Is your 2.3L out of a Mustang? If it's out of something else, you may actually be better off with head design or how much boost it can handle without s***ing a piston.I have a 2.3L I want to turbo but it was built for N/A. what is the highest compression I can run on a turbo and what size turbo should I am for. I have one that I think is around the 30mm range.
I looked into it, both the Grand National and the SVO used a T-3 turbo. I am having a hard time finding if any cars came with the T-3/T-4 hybrid from the factory.The SVO Mustang originally came with a T03/T04 turbo, that would be what I would use.
I am pretty sure the majority of SVO's sold, had the Garret T-3 with .60 A/R on the inlet side. I have only seen the smaller Warner ISHI/IHI turbos on the T-bird turbo coupes, but that might be because they were not as reliable as the Garret turbos. I seem to recall one customers SVO that had the Warner turbo on it.
But now you have me wondering, which production cars, came with the T-3/T-4 turbo. Hmm, I got it..the 87 Buick Grand National and....:dunno I can't think of the other one
+1 this is very good advice to listen to!the factory n/a engines are not a good head design for boost. There is a problem with the way the heads are designed, and no matter how strong the rods and pistons are, eventually the head design and any fair amount of boost will cause an engine failure.
I understood the statement perfectly fine. You have to look at the smaller chamber is also going to make more pressure. If you run 18 lbs of boost in a turbo head, then run 18 lbs in a N/A head the pressure is going to be much greater in the N/A head putting greater stress on all parts. It will be actually around 20+ish lbs of boost with the n/a head.. I myself would not run 10:1 compression on a turbo motor. Unless you have strong parts and a well built engine. I myself would run 9:1 or lower! From the way I read the thread is making it sound like Its ok to run alot of boost,and a N/A head with alot of combustion! This will make for a very bad day.IMOThe factory N/A engines are not a good head design for boost. There is a problem with the way the heads are designed and no matter how strong the rods and pistons are, eventually the head design and any fair amount of boost will cause an engine failure.
I think you might be miss-reading the point 03R code was making. His point is valid, in that the factory turbo motors seem to be the best and most economical platforms to build a turbo motor from. They were designed with turbo charging in mind, after all!
From a scientific point of view, the N/A head has a clear advantage by having a smaller combustion chamber.
Take a look at any modern racing head you will notice something in common with their designs. That “something” is the chamber size.
Peak operating cylinder pressures are always governed by the cylinder head materials and the design of the combustion chamber. Detonation, is ultimately what will determine how much power can be developed in any engine. There are methods that can be used to push these limits, regardless of the design. Water injection, inter coolers, high octane fuel “read slow burning” fuel and small chamber size, are all valid methods of controlling detonation, within an engine. Again, detonation being your biggest limiting factor.
Ok Craig, why the hell do I want a small combustion chamber?
My short answer is “quench” No I am not talking about your thirst, I am referring to the flat areas surrounding the combustion chamber.
The quench area is the flat part of the piston and head that would make contact, if you had .000" clearance between the 2 surfaces.
Most racing engines run a minimum of about .035" clearance between these surfaces. This decreases to the chance of a collision between the piston and cylinder head. The pressure wave from this near collision, drives gases at high velocity through the combustion chamber. This movement of gasses cools hot spots, lowers the chamber temperature, reduces detonation and increases power. This is why most late model heads run very small chamber sizes and are able to run substantially higher compression ratio’s than their predecessors.
This is why a lot of racers use thinner head gaskets, even though they give up gasket strength doing it.
Now that I have bored all of you to sleep, I have just a couple more observations to make about the N/A head.
There are many turbo 2.3 engines out there running the N/A heads. When properly ported they flow really close to what the turbo heads do and if you cut up a turbo head and a N/A head and lay them side by side, you will see, that the wall thickness is almost identical between the 2. In fact I might go out on a limb and say, that the smaller chambered head would provide greater stiffness surrounding the chamber and therefore it might be less prone to cracking. Having a smaller chamber means there is more material surrounding it and well, cast iron isn’t very elastic stuff.
Have you tried to find an un-cracked turbo head these days?
Sorry for the long winded response.