turbo Is it me, or are turbo cars scarce?

[EngEtan]

So it seems to me that there aren't many turbocharged cars racing in this series. I know a lot are worried about the increased complexity so more things to go wrong, and the higher fuel consumption, but with 0 points for ECU it's definitely an attractive option since they're pretty easy to up the power. This is of course predicating on which engine, but it seems like almost every production car these days is turbocharged. What's going to happen in 10-15 years time when those are the affordable/available options?

Edited November 22, 2021 by EngEtan

[TiredBirds]

New production cars have turbos because of emissions standards. It is the only way to achieve HP w/o going over. Non-turbo to turbo car is 100 points. Turbos create a lot of heat, something that is not good for endurance racing. They also will burn up some fuel and A/F mixture is very important. In a boosted car it takes about a second to melt a piston, (AMHIK). I think money and time would be better spent building a stronger N/A motor. Most of the American manufactures left a lot on the table when building their engines. 

[atxe30]

i would argue the current rules are written to discourage you form building a stronger, better motor. unless you start with a 100 point car....

[QuaTTro]

We're planning to add a turbo to our 5-cyl Audi engine next year, which was pretty common in Audi race cars.  We'll keep the boost low (under 10 psi) and try to optimize for fuel.  We've got 18 gallons stock so we can push it up to 20 gallons if needed.  Given our current race weight is 2700 lb and power is about 130whp, we would like to push the whp up to the 160-180 range to see if we can catch the front runner cars.  

[TiredBirds]

3 hours ago, atxe30 said:

i would argue the current rules are written to discourage you form building a stronger, better motor. unless you start with a 100 point car....

??? the points have dropped to almost nothing. Our WS6 Formula Firebird (200 points) has 100 to burn and we have cam, headers, intake carb, oil pan. We are still running a 305, but with the same amount of points could have a 350+HP 350. Garage porting is free, garage rebuild is free. Depending on the motor you could pick up a decent amount of HP while not spending a ton of cash... The biggest reason we don't run a 350 is A. the 305 is enough for 3 of us and B. Small gas tank. So no 350 until we get a cell.  

[atxe30]

36 minutes ago, TiredBirds said:

??? the points have dropped to almost nothing. Our WS6 Formula Firebird (200 points) has 100 to burn and we have cam, headers, intake carb, oil pan. We are still running a 305, but with the same amount of points could have a 350+HP 350. Garage porting is free, garage rebuild is free. Depending on the motor you could pick up a decent amount of HP while not spending a ton of cash... The biggest reason we don't run a 350 is A. the 305 is enough for 3 of us and B. Small gas tank. So no 350 until we get a cell.  

cams- 50 points. headers 25, ignition 10, intake 25, oil pan 20, forged crank and pistons (rods too) (prob lots, its not in the fixed points), throttle body 25, valve train 100, dry sump 100, etc, etc.....

 

i mean a truly built motor is insane points...

 

[karman1970]

2 minutes ago, atxe30 said:

cams- 50 points. headers 25, ignition 10, intake 25, oil pan 20, forged crank and pistons (rods too) (prob lots, its not in the fixed points), throttle body 25, valve train 100, dry sump 100, etc, etc.....

 

i mean a truly built motor is insane points...

 

I have been told a couple times that any internals not OE or equivalent is straight to EC.

[chbright]

Mini Cooper S. That's a hot ticket if you can get tires under it to last. The fuel is the issue for some of the newer stock turbo cars. So the other interesting one would be a 924 turbo but good luck finding them in good condition. Likely a few other stock turbo setups too.

 

As for a engine for a swap: ye ol fe3 loves boost. 

 

Another to boost would be the 400pt MR2 Spyder but little tiny fuel tank and have fun getting tires under it without points for coilovers. Now if it was an "automatic" and could take the automatic transmission points deduction, that could be a real weapon. Good luck getting the automatic version classified as such, as there is no torque converter.

[wvumtnbkr]

We ran a turbo rotary for awhile.  It was stupid fun.

 

Turbo rotary compared to na rotary, while road racing, didn't seem to make much of a huge difference in mileage (over the horsepower increase).

 

Was reliable and fine.  Until we had a radiator hose blow and the driver just kept doin laps....

 

There have been a few cars that have won with rotary mufflers.  They can be reliable.

 

The big issue is that hp is good, but chassis setup and everything else is arguably more important.

[ETR]

2 hours ago, chbright said:

Mini Cooper S. That's a hot ticket…

Indeed!  
 

My wife took this at Harris Hill a couple years ago. 

 

 

[mgoblue06]

7 hours ago, karman1970 said:

I have been told a couple times that any internals not OE or equivalent is straight to EC.

 

I get that, but if someone does it, how will you prove it? Drop the oil pan in impound?

[enginerd]

12 hours ago, mgoblue06 said:

 

I get that, but if someone does it, how will you prove it? Drop the oil pan in impound?

They have been borescoping at impound. At the very least, pistons will be caught.

[turbogrill]

The 2.5 Mazda/Ford MZR engine seems to like being turbocharged. That is what I would do if I had big tank and many points. (50pts for swap, 100 turbo, 25 intercooler, 25 oil cooler)

 

[QuaTTro]

30 minutes ago, turbogrill said:

, 25 oil cooler)

 

don't go raising the points on oil coolers !!

[mindspin311]

I race a turbo car. Does great. No heat issues. Only issue is the fuel capacity.

[Black Magic]

I think the bsfc (consumption) will be going the wrong way fast enough turbos are only really viable in cars that are very fuel rich (rx7, 944, e30, etc). Most of the cars with easy oe turbo swap options are pretty new, which almost always means small tanks. 

 

Keep in mind the lack of fuel parity is a pretty strong reason for having to dump a chassis and built something new to be competitive. You are doubling down on this by going turbo. 

 

On 11/20/2021 at 1:46 PM, QuaTTro said:

Given our current race weight is 2700 lb and power is about 130whp, we would like to push the whp up to the 160-180 range to see if we can catch the front runner cars.  

 

You will need 70 - 75 wheel hp per 1000 lbs weight to see the front. At your weight I think 200 is more the target. 

 

[roadracer4life]

We race a Volvo 240 with limited success. Our car starts with a 200pt VPI so adding the turbo was an easy choice. The old Volvo engines are tough as nails and with a decent tune it gets decent enough mileage. We have had some reliability issues but if I'm honest it was all mostly my fault. Power in our car is easy but with greater power comes greater fuel consumption and that is why we limit our boost to the 200-210whp range. We can easily turn up the power to well over 250whp but at that point there is zero chance our car will run the full 2 hour stint on a tank of gas.  

[QuaTTro]

1 hour ago, Black Magic said:

 

You will need 70 - 75 wheel hp per 1000 lbs weight to see the front. At your weight I think 200 is more the target. 

 

You must not know how good a driver I am...

 

But you are likely correct.  Our goal is to max the HP while stlil lasting 2 hours...whatever that HP number happens to be

[TiredBirds]

On 11/20/2021 at 4:56 PM, atxe30 said:

cams- 50 points. headers 25, ignition 10, intake 25, oil pan 20, forged crank and pistons (rods too) (prob lots, its not in the fixed points), throttle body 25, valve train 100, dry sump 100, etc, etc.....

 

i mean a truly built motor is insane points...

 

well if you run a Mopar engine pre 72 you get a steel crank for free... that said you don't need that much to improve on any American small block. Take a little off the heads, port, cam, headers, intake....standard stuff. If you use 84 pistons in a 88 you get a bump in compression. 

[Andrew D Johnson]

We ran a 1992 Civic, and put a turbo setup from a 1990 Mitsubishi eclipse on it. We had some head-gasket issue, but was mostly OK. The extra TQ made the trans weak. A few years later the swap rules changed and allowed better NA engines to be swapped in. We dropped the turbo and went to the better NA motors. 

Overall, the turbo really is just an added complexity. It makes cool sounds, and is fun if you like to tinker though. 

[EngEtan]

That's a good point about the fuel capacity with a lot of the new cars. That's certainly an issue. If they ever changed the fuel capacity rules to open, that would really change things up for the new turbo stuff. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath...

 

4 hours ago, Andrew D Johnson said:

IMAGE

We ran a 1992 Civic, and put a turbo setup from a 1990 Mitsubishi eclipse on it. We had some head-gasket issue, but was mostly OK. The extra TQ made the trans weak. A few years later the swap rules changed and allowed better NA engines to be swapped in. We dropped the turbo and went to the better NA motors. 

Overall, the turbo really is just an added complexity. It makes cool sounds, and is fun if you like to tinker though. 

 

I like you're intercooler (and oil cooler) setup. Must have maintained a decent throttle response.