[Vwdiesel] Turbo talks -- ( more qestions ) ????
Val Christian
val at swamps.roc.ny.us
Sat Jan 31 09:31:42 EST 2004
Nice collection of quotes, Loren. The practical questions remain.
Is there a turbo I can slap on my 91 NA when I rebuild (well rering
and valvejob it) this spring?
And to what benefit? Lower noise would be really nice, but apparently
not really possible. More power is nice, but in my opinion, not
necessary, although my 17 yo son would strongly disagree.
>From what I've heard here, here's the comparison:
NA Turbo
Noise just slightly less, induction noise high
power increase
life possible decrease, due to non-turbo
rated pistons, cooling jets, smaller
oil pump, etc.
reliability good likely good after debug time
starting little likely change
protection enhance heatshield
Candidates? none mentioned
Other options rebuild injectors
adjust timing
modify induction resonation for 70 MPH frequencies
start using synthetics after rebuild
consider different transmission (not likely due to cost and
availability)
larger wheels, as minor effect substitute for ratio issues
Val
>
> In a message dated 1/29/2004 4:00:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> h_hagar at prcn.org writes:
>
> > Does turbo charging shorten engine life ?.
> > Answer --- resounding yes yes yes. Simple grocery store logic. So if you
> > bolt on a turbo using your NA engine --expect shorter life.
>
> From "Diesel Fundamentals, service, repair" page 124:
> However, on one four-stroke engine, brake (hp) was increased 37.5%
> over the (NA) engine. On another engine, the increase was 56%. Such
> increase is largely due to: 1) More complete scavenging. 2) Adequate air
> to support complete combustion. 3) Improved mechanical efficiency of the
> engine. There is no appreciable increase in friction hp with the increase in
>
> output."
>
> Page 127: (on efficiency and power increase)
> It will be noted that at 2100 rpm of the (NA) engine, the hp is 240 hp,
> while
> that of the supercharged engine is 320 hp. When aftercooling is added
> brake hp is increased to nearly 380hp.
> Improvement in torque and fuel consumption per brake hp hour are also
> impressive. At 2100 rpm fuel consumption for that particular engine (NA)
> was .425 lb/hp hour and the supercharger was .38. Only a slight improvement
> was attained by aftercooling.
> Torque improvement for this same engine was 675 for the (NA) engine,
> 875 for the supercharged engine, and 1025 ft. lb. for the supercharged and
> aftercooled engine."
>
> 1980 LA Times: (on Motor Trend/BAE cross country turbo Rabbit run)
> "Volkswagen also said it questioned the wisdom of turbocharging the
> Rabbit because, a spokesman said, Volkswagen believes the turbo
> device puts an extra strain on the small diesel engine that might
> cause a variety of types of damage.
> BAE emphatically denied Volkswagen's contention. BAE's president,
> Robert McClure, said five Rabbits equipped with the company's
> turbochargers have now logged 150,000 miles each with no appreciable
> extra engine wear."
>
> he goes on to say they offer replacemet warranty to cover costs that vw may
>
> refuse to cover. (something not done much yet, at that time.)
>
> There's mention in another article about same or better wear
> characteristics
> likely due to the more even loading of the piston rings. Something I read
> at Jake's, I believe said that the better scavenging and cooler combustion
> temperatures contribute to LONGER engine, or at least component life than
> in a NA engine. Cooler rings, less soot buildup, less lugging.
> I've yet to read any article that contributes shorter engine life to
> turbocharging.
> Lot's of hearsay that it does with NO examples cited but nothing tested or
> even printed. The only example I've seen was a nearly holed piston. Sure
> the turbo contributed to the severity of it IMO but the CAUSE was a bad
> injector.
> Loren
> _______________________________________________
> Vwdiesel mailing list
> Vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> http://www.audifans.com/mailman/listinfo/vwdiesel
>
More information about the Vwdiesel
mailing list