Turbo'd s.b. chev...in a 69 Camaro? maybe?

[Todd....!!]

Hi ya Bruce,

If one is building a car to race in a non intercooled arena, so be it,
to each his own, the vehicle just won't perform to it's best potential
as it would WITH an intercooler.....

Intercoolers can allow for up to 30% or more power to be produced before
engine breaking pre-detonation occurs...as compared to a non-intercooled
counterpart... the intercooler's characteristics are ALL positive except
maybe that it could cause a bit more of a turbo lag than it would
without one...

The intercooler disipates heat caused by the turbo pressurizing and
heating the intake air charge causing the air charge to be COOLER and
MORE DENSE than a non-intercooled engine at the same boost level...

Matter of fact, I wonder if ANY big car manufacturer even offers any
cars which are turbo equipped without an intercooler?

Anyone?

Sure ya don't have to use an intercooler, heck, ya don't HAVE to use a
turbo at all, but the car won't be as powerful as it could be with a
turbo and/or an intercooler....

Water cooled turbo center sections/(cartridges) tend to remain cooler
than non-watercooled cartridges, because the turbo is driven by
1,500-2,000 degree exhaust air/fire this would lead me to believe that
MOST of the oil breakdown which occurs in turbo cars, and the reason
turbo cars' oil should be changed more frequently than the non-turbo'd
cars is because of the heat produced by the turbo itself being
transmitted into the oil itself....thus causing the oil to breakdown
into it's by products, one of the byproduts being CARBON! (Coking the
turbo bearing/bushing occurs, mostly aafter the engine is shutdown with
an overly hot turbo...)

A watercooled turbo doesn't have this 'problem' or issue to deal
with....except for maybe the 'coking' issue after shutdown....

Please understand that I don't believe this to be any sort of argument
at all, but a conveyance of the issue of whether one has the RIGHT to
build their engine in any way the see fit, which I DO believe in, by the
way, just so ya'll know...

Take er easy...

Sincerely!,

Todd....
http://www.c-com.net/~atc347/toddlnk.htm


Bruce Plecan wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Todd....!! <atc347 at c-com.net>
> To: <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 12:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Turbo'd s.b. chev...in a 69 Camaro? maybe?
> 
> | Hi Grumpy,
> | In mine eyes, I believe buildin a f.i.'s turbo'd v8 WIHTOUT an
> | intercooler is like buildin a normally aspirated v8 with only 4
> | pistons....
> 
> Need to open your eyes a tad farther.  Some classes don't even allow for
> intercooling.
> 
> | The benefits of the turbo are less than half of that if designed WITH an
> | intercooler....
> 
> Oh, Intercooler is just cooling intake charge, no one says you have to use
> an intercooler to cool the intake charge.
> 
> | Plus the turbo and engine incur WAY more thermal stress and are short
> | lived in comparison...
> | It's like building a car without a radiator....
> | A watercooled housing is a big help as far as oil breakdown within the
> | turbo bushing/bearing area...where most of the oil breakdown occurs in a
> | turbo engine due to the intense heat exposure in this area...
> 
> Why?, have you researched or directly experimented with the water cooled
> center housings?.
> 
> | LATER!
> | Todd....
> | Bruce Plecan wrote:
> | > From: Todd....!! <atc347 at c-com.net>
> | > Subject: Re: Turbo'd s.b. chev...in a 69 Camaro? maybe?
> | > | I'm TOTALLY interested in turbo(s), WITH INTERCOOLING!
> | > | Intercoolin is a must in these days of enlightment n all...
> | > Not really just one way to do something.
> | > Grumpy