TRExp

TR6 Tech Forum

Turbo TR6? Yes sir!

Moss Motors
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor
AutoShrine Sponsor

dicta dick Taylor
Downey, Callifornia, USA   USA
In reply to # 1491401 by TR-Fuzzy Hello all together,

my name is Joerg. I`m from Germany and I`m working on Triumphs for the last 23 years.
My TR6 is an original European LHD PI model. Unfortunately it is currently fitted with a US-carb-engine.
A blueprinted and hopefully powerful PI-engine with the original injection is in work.

But I want to build a second 6-cylinder engine with a turbo charger.
Here in Germany this setup isn`t very common. But if we look on Dicks TR6, I think from historical perspective, it is absolutely correct and I like the idea behind it. >>> simple and powerful.

@Richard.
I followed the thread from the beginning and it is cool that there is an update and that your engine is still in a good running and powerful shape.
Your project is exactly that, what I hoped and I expected from this setup. >>> Simply and great !!!!

It is very interesting for me to read, that you are able to run your TR6 without a lot of complex stuff.
I`m sure, if you would install a programmable ignition and water injection, you could find a couple of hidden hp.

@Dick do you have (or anyone else has) information about the introduction date of the Arkay-kit?
This information could be helpful for the historical registration here in Germany. Or should I contact Kas Kastner and ask him?
It would be also very helpful if I could find any further information about the Arkay-kit. For example copies of brochures or any other advertising stuff from the 70s or 80s.

Joerg I will look for a copy of the original ARKAY paperwork, as I'm sure I made copies before sending these back to Kastler (for his book on "TRIUMPH PREPARATION Handbook". I was happy that Kastler included my experience with his original design in several pages in this publication.

I know hp figures are good for writing on a piece of paper, the real life is different. But nevertheless in the end it is interesting.
What is the possible output?
>>>6 PSI / 165hp and 12 PSI / 200hp
Is this an estimation or are these measured figures?
Are we talking about engine or wheel horse powers?
Which components and modifications do you use for these figures?
CR 7,? : 1, head?, cam?, exhaust manifold before and behind the charger (single or double)?, modifies intake manifold?

These are flywheel hp figures, and maybe a little optimistic about the 200 hp at 12 psi. Never dyno-ed the engine so really don't know how true this is. With 110 octane racing gas and the waste gate set at 15 psi I can tell you it's a real E-ticket ride! (Old Disneyland passbook)
Stock 7.75:1 CR, S-2 cam and stock exhaust manifold in front of the turbo, and single 2 1/4 inch downpipes after the turbo. Single 2 12 inch to the Magnaflow muffler. Capable of completely bi-passing the muffler with the flip of a lever. Camshaft later replaced with an Isky 268 and lastly with the 125 "stock" late 256 cam.


Here are my ideas and collected components:
So my 250, which is a typical US-TR, is a good and light weight basic. Target is to get under 900kg.
I`m planning this for several years. To get information, I was in contact with Kas Kastner and Dick Taylor (do you remember?) a couple of years ago.
The plan is to copy the original Arkay-kit (>>>Kas Kastner >>>Dick Taylor). A little modified and with more modern components. The TR250 is a full restoration project and there is no need to harry up. So I have enough time to collect parts and information. I have some books for old school turbo conversions and I read as much as possible.

The first idea was to build a 2l engine. But I like the low end torque of the 2,5l, which could help to cover the turbo lag. So I hope to get early a high torque figure, a flat curve and around 200hp. May be 200whp.

Engine:
Crankshaft: grinded, nitride, balanced
Forged pistons
H-shaft rods
Block with camshaft bearings
Camshaft: Newman 260 >>>mild and higher lift.
Aluminum roller rockers
Head: late, flowed valves and ports and with pistons a CR of 7,4:1
Carb: SU HS8
Innovate AFR monitor
Turbo charger: IHI VF35 (Subaru Impreza WRX 2,0) with a 2,5” downpipe. It spools up very quickly and is in a Subaru 2,5l good for over 320hp.
Piping: DIY
Ignition: I want to keep the classic look. Original distributor which is programmable, mappable. >>>Aldon Amesyst or CB-Performance-Blackbox or ….?
Water methanol injection with a control unit (MF2 injection controller).
Drivetrain:
Gearbox: Triumph J-Overdrive modified with Volvo parts.
Clutch: Saab Turbo
Diff: LSD Jaguar XJ
Rear hubs: Cambridge motorsports

If my calculations are right (CR 7,4:1, boost 14 PSI) I will have a theoretical CR of 10,5:1 (under boost). And If the figures in the literature are right, a CR of 10,5:1 is the critical point for a TR6 combustion chamber. So the water methanol injection, high octane min. 98 fuel and a programmable ignition should make this boost level possible.

So far as what a boost gauge will show, my VDO has seen 15 psi when the waste gate was adjusted for this. If atmo pressure is 14.5 and you add in an extra 15 lb. theoretically you could double the cylinder pressure. Again, all this assumes this pressure can fill the cylinders in the time allowed. Those with more skill with numbers can disagree with this!
I'm happy with the MSD6-BTM in that it lets one set the spark advance to retard to a safe level under high boost. Starting with 14 deg. BTDC at 800 rpm allows me to run with 10 lb. of boost, when the unit is set to retard the timing one deg. per lb. of boost. This still gives about 32 deg. of advance when the timing is all in.
The water injection comes on when 4 lb. of boost is sensed. This happens so fast that adjustment for the difference between 4 lb. and 10 lb. isn't an issue. A stream of water thru a .030 nozzle directly into the air stream gets pulverized by the impeller so only a cooling fog enters the intake manifold.
I found the stock TR6 drivetrain is up to the task, so long as on doesn't hammer on it routinely. I never broke a gear or axle during those times when doing a test run to 60 or a quarter mile timing. (Sub 6 second, 98 mph and 14.2 sec. E.T. using the 15 lb. of boost and S-2 cam) Also had the trick clutch with the weight bobs at this time.
Now running the Toyota 5 speed along with the Infiniti Q-45 LSD, just because these are available and a fun type of change.


Because of the missing carbon seals in the IHI turbo, I have to install the throttle behind the charger. Or alternatively I have to install two synchronous throttles. One in the carb and one after the charger.
Or I find a modern charger which spools up quickly and is equipped with the carbon seals.
I´m open for suggestions which type would work and where I could get it.

Please don`t hesitate to give me tips or feedback.
I believe the IHI RHB6 has the carbon seal, tho I don't know if parts are still available for these. The last time I sent the turbo out for servicing, after about 125,000 miles, this seal was replaced, along with the impeller and shaft bushings. That was in year 2002. Turbonetics, in northern California, USA.
Give me a shout when you are further along with this project. I may be able to help you avoid some of the pitfalls I ran into early on!

Dick Taylor


Best regards
Joerg

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
TR-Fuzzy Jörg Kratz
BC, BW, Germany   DEU
Hi,

@Richard, hopefully I don`t rob your thread. Or you see it more like a continuation or supplementation of the turbo conversion itself.

@Dick, thank you for your quick response.
It is great for me to hear, that you have copies of the original Arkay paperwork. And hopefully you could make copies for me. This would really help to get the car legally on the road here in Germany.
My new engine is too expensive to make mistakes and so it`s great that there`s someone out there who has 200.000 miles of TR6-turbo-experience.


The acceleration figures from you and Richard sounds outstanding for me.
In the end this is what counts and not the pure power figures.
I think this is because of the outstanding torque level, which is probably not reachable without charging. Or it will cost much more money.

I thought it would be better to install a more modern water methanol injection. But if I understand your setup right, it`s maybe not necessary in a draw through setup.
The guys who sell the modern units say, that it is essential to have very small droplets.
And so I thought, that it´s more efficient to inject behind and to have the right amount of water to the boost level.
I`m afraid, that they want to sell their stuff and that this plays a role for modern hightec engines.
But our iron lumps with an old school draw through system are far away from perfect.
Here it´s the task to make it better not perfect.
>>> Richards TR6 is still running without water injection and very conservative ignition figures.
And yes, with a controller it´s more complicate and I like it also to keep things simple. So we will see. In the end I could sell my controller.

Your ignition figures confirm my theoretical calculations. The Newman 260 cam is more or less an improved version of the late 256 from Triumph. This cam has more lift and gives very good low end torque. A guy in Germany gets on a non-tubo setup 144hp at 4800 rpm, 225Nm at 4200 rpm, over 200Nm from 1900-4700 rpm, with a flowed head and fine tuned CD175 carbs. My expectations are, to get a not noticeable turbo lag and a wide power band from 1500 – 5000 rpm.
I want to start with 10° - 12° static. Without boost max. 38°-40° and a reduction of 1° for every point of boost. So under max. boost of 14 – 15 psi, it will end up between 23°-26°. That´s a little below the original PI (CP 143hp) figure and a little bit below of your figures.
So it`s a little bit more conservative and I should be on the save side.

Do you use an exhaust temperature senor as well?
Under boost condition, the AFR should be around 12,5 or a little below if the exhaust temperature is to high.
Is that right?

I'm looking forward to the next comments.


Best regards,
Joerg



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-13 09:07 AM by TR-Fuzzy.

rjtr6 Avatar
rjtr6 Richard Janvier
Quebec, Quebec, Canada   CAN
Hello Joerg
No problem about the thread. The more we talk about turbos, the more we can get useful informations.
Dick have lot more experience on turbo tr6 than I and he will be more helpful regarding your set up.

Here is what I can say about mine. I was looking for a cheap way to increase the torque of my anemic engine (CR 7.75) and I also want to get it in the range of 1500-5500 rpm. As you know, it's not a good idea to rev this engine too much. For me, a small turbo was mandatory to get a low rpm spooling. Because it is a draw through set up I had to use carbon seal instead of dynamic seal. I can give you the part number of the carbon seal for a Garrett turbo if you need it. I also kept the stock US camshaft (18/58, 58/18) because of the short overlap it provide, minimising the intake charge dilution. I would like to have more lift by installing higher rocker arm ratio but the need of cam bushing stopped me. I didn't want to open the engine yet. Maybe later. My last main concern was the ignition curve. Initially I only put a sleeve on the advance limiting post in the distributor. The centrifugal advance was limited to 16 degrees at the distributor. As I increased the boost, I noticed that the ramp of the advance curve was too steep. Then I've tried different centrifugal advance springs to get the curve just right. I use no vacuum advance. Actually, my boost is at 9psi. Without MSD or water injection and I have no detonation on premium gas. The fuel mixture at full boost is around 12:1. Thanks to the wide band O2 sensor. I also fiddle with spark plugs heat range. I noticed that a one step colder plugs was fine but fooling occured over a short period of time. I use standard plugs now. Maybe with a higher boost, the colder plugs will be a good idea. The MSD will become essential for the engine survival then.

Hope this help
Best
Richard

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
dicta dick Taylor
Downey, Callifornia, USA   USA
In reply to # 1491692 by TR-Fuzzy Hi,

@Richard, hopefully I don`t rob your thread. Or you see it more like a continuation or supplementation of the turbo conversion itself.

@Dick, thank you for your quick response.
It is great for me to hear, that you have copies of the original Arkay paperwork. And hopefully you could make copies for me. This would really help to get the car legally on the road here in Germany.
My new engine is too expensive to make mistakes and so it`s great that there`s someone out there who has 200.000 miles of TR6-turbo-experience.


The acceleration figures from you and Richard sounds outstanding for me.
In the end this is what counts and not the pure power figures.
I think this is because of the outstanding torque level, which is probably not reachable without charging. Or it will cost much more money.

I thought it would be better to install a more modern water methanol injection. But if I understand your setup right, it`s maybe not necessary in a draw through setup.
The guys who sell the modern units say, that it is essential to have very small droplets.
And so I thought, that it´s more efficient to inject behind and to have the right amount of water to the boost level.
I`m afraid, that they want to sell their stuff and that this plays a role for modern hightec engines.
But our iron lumps with an old school draw through system are far away from perfect.
Here it´s the task to make it better not perfect.
>>> Richards TR6 is still running without water injection and very conservative ignition figures.
And yes, with a controller it´s more complicate and I like it also to keep things simple. So we will see. In the end I could sell my controller.

Your ignition figures confirm my theoretical calculations. The Newman 260 cam is more or less an improved version of the late 256 from Triumph. This cam has more lift and gives very good low end torque. A guy in Germany gets on a non-tubo setup 144hp at 4800 rpm, 225Nm at 4200 rpm, over 200Nm from 1900-4700 rpm, with a flowed head and fine tuned CD175 carbs. My expectations are, to get a not noticeable turbo lag and a wide power band from 1500 – 5000 rpm.
I want to start with 10° - 12° static. Without boost max. 38°-40° and a reduction of 1° for every point of boost. So under max. boost of 14 – 15 psi, it will end up between 23°-26°. That´s a little below the original PI (CP 143hp) figure and a little bit below of your figures.
So it`s a little bit more conservative and I should be on the save side.

Do you use an exhaust temperature senor as well?
Under boost condition, the AFR should be around 12,5 or a little below if the exhaust temperature is to high.
Is that right?

I'm looking forward to the next comments.


Best regards,
Joerg

Joerg & Richard --- Hopefully the copies of the original ARKAY Turbocharger will be attached. You'll see a few changes to the one posted in Post #38. Just some areas I found necessary when running boosts beyond the "recommended 6 lb." Safe to say the kit as supplied was marketed to those who just wanted to bolt on the extra power without concerns about reliability. Upping the water injection nozzle size for more charge cooling added some safety, as we know that detonation must be avoided to keep the supplying piston makers from buying new boats every year! (Forged pistons would help, but don't have them.) Along with that is to have an ignition unit that serves well when running without boost pressure, yet keeps spark plugs and points happy for a very long time. The MSD6-BTM does this and keeps the (colder) Champion 7's clean and the built-in capacitor eliminates pitting of the points, and controls dwell. The MSD Blaster II coil is outlasting the Lucas Sports coil.
No exhaust temperature sensor. Never had a heat problem in and around the exhaust. Passenger footwell* heat not an issue. This area was measured at 3 deg. above ambient with an infrared thermometer. (Outside temperature 80 deg. and * at 83 deg.) The starter motor is unprotected and always does the job. The 02 sensor is located approx. 10 inches down from the turbo out pipe.
My A/F monitor shows 14.0:1 when cruising, and 13.0:1 when on boost. Many custom needles were made from base stock to get to these numbers. It is written that the addition of water injection to the mix cools the charge sufficiently enough that adding "extra" fuel (as 12:1) isn't necessary and power is not sacrificed in doing so. Can't prove, so can't say.
Carry on!

Dick


Attachments:
Image 018.jpeg    60.3 KB
Image 018.jpeg

Image 019.jpeg    43.7 KB
Sign In or Register to view this photo
TR-Fuzzy Jörg Kratz
BC, BW, Germany   DEU
Hi,
@Dick, thank you very much for the copies! >>>That is great and it will help very much.
@Richard, you say that you have 16° at the distributer. That means you have 32° at the crank and as max figure in the ignition curve, right?

I try to summarize the information:

Head:
CR 7,75:1 or lower.
Original design is sufficient, but I think a blueprinted, flowed head with larger valves couldn`t be a failure.

Carb:
1x SU 2” but one ZS CD175 works as well. It is necessary to customize or blueprint the needle and the spring. For longer trips on the highway, to prevent icing, it is useful to have a water heated flange for the carb.

Ignition:
It is simply possible to use the original distributor if the advance curve is reduced to 32° (@ Richard ???) The ramp from static to max. 32° has to be more flat as original.
It is useful to use a programmable ignition, where it is possible to have a carb advance curve (for ex. 11° static and 38° max.) and it is additionally possible to reduce the advance figures under boost. Role of thumb: 1° per 1PSI.

Water-alcohol injection:
To 9PSI and a AFR figure 12:1 under boost (Richards TR6), it is not absolutely necessary to use a water-alcohol injection.
Over 10PSI and/or with a more lean mixture under boost (for ex. AFR 13:1), it is better or safer to use such a device.
For a draw through set up it is not absolutely necessary to use a modern, programmable device which injects in the intake manifold. It is sufficient to inject the liquid in front of the charger. This is because the compressor wheel atomizes the water-alcohol droplets.

Camshaft:
The original camshaft 256° (18 58 58 18, cam lift 0,24” or 6,1mm, valve lift 9,14mm) works and is sufficient. For a turbo engine it could be helpful to have a higher valve lift. For example the Newman PH1 260° (20 60 60 20, cam lift 0,26” or 6,6mm, valve lift 9,9mm >>>8%more) or any other cam which has not much overlap.


I want to run the car with an adjustable boost device. Nothing complicate, but it should be installed and adjustable in the cockpit.
The idea is to setup the engine under max. boost. But for daily driving I want to reduce the boost level.
The spring in carb should be stiff enough, that the piston just opens to maximum under max. boost. If I reduce the boost level than the airflow is lower and the piston wouldn`t pull up to the top. So in theory I will get automatically the right AFR level.
Yes I know that´s theory and in the end I have to make try-storming and not just brainstorming. But hopefully you may have already had experiences with this issue.

@Dick, am I on the right track? I think you are driving with different boost levels. Do you have to change the carb needle every time you change it? Or do find a more simple solution?

@Dick and @Richard, do both of you use the double exhaust manifold? I ask, because currently I have the older style from a TR250 or very early TR6 in place. This has only a single flange. I know that this is a terrible design for a non turbo engine, but I thought that it is a different story in a turbo setup. I had a look on different turbo manifolds and all of these won`t work very well in a non turbo setup.


Best regards
Joerg

rjtr6 Avatar
rjtr6 Richard Janvier
Quebec, Quebec, Canada   CAN
Hello Joerg
Yes, I have 16 degrees at the distributor and the curve is less steep than the original one. It's not the ideal solution but it works for me.
I think that the CR could be higher than 7.75. Many turbo set up are at 8.5 e.g. Volvo 740.
I also think that a 2'' SU is a better choice like Dick's one.
Programmable ignition is a good idea. You don't have to fiddle with spring and weight and it'll be more accurate.
It is safer to install a water injection system, especially if you put high money in your engine. Mine is bone stock so it is less stressing to take the risk.
Concerning the boost control, I use a spring wastegate without pressure/vacuum control. Maybe it's possible to have some kind of adjustment there but I have no related experience.
To damp the carb piston opening I only change the grade of oil in the dampening chamber on top of the Stromberg. It allows fine tuning of the carb response. I think that too much spring pressure on top of the piston will result in a less than ideal flow at the carb.
My exhaust manifold is the double one. My main concern was to keep the velocity of the exhaust gas high to help the spooling of the turbo, so no performance header. The older style exhaust manifold sounds good to me as well.
Hope this help
All the best
Richard

TR-Fuzzy Jörg Kratz
BC, BW, Germany   DEU
Hi,

ok than I was right, that your engine is running with a total advance of 32 under boost.

To start with a higher CR is not an option for me. Yes in modern turbo charged cars they use much higher CRs. But these hightech engines have knock sensores and fuel injection. Additionally these engines often have better shaped combustion chambers to prevent knocking.
I think for our engines it is better and safer to start with a low CR.

I'm happy that I could reduce the CR to 7,4:1 with special shaped forged pistons. Then I have the option to drive more safely a higher boost level and certainly with a higher power output. With a light weight sports car, a 2,5l engine and a charger which spools up quickly, it should be possible to compensate the low CR level and the turbo lag.

But currently this is all pure theory.
Both of you have practical experiences and that is in the end what counts on the street.


Best regards,
Joerg

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
dicta dick Taylor
Downey, Callifornia, USA   USA
In reply to # 1492223 by TR-Fuzzy Hi,
@Dick, thank you very much for the copies! >>>That is great and it will help very much.
@Richard, you say that you have 16° at the distributer. That means you have 32° at the crank and as max figure in the ignition curve, right?

I try to summarize the information:

Head:
CR 7,75:1 or lower.
Original design is sufficient, but I think a blueprinted, flowed head with larger valves couldn`t be a failure.

Carb:
1x SU 2” but one ZS CD175 works as well. It is necessary to customize or blueprint the needle and the spring. For longer trips on the highway, to prevent icing, it is useful to have a water heated flange for the carb.

Ignition:
It is simply possible to use the original distributor if the advance curve is reduced to 32° (@ Richard ???) The ramp from static to max. 32° has to be more flat as original.
It is useful to use a programmable ignition, where it is possible to have a carb advance curve (for ex. 11° static and 38° max.) and it is additionally possible to reduce the advance figures under boost. Role of thumb: 1° per 1PSI.

Water-alcohol injection:
To 9PSI and a AFR figure 12:1 under boost (Richards TR6), it is not absolutely necessary to use a water-alcohol injection.
Over 10PSI and/or with a more lean mixture under boost (for ex. AFR 13:1), it is better or safer to use such a device.
For a draw through set up it is not absolutely necessary to use a modern, programmable device which injects in the intake manifold. It is sufficient to inject the liquid in front of the charger. This is because the compressor wheel atomizes the water-alcohol droplets.

Camshaft:
The original camshaft 256° (18 58 58 18, cam lift 0,24” or 6,1mm, valve lift 9,14mm) works and is sufficient. For a turbo engine it could be helpful to have a higher valve lift. For example the Newman PH1 260° (20 60 60 20, cam lift 0,26” or 6,6mm, valve lift 9,9mm >>>8%more) or any other cam which has not much overlap.


I want to run the car with an adjustable boost device. Nothing complicate, but it should be installed and adjustable in the cockpit.
The idea is to setup the engine under max. boost. But for daily driving I want to reduce the boost level.
The spring in carb should be stiff enough, that the piston just opens to maximum under max. boost. If I reduce the boost level than the airflow is lower and the piston wouldn`t pull up to the top. So in theory I will get automatically the right AFR level.
Yes I know that´s theory and in the end I have to make try-storming and not just brainstorming. But hopefully you may have already had experiences with this issue.

@Dick, am I on the right track? I think you are driving with different boost levels. Do you have to change the carb needle every time you change it? Or do find a more simple solution?

@Dick and @Richard, do both of you use the double exhaust manifold? I ask, because currently I have the older style from a TR250 or very early TR6 in place. This has only a single flange. I know that this is a terrible design for a non turbo engine, but I thought that it is a different story in a turbo setup. I had a look on different turbo manifolds and all of these won`t work very well in a non turbo setup.


Best regards
Joerg

Joerg --- Yes, I believe you understand most of what info has been provided. Certainly enough to proceed with your project! On the exhaust manifold, your single pipe style should be OK. Ssince all exhaust has to be funneled into the turbo, the split pipe style with the later engines must go into a single "J" pipe anyway. We are not dealing with variable ratio turbos here.

No, the needle should not have to be changed when the boost level is adjusted up or down. The needle should be shaped for the highest boost level you expect to run.The air valve in the carburetor piston finds its own level. So says the A/F monitor! Mine shows the 13.0:1 when on boost and stays there whether the waste gate is set on 8 lb. or 12 lb. I did find that one of the richer needles used at one time that gave a 12.0:1 mix also produced a non-boost mix of 13.0:1 which reduced my (4 speed) highway mileage from 25 mpg to 22 mpg. Gas prices what they've risen to made me more conservative, since no benefit was seen with the richer mixture.
A cockpit adjustable waste gate sounds like a nice feature to have. (Indy 500 racers sometimes use this to conserve fuel, as needed) It would be an undertaking probably beyond my skill level to attempt this, not being all that computer savvy! Knowing what octane levels are available at the pump in my area, and the controls in place to deal with detonation, I just set the boost to what seems to be the highest and pretty much leave it there. At one time I did a lot of high altitude (between 5,000 and 8,000 ft.) driving and set the boost level higher, but put my skis away some years ago!
Boost levels for daily driving are still somewhat controllable by the position of the gas pedal. If you set the boost high you don't necessarily have to max it out when you want to go into boost. Just not using the last part of the throttle will reduce the boost. Like driving a non-boosted engine.

On camshafts...Higher lift cams with large durations do the same thing whether the engine is boosted or not. The lower rpm tradeoff is almost the same, but a non-boosted engine can take advantage of machining the head for a higher CR. We don't want this high CR with a non-computer controlled TR engine when boosted, as it limits how much boost can be used. The nice feature about a boosted engine, as we know, is the way it can be tuned to run smoothly in non-boosted driving. If you are looking for the ultimate in power, then you'll want a cam with high lift and long duration to go with the high boost.
I've used cams from the S-2, to the Isky Z-19, back to "stock", and currently the one supposed to be the 125 HP stock, late cam. If you need to pass any of the emissions tests in your area, I'd go with the stock grind. Otherwise a lot of de-tuning would be necessary to pass. The A/F monitor is invaluable for this!

It is written to use a 50-50 mix of water and methanol, the methanol "to gain back power lost by the water". Sounds good, but not noticeable. We just want a cooling agent here. I use straight distilled water now, since the engine isn't subject to freezing conditions.

Dick

65or66 Gold Member Jim B
Lake village, IN, USA   USA
1965 Triumph Spitfire MkII
1973 Triumph Spitfire 1500 "Jusanudda Munny Pit"
Helloo turbo guys!! Well done!! This thread has been great fun to read. Glad to see up-dates and new interest also. Never saw it before as I spend most of my time on the Spitfire/GT6 forum. I have to say, this thread made me giggle like a little girl. It all looks like great fun, and (relatively) simple. Wonderful way to get some serious fun out of the low CR engines. Great ingenuity to make such power and keep it under the RPM limits too!!

I'll have to search for more turbo threads, when I have a LOT more time to read.
Thanks again!!

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <
TR-Fuzzy Jörg Kratz
BC, BW, Germany   DEU
Hi,

yes it´s fun that there is a turbo thread and that it still lives.
Here in Germany it is almost impossible to discuss such things in a classic car forum. Yes the Germans do this on their more modern cars as well, but on a classic car…., uuuhhhh, it is better if you don`t talk about it.

It is possible to collect general information in books and other forums (for ex. In a american VW-Bug forum), but it`s even better to have information which fits more specific to the TR technic.
So I`m very happy that I could share and discuss these ideas with Dick, who has over 30 years, over 200.000 miles experiences and with Richard who builds a “copy” of this conversion in the last years. Yes, and maybe there are more enthusiast who want to share their turbo ideas as well. Or out there is someone who wants to try it now.

I think on a Triumph it is an exotic way to get power out of these old iron lumps. But it´s a possibility to get power without a higher rev level. And especially for the 2,5l this is less stressful and could be an important point. Additionally I expect a much higher torque figure which is hard to beat with a non turbo setup.

Yes it is a lot of fun to drive a blueprinted Triumph 6 cylinder TR. But I`m sure that it`s even more fun with a higher torque figure on a lower rpm level and that`s produced by a turbo charger. I think with a seriously modified suspension and drivetrain this competitive concept is a perfect combination in a TR.
I don`t want to do racing every day, but one or the other hill climb would be a lot fun.

And to be honest, I like to do something that is not mainstream, like: Triple Webers, special headers or exhaust manifolds, racing cams, ……
But yes, it could be much easier to order this things from a supplier and do what a lot of people do.



Best,
Joerg

shynsy Avatar
shynsy tim dafforn
Kenilworth UK, Warwickshire, UK   GBR
Agree on the low end torque... am unsual in having the Moss supercharger kit fitted to a car in the UK. Did have the PI fitted which is great when it is working, but the low end torque of the supercharger matches nicely the long stroke nature of the 6. Being able to accelerate away from OD4th at 30 mph :-)
Cheers
Tim

TR-Fuzzy Jörg Kratz
BC, BW, Germany   DEU
Hi,
@Dick,
to control the boost level, I want to use a device like this:

http://shop.wiltec.info/product_info.php/info/p2615_Dampfrad-fuer-alle-Turbo-Motoren---Benzin---Diesel.html

It is more or less a simple valve.
Sorry that it is in german. But the illustration should be understandable in every language. And I'm sure there is a similar device from local a suppliers in your area.

>>>No electricity and no computer :-)


Best regards,
Joerg

dicta dick Taylor
Downey, Callifornia, USA   USA
In reply to # 1493181 by TR-Fuzzy Hi,
@Dick,
to control the boost level, I want to use a device like this:

http://shop.wiltec.info/product_info.php/info/p2615_Dampfrad-fuer-alle-Turbo-Motoren---Benzin---Diesel.html

It is more or less a simple valve.
Sorry that it is in german. But the illustration should be understandable in every language. And I'm sure there is a similar device from local a suppliers in your area.

>>>No electricity and no computer :-)


Best regards,
Joerg

The valve shown looks like it will do the job, depending on how the pressure is received at the waste gate. Mine is a turnbuckle adjustment that acts on an internal spring inside a sealed canister. No electrics or computers here either. The seal in mine has been replaced twice over the last 30+ years.

Dick


Attachments:
Wastegate turnbuckle adj..jpg    31.8 KB
Wastegate turnbuckle adj..jpg

dicta dick Taylor
Downey, Callifornia, USA   USA
Joerg --- Since there's two turnbuckles in the last photo, here's one points to the waste gate boost control valve.

Dick



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-10-22 07:10 PM by dicta.


Attachments:
Turbo wastegate:adj..jpg    33.1 KB
Turbo wastegate:adj..jpg

TR-Fuzzy Jörg Kratz
BC, BW, Germany   DEU
Hello Dick,
I think most turbos with an internal wastgate looks like your setup. With the turnbuckel you mechanically ajust the boostlevel.
But with the additional valve you could manipulate the pressure for your actuator which pulls or pushes your turnbuckle.

May be this is more visual.

http://my.prostreetonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Diagram.png



Best regards,
Joerg


Attachments:
Valve.jpg    21.9 KB
Valve.jpg

. Hide banner ads & support this website by becoming a > Gold Supporting Member <

To add your reply, or post your own questions

Members Sign In   or   Create an Account

Registration is FREE and takes less than a minute!


Having trouble posting or changing forum settings?
Read the Forum Help (FAQ) or contact the webmaster