Ok, I tried to avoid this as I really dont want a chest beating contest on this thread. But in short I am against turbos in general. Turbo's are all in all great for adding a small amount of power such as between shifts to ensure I am still pulling as I pull out the clutch such as my son's factory 1990 turbo charged toyota supra with a 3.0L inline 6 with 4 pounds of boost which is tuned just about right for between shifts. As to how many turbo charged slant sixes have I worked on. NONE. As most people I know dont waste the time to build a slant six like I would, they build V8's and in those cases they dont need a turbo to hit 500 hp. When it comes to a streetable car, i will never consider a turbo'd six or any other engine short of my 2014 VW TDI which is highly computer controlled 2.0L 4 cyl turbo diesel (yes I am included in the whole VW dieselgate). A turbo'd slant six would be a great quarter mile car setup. And doing things such as rear mounted turbo's where the turbo sits under the trunk would be kind of cool to do.
Enjoy the thread
John; no chest-beating and, certainly no offense...
Before I go completely silent on this subject (I have hijacked this thread, shamelessly, and that needs to stop,) I did not understand a couple of the things you said and if you will humor me this one time, I promise not to distract you from your interesting project-issues, again.
To wit:
You said, "I am against turbos in general. " But, you didn't as far as I could see, explain why. You are a really smart guy and, I am sure you have your own, good reasons for feeling the way you do, but I have no idea what they are. I'd like to hear them.
You also said, "Turbo's are all in all great for adding a small amount of power such as between shifts..." How about, for adding 200 horsepower to an anemic, N/A slant that has fallen victim to the amazingly-poor breathing of the slant six cylinder head?
I also wondered, why would you need power between shifts? The clutch is disengaged... and, my personal feeling (no, nobody asked,) is that any car with a turbocharger, needs an automatic transmission so there is never an interruption in the exhaust flow to the impeller. To do less, is not taking full advantage of the power-adder, I think.
And, lastly, it is my feeling that if you own an A-Body with a slant six, the expense involved in the changeover to a V-8 will be just as great as adding forged pistons,rods, and O-Rings with a copper gasket to the engine already in the car. Then you have "just another V-8 Mopar," of which there are zillions.... instead if an unusual, nearly-unique, head-turner.
It's neither cheap, nor, easy to make 500 horsepower out of a turbo'd slant six, but a 500 horsepower V-8 isn't cheap, either, plus, with the V-8, you have all the ancillary expenses... such as a Schumacher swap-kit, a bigger radiator, an A-body 8.75" rear end, with probably two different final-drive ratios (center-sections) ... one for the strip and, another for the highway., a different-length driveshaft, a dual-exhaust system, buying the V-8 engine (!), buying a V-8 transmission, and a lot of "incidental" parts that wouldn't be required if you had left the orginal slant six in the car.
The fact is; the poor-breathing cylinder head of the slant six has suceeded in giving it a well-deserved reputation as a poor performer that has convinced the majority of folks who want a fast A-body, that any money spent on a slant six (naturally-aspirated) would not produce much in the way of meaningful acceleration or top speed. And, they'd be right.
But, the hairdryer (or, supercharger,) changes all that. All of a sudden, the so-so performance of a modified N/A slant becomes very much V-8-like, after the addition of a turbo, now, with acceptable moxie... and that is why ~I~ like turbos, as regards slant sixes. They turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. In reality, they can add about 200+ horsepower to a well-built, naturally-aspirated slant motor. They make it
respectable in one, fell swoop.
Anyway, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
Over and out....
