I had lunch and hung out with McMark and the Original Customs crew today and an interesting subject came up...

We've all heard the old joke about how you can't turbocharge a 914. In reality, it's been done many times. Mostly badly, but it's do-able. McMark's own car is a 1.7 turbo he built as a proof-of-concept and his build has worked so well, he practically daily drives it!

I know most of you have no reference for what I'm about to say but I'll try to explain; driving a 2270 stroker TypeIV is a great big bowl full of fun. The flat torque-curve means you don't have to shift all the time, just put your foot down and go. No lug, just grunt! Driving McMark's 1.7 Turbo is like driving a 2270. That, and when I have driven it, it was only at about 6# of boost or less. Turn that up, and you've got a serious screamer on your hands...

His execution is about the best I've ever seen (as per usual Original Customs fare). Yet, having very nicely proven the concept, McMark has only built one other turbo engine. What gives? You guys don't like the idea of a turbocharged 914?

Let's discuss this...

I think McMark should sell a bolt on turbo kit that fits stock engines and runs with low boost for reliability.

that's a good idea!

Who wants one? Group buy?

I have my doubts about turbo and reliability in the same sentence


And a lot of guys have gone turbo , Subaru turbo w r x + s t I


But I assume premium fuel is required


And didnt the designers of the McLaren f1 specify that only a n.a engine could be used

And said that turbos were undesirable due to ,heat , complex ity , nonlinear delivery of power+accelerated wear and tear etc.

Here we go and I'm not against turbo ing

My dad had a 3000gt v r 4 and what a smoking engine pure launch power wow

And I love the noble m12 ,British sports car with Ford turbo v6 ??? Why




Gordon Murray insisted that the engine for this car be naturally aspirated to increase reliability and driver control. Turbochargers and superchargers increase power but they increase complexity and can decrease reliability as well as introducing an additional aspect of latency and loss of feedback. The ability of the driver to maintain maximum control of the engine is thus decreased. Murray initially approached Honda for a powerplant with 550 bhp (410 kW; 558 PS), 600 mm (23.6 in) block length and a total weight of 250 kg (551 lb), it should be derived from the Formula One powerplant in the then-dominating McLaren/Honda cars. When Honda refused, Isuzu, then planning an entry into Formula One, had a 3.5-litre V12 engine being tested in a Lotus chassis. The company was very interested in having the engine fitted into the F1. However, the designers wanted an engine with a proven design and a racing pedigree.

Mcmark I think from what I 've heard around here

You 've got proven designs and pedigree

Actually, this is the point. McMark daily drives his. At least in his design, you can say turbocharged and reliability in the same sentence. His design is installed on a tired old 1.7 that he had hanging around the shop. We're talking about an engine he has counted on to get him to work for a couple years. Reliably. It's even been to WCR in Oregon I think? And not on a trailer. He it there!

Your 3 posts can be summed up in one simple sentence:

You missed the part where we've been talking about low boost ...

Lower then the fan charger that blows 1-2 bar of air in the intake ...But is only activated at full throttle ..


Heard about it hear also

The difference is that an electric fan charger is bullshit, and a turbo is real. I push around 6-7psi of boost. I've put thousands of miles on the motor and while I've made tweaks and adjustments, I haven't dealt with any major issues so far. Actually, lets be clear, I haven't dealt with ANY issues so far. I just keep trying things because for me this is a learning project. I have to try new things and keep changing things so I know what works and what doesn't.

Next step, adjustable boost control. I'd like to try out 12psi, which is still relatively low boost.

I'd also like to clarify, that this isn't a veiled attempt to sell more motors or turbo kits. Rob and I were talking, and I suggested that I doubted if anyone would ever buy a turbo motor or kit from me. Which is perfectly acceptable. But Rob was surprised, as are a few other people I've talked to, but I'm not sure why there is so little interest.

He did indeed drive it to WCR in the Dalles, OR.

I saw it with my own eyes.

That was 2 days after I fired it up for the first time.

Yup... I'm stumped. I just don't get why people who want to stay 4 cylinder aren't trying this proven method. It's absolutely as tame as the original 1.7 with an evil (reliable) secret.

If i still had a /4 i would certainly be interested!

Now, can we talk about a twin turbo setup for my 3.6?

Mark let me drive his car more than a year ago. It moves very very nicely! There is no way in heck you'd think that is a 1.7.

Just drop a 930 engine in it and your good to go.

Haven't there been some off-the-shelf turbo kits in the past; perhaps a current member or two remember.

Yeah, there was at least one. It stopped being produced for.....


Lack of interest.

I rode around in it for the parade laps. SUPER FUN
Thanks McMark

OK I want one

The only "kit" I can remember was the one Jake Designed , built and tested, but when the 5K bolt on upgrade was announced. the interested parties disappeared.

I need to look over at your build thread to see Pictures of the install, I'm assuming no cutting involved in your setup?

At the right price a kit makes perfect since , when you can pick up running 1.7 and 1.8 motors quite cheap bolt on the kit and go. and have 140hp + or -

I'm saving my $$
I can go turbo after I fix about 10 other things.
...which keeps depleting the $$.

The pics I saw looked like a pretty short run from turbo, intercooler, and intake was achieved. I have a "EuroRace" header, and have seen turbo pics of this design, but with the turbo at the end of the 4->1 collector. That run seems longer than what McMark built.

The kit would likely have an ECU and coil on plug, so costs are not insignificant.

Keep up the great work

so how could this be adapted to a L-jet 1.8?

what would be scrapped and would be saved?

what would run this as far as ign and ecu f/I?

could this be used with ssi 1.7 h/e & bursch collector ?

how much do you project this "kit" would cost?

Mark, Post a link to your thread. I think we need a refresher.

Couple things I'm not sure are in your thread. Did you ever dyno test it to see what the old 1.7 is putting out now? Are you happy with where the project is now? And have you ever thought about what a kit would run? And what could a guy expect to get in terms of hp from a stock engine with a low blow kit?

You need to get out more.....tons of factory turbocharged cars that have driven hundreds of thousands of miles are still being driven..daily...I have one! Tons of aftermarket turbo systems installed and driven everyday!

Our daily, a '98 Volvo T5 high pressure turbo...not one single part of the turbo system has failed and it has close to 170K miles on it...

Gee...the McLaren P1, you know one of the most bad ass new supercar uses 2 turbos!

An all out race car like an F1 cannot be compared to a street car, you look silly even trying it...oh yea, the newest F1 cars are turbocharged by the way

Anti-turbo people either never owned one and heard "stories" from other owners that are hack mechanics or if they do own a turbocharged car, the failures are from a bad/hack owner/mechanic.

I used the following:
A core 1.7 engine with good compression, but not new by any means
My microsquirt FI setup with coil on plug.
A KKK K03 knockoff turbo
A setrab intercooler
Custom exhaust built using 1.8 'log style' exhaust

It's a bolt in setup, but only reuses cooling tins, and intake path (throttle body to heads).

I haven't dyno'd it, but I can tell you the HP numbers would be deceiving. It's the torque from a turbo that makes it fun. A quick spooling, low boost turbo makes boost almost instantly and so the turbo doesn't 'come on', it just drives like a big motor.

I am completely happy. Like I said previously, I don't need to change a thing, but I'm gonna keep tinkering.

These setups are a lot of work. Expecting something in the $5k range is appropriate. But keep in mind that with this setup you're getting modern fuel injection, not just HP. Spend $5000 on a 2056 and you still need to make the engine run (exhaust, ignition, fuel). This setup kind of takes the engine out of the equation. Modern, reliable FI. Coil on plug. And turbo. In a setup that you can swap from motor to motor.

More details- http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=211954

I've read all of Marks thread as well as Ottos(?) and Ed Morrows threads from way back, always liked the idea of a turbo Type IV

Some rambling thoughts:

Pros:

There are few proven designs to take inspiration from.

For fuel and ignition control, Megasquirt has been proven to be reliable and very cost effective..have more money to burn, opt for a different EFI package.

eBay bought Chinese turbochargers have been proven to be cost effective and work.

Used turbochargers can be found for not much money.

Seems like there should be no reason a turbo kit should require cutting into the chassis so that if one wants the car could easily be turned back into stock

Cons:

No dyno runs..people want to see before and after results...at least an after result!

The market for a turbo kit is getting smaller all the time....it seems people are removing their Type IV and doing some other conversion on a weekly basis..

If based on the 1.7 d-jet, 1.8 people will have to source some different parts which will increase cost and frustration.

Not everyone wants a programmable FI system, if it could be truly plug and play that might ease some folks concerns.

eBay turbos again...not always reliable even for a brand new part, a few car mags have seen gains of 40 or more HP by swapping out the ebay/Chinese clone turbo for genuine brand turbo all things being equal.

Used turbos are used...lots of choices and nobody wants to buy the wrong part. Luckily it is an item that can rebuilt without too much investment.



******************************

I'd like to see more cars done, and depending on price I might be interested in such a thing since I already have a megasquirt (2 of them actually)

wait... You want to take evil fast and see what it feels like squared?

You sir will need a note from your doctor saying it's ok before McMark can take your deposit!

When I wrote the original post for this thread, I was just wondering out loud why there wasn't more interest. Seems there is at least some. This concerns me...
My car is number 11 on the Original Customs project list. I don't want that to slip back

So, move along folks... Nothing to see here.

I would definitely consider a turbo from McMark if offered in "kit" form. I have access to a few 1.7s and 1.8s and the cost to rebuild one as stock is one of the reasons why I'm considering going to a Suby - more power with modern features for about the same (if not less) money. McMark's turbo setup would offer a similar, albeit a little less power alternative for folks. And the BEST part is even if you did blow up the motor, you can swap in another $300 1.7 or 1.8 and transfer over all of his components and be back on the road in a weekend.

Do it Mark - I dare ya!

And I'd have to say you are right. They would never sell in the numbers needed to make the investment of buying stock. To bring the cost down you would have to sell a bunch of sets to get a break on your costs. You risk the chance of being stuck with systems that do not sell, at least not fast enough. A $5K price point you will only get a few takers at best. The 914 and Type4 is market is waining, the new generations don't want a car they want an iphone.

Another thing is you are having success because of the 1.7 smaller head bore. If you were to offer a kit it would be short order before someone mounted it on an unsuitable engine. If the power level is not enough then they will crank the boost. When it failed they would blame you personally.

Yep I'm being a downer, but I think Mark already knows these points just by his statement.

Most Diesel Locomotives pulling trains have turbos. They run for millions of miles and have a useful life of decades. Ok, diesel, I get it. But extremely reliable.

CON: No Heat!

This really sounds like getting at least some benefit of an engine swap without doing an engine swap. Plus I get to keep some originality to the car. Staying air-cooled has some appeal to me (if I understand this, it just adds an oil intercooler?). Sounds like there's still some question as to whether this would be less money than a swap or comparable... Contingent on that last question, I'm interested...

You could skip the Premium and go straight for the E85 tune . . . .

The philosophy of cars has changed quite a bit in the last two decades since the McLaren F1. See the new P1.

Add batteries and an electric motor for even more heat and complexity. It seems to fix the whole non-linear power delivery with electrics providing "torque fill" while the engine catches up to the demand of the little pedal on the right.

Working on that.

marty built a kit back in the day and if I recall from the pictures it was hanging off the stock heat exhangers to keep the OEM heat in place.

There is a paper article about it that someone posted up here at least once showing marty in his sandles working under the car.

I think his kit was at something like 4-6 lbs of boost.

Mark,
Do you have a simple way to cut a notch in the cylinders and heads for a piano wire, ala the 930 for sealing it?
Rich

One I get my Microsquirt up and running it is next on my list.

I want to throw a wrench in things and hang and Aerocharger off the end of my heater boxes. I know it's a bit more money, but it's oil less.

what are the pro/cons of either a jenvy throttle body, or modifying the intake manifolds to accept injectors (like SirAndy did)

Seems getting the injector closer to the valve would be better in the long run....just curious if anyone has evidence.

rich

yup

OK with all of the smart pep's that hang out here someone could maybe help Mark out with this project.....maybe a special GB to get the ball rolling.

even though i am on the east coast, i am seriously considering this, and i too am amazed that more would not consider it. i have a 2.0 and am very interested in seeing this on a 2.0(1911) rather than building a 2270. i know my motor needs a refershing and would seriously consider shipping it out there to be done. or maybe a cross country drive...... the plane ticket home would be about the same as the shipping cost i suppose;

Mine has been driving and reliable for 10 years and thousands of miles
Click to view attachment

Rich, you had to bring up the sandals...like Hot tub time machine
And you can't turbocharge a 911 either !
It only took the factory some years honing their boosty knowledge on their force fed 917 program , then applied it to their flagship=930.
Meanwhile in the 70's there were 3 go to shops for 914 turbos: Crown , MSDS and AK Miller ent.
Crown was mail order only, MSDS was mail order / turnkey installation, and AK Miller was installation only. The first 2 shops used Rajay FB40 Rajay turbos, Miller was a Garret air-research shop. Everyone had their favorites. We built MSDS bolt on kits until the late 1980'sClick to view attachment
In this photo circa 6/76, for VW Greats magazine our 2.0 turbo (7psi) is standing in the Irwindale (real 1,320') sand pit. In the foreground is the first 930 (magazine car) into the USA. The editor Jay Amestoy could not catch us in that car. Turns out the 930 waste gate was faulty in its open cycle, not able to catch the 914 running @ 15.4 / 95 mph in the quarter.
Marty

Just saying f1 is faster ,lighter

Middle seat position , real clutch

Supposedly worth 10 x more then p.1

And yeh I do need to get out more

At a car show recently a guy had a twin turbo old ads
Chevy pick up , thing ran like a p-38 lightning

Gordon Murray insisted that the engine for this car be naturally aspirated to increase reliability and driver control. Turbochargers and superchargers increase power but they increase complexity and can decrease reliability as well as introducing an additional aspect of latency and loss of feedback. The ability of the driver to maintain maximum control of the engine is thus decreased. Murray initially approached Honda for a powerplant with 550 bhp (410 kW; 558 PS), 600 mm (23.6 in) block length and a total weight of 250 kg (551 lb), it should be derived from the Formula One powerplant in the then-dominating McLaren/Honda cars. When Honda refused, Isuzu, then planning an entry into Formula One, had a 3.5-litre V12 engine being tested in a Lotus chassis. The company was very interested in having the engine fitted into the F1. However, the designers wanted an engine with a proven design and a racing pedigree.[6]

Don't increase my tension

lQzTLEzU6e4

And can you can you clarify exactly what effect Turbo supercharged ing has on compression. As in low compression , low boost ,high octane And huge intercooler

Is that the kind of combo that works well together ???

Barrel to cylinder head flame rings, there are matching machined grooves cut into both cylinder heads and barrels . These were made at Aasco Machining. Ive held 21 psi boost with this set up.This design can be applied to the type 4 as well, Click to view attachment