and design it to operate in a certain rpm range, if your building a 1/4 mile vehicle you want to go bigger with a little more lag but big number as you get higher in the rpm range
SVT

 

[cammeddrz]

you obviously have never experienced immediate & almost endless torque you get with one

my thoughts exactly. don't knock a positive displacement sc until you've actually had one

and is there a reason that the absolutely highest hp engines.........don't ever have turboes?

 

[JP02XLT]

and is there a reason that the absolutely highest hp engines.........don't ever have turboes?

Not sure I would go that far, I have seen some 1200 hp 2-turbo setups that ran flawless, both commuting & running on the track. And 1200 is pretty good for a HP number.

As for the parasitic loss from the SC while out of boost, most bypass efficiently & the loss is barely noticeable (its less than an alternator). My 3.0 gets better mileage with the SC when your out of boost just cruising than it did NA. Its pulled 25+ mpg on the highway, cruising at 70+, most 3.0s would be in the 15-17 mpg range at that speed.

JP02XLT

 

[cammeddrz]

Not sure I would go that far

top fuel man, 6,000hp thats 5x the "1200" you're talking about no turboes, did you honestly think i was talking about a mere 1200 horsies when i said "absolutely highest hp engines"? i'm the owner of a 1600 which hp car whch isn't even that much, but to say that 1200 is the absolutely highest hp, is a joke

 

[JP02XLT]

Hey I agree about the top-fuel motors for sure, NHRA is very strict on rotor design in the SC as well, several guys have some custom built rotors that will produce significantly more hp & less heat than your std roots type SC. I should have made it clear I was talking about a "real" street car, something you can cruise in for an hour & still get down the track & back home in. There are several around here that are 1200 hp at the wheels & they are a blast to drive, especially when there almost like stock when driven normal.

JP02XLT

 

[cammeddrz]

NHRA is very strict on rotor design

what? thats news to me, never once did it come into question on my car, or my close friends the strasburg racing team (top fuel nhra)

several guys have some custom built rotors that will produce significantly more hp & less heat than your std roots type SC

and the entire top-alcohol class doesn't even run roots blowers.

 

[cammeddrz]

come to think of it i remember reading that the only restriction on rotors in a roots style case was 60 degrees of twist, many blowers out there use as much as 120 degrees but it does make them weaker. but that's not what i would call "very strict"

 

[JP02XLT]

Here is a little bit from the 09 rule book I had,

TOP ALCOHOL DRAGSTER
ENGINE: 1

Page 192

DELETE:
“Roots-type maximum size: 14-71, 22 1/4-inch case length, 11 1/4-inch case width,19-inch rotor length; maximum rotor diameter: 5.840 inches including fixed stripping. The case must be one piece with removable front and rear bearing end plates; rotor must be contained within one-piece case. Helix is restricted to a maximum rotor spiral of 6.5 degrees per inch of rotor length. Manifold burst panel meeting SFI Spec 23.1 plus restraint system meeting SFI Spec 14.2 mandatory.”
REPLACE WITH:
“Roots-type maximum size: 14-71, 22 1/4-inch case length, 11 1/4-inch case width,19-inch rotor length; maximum rotor diameter: 5.840 inches including fixed stripping. The case must be one piece with removable front and rear bearing end plates; rotor must be contained within one-piece case. Helix is restricted to a maximum rotor spiral of 6.5 degrees per inch of rotor length. The rotors must be driven from the front (both the external drive and the internal gearing). The entire inlet opening must be on/in the upper surface only. Any inlet/outlet cavity in front of the rotors is restricted to maximum one-inch, measuring from the face of bearing plate to the back of the cavity. Billet cases prohibited. The maximum length from the front of the supercharger drive pulley to the leading edge of the rotor is 15 inches. The use of spacers, modified cases, offset drive pulleys, or attaching methods tomove the supercharger rearward in excess of the specified amount is prohibited. All manifold configurations and supercharger modifications and locations must be accepted prior to competition. Variable multi-speed supercharger devices prohibited. Manifold burst panel meeting SFI Spec 23.1 plus restraint system meeting SFI Spec 14.2 mandatory. Supercharger must be in conventional location above the intake manifold and cylinder heads, and supercharger restraint device may not be modified.”

I do know that maybe 2 years ago there was a Funny Car team that made an un-official pass and beat standing records with a "new" style blower, He made 5 or so passes all record breaking times, & NHRA quickly re-wrote the rules prior to the season start to exclude the new blower design. People that saw the car run claim he was only about 65-70 capacity on the new blower & the car had a ton of HP left in it. I wish I could remember his name.

JP02XLT