Project Family Truckster: 2wd Conversion Turbo LSx Blazer Build

[Farm Shop]

It was fun watching the Clunker get progressively faster and faster throughout the day. Here's another view of one of the 11.2 passes.

You Tube

[Tom Vogel]

It looks like you were able to hook pretty well on those 20's. Were you surprised?

[Wasted Income]

Thanks guys.

Tom, those are 18s with MT DRs.

I must have stumbled onto a great combo, because this thing seems like it will hook on ice. Zero problems, even on the street.

[LUV2XCLR8]

Wowsers, just read this from start to finish, very impressive build.

[mtully79]

That's awesome

[Wasted Income]

Put a few of the on-board vids together.

Cordova Vicary Day 2014 - The Turbo Clunker -...

[82ZZZR]

Very nice. Go Pro?

[Wasted Income]

Yup, just an el cheapo first gen Go-pro.

[TonyJohnson]

Very, very nice. Love how straight it goes. Seems to hook nicely too. Dang... I want one.

[ERASER5]

If I may, why did you choose a turbo for boost instead of a super charger? I really have no idea of the true pros and cons. I have heard that turbos are more efficient, but I doubt fuel mileage was your goal here. Just trying to learn something.

[Wasted Income]

Originally Posted by ERASER5

If I may, why did you choose a turbo for boost instead of a super charger? I really have no idea of the true pros and cons. I have heard that turbos are more efficient, but I doubt fuel mileage was your goal here. Just trying to learn something.

Turbocharger efficiency has nothing to do with fuel economy. You're capturing "free" power from the exhaust to make boost, instead of robbing 100+ hp from the engine to spin a blower and compress air.

I'm a turbo guy. Superchargers don't do a whole lot for me. They sound pretty cool though.

[patdaly]

I can say this, I am turbocharging anything I want serious power from. I spent way too many years trying to get 18 PSI of boost to run reliably with a centrifugal, and when I did get it to stay on boost ( belt slippage or rippage ), it was way too touchy to drive on the street.

Now, I am at the extreme end of the spectrum, 489 Ci BBC, but given the choice, today I honestly believe it is easier and cheaper to run a pair of hair dryers.

[Tom Vogel]

If I had it to do over, Id go the way Wasted Income has gone. turbo LS

[Wasted Income]

Originally Posted by patdaly

I can say this, I am turbocharging anything I want serious power from. I spent way too many years trying to get 18 PSI of boost to run reliably with a centrifugal, and when I did get it to stay on boost ( belt slippage or rippage ), it was way too touchy to drive on the street.

Now, I am at the extreme end of the spectrum, 489 Ci BBC, but given the choice, today I honestly believe it is easier and cheaper to run a pair of hair dryers.

Exactly. Blowers are great for lower power levels...but when you really start asking a lot of them, they slip or break like you said, and they put a LOT of stress on the front of the crank, causing breakage or crank flex.

A turbo engine that makes 1000 hp at the crank makes 1000 hp.

A blower engine that makes 1000 at the crank, might really be "making" 1200 hp, with 200 hp being consumed to turn the blower, to net that same 1000 at the crank. The bottom end of a blower engine takes more of a beating for sure.

[ERASER5]

OK, so for mild power a small blower is fine, but for big stuff go with a turbo?

[Wasted Income]

Not necessarily. Some guys make HUGE power with blowers.
Guys also make good streetable hp with a small reasonably sized turbo.

What are your goals and what is your budget? I'm sure we can get you pointed in the right direction.

Don't rule out nitrous either. I built an LQ4 Monte Carlo SS with spray that hurts a lot of feelings of big dollar cars.

[ERASER5]

I'm in the learning phase, but my company build test machines for a turbo manufacturer and I see many many different sixe turbos come thru for setup and test. Some get tossed in the steel recycling, likely they did not pass or otherwise broken. The little gerbil powering my brain had some thoughts. Between all the different parts we test, I could build a Johnny Cash car!

[skorpioskorpio]

Turbochargers and superchargers produce power in different parts of the RPM range.

Turbochargers require the engine be passing a fair bit of air already to get spinning (AKA: turbo lag) so they make their boost more in the higher RPM ranges. Before fuel injection it used to be even worse since typical applications usually put the carb either at the beginning of a really long intake plenum or sitting on top of a thousand degree heat source. Turbo lag can be reduced with a smaller turbo that gets spinning faster (but produces less ultimate boost). There are also dual stage systems that use a smaller turbo and a larger turbo driven of a common exhaust plenum. There is also variable vane turbos that can be electronically controlled to produce varying boost. Turbos also add more heat to the intake gas mixture which is where intercoolers come in to cool this gas mixture between the heat source and the intake. Oh and then there is wastegates to bleed off over pressure. It can all get pretty complicated.

Superchargers are basically just a belt driven pump, though these can come in several different configurations from the familiar Roots type you see on top fuelers (which is really a part borrowed from a 2 stroke diesel engine) to centrifugals which look like just the compressor side of a turbo with a belt where the turbine would usually be (there are also screw types and progressive vane types). The power is more linear and at modest boost levels will act, for the most part, like an engine with larger displacement and higher compression through out the RPM range. It'll consume more fuel, be more prone to pinging and pretty much have all the issues a higher compression higher displacement engine will have but without the benefit of component parts of a larger engine, add to that that the blower will also add additional stress on the rotating assembly of the engine to drive the resistance of the compressor. At higher boost levels, and at higher rpm ranges the intake pressure can start to do funky things to everything like blowing the intake valves open (when they aren't supposed to be open) or creating so much back pressure that turning the blower (especially in the case of positive displacement roots and screw type blowers) becomes very difficult. Positive displacement blowers also are designed to not allow any back flow at all or any forward flow if not driven. Unlike turbos superchargers do not typically have the equivalent of a wastegate to limit pressure so are typically driven (by varying the pulley size or actual pump size) to achieve a fixed target boost level.

Both superchargers and turbochargers increase the baseline pressure of the fuel/air mixture so that the engine is compressing a pre pressurized mix. They will both increase the stress on the combustion chamber related components, both be more prone to knock and both will push components past their design limits. To say that turbos are free horsepower is not exactly true, they create a lot of exhaust back pressure, introduce all kinds of heat to the intake, basically make all the typical things you would do to a normally aspirated engine to gain a little bit of horsepower a lot worse, like adding headers to make the exhaust evacuation more efficient, or adding a cool air intake.

Both have their place in both low additional horsepower and high, and both can be made to be drivable and dependable, and both can be made to disintegrate an engine. At the dependable and drivable levels turbos can be more dramatic in that you hit a certain RPM range and all a sudden it's like you kicked in an extra engine, where the supercharger being more linear doesn't have that tipping point where it's like you flipped the "more" switch. Also superchargers will consume fuel like a larger engine all the time.

[Wasted Income]

Originally Posted by skorpioskorpio

To say that turbos are free horsepower is not exactly true

You must have missed the quotation marks when I said "free".

[skorpioskorpio]

I was referring to a statement often made, I am very well aware it wasn't free in your case.

[mcbassin]

I spent the last few days going through this build. Awesome job on the project! I really love the boost setup too. I have a small LS in my truck, I can only imagine the thrill you get driving with all the extra ponies.

[c10-72 II]

Originally Posted by Wasted Income

Swapped from drums to discs on the rear axle. They're police Caprice / Impala SS brakes.





Also routed the rear brake lines to the calipers and temporarily secured them.





Got all the front and rear suspension back underneath it. Gotta run the brake hardline along the framerail yet.





Next up....big fuel.

What year caprice/impala did you use for the disc brake conversion? Did I convert to 5x3/4 bolt pattern too? Thanks

[Wasted Income]

The rotors and calipers are from a 94-96 Impala SS. I think the B4C police stuff is the same. They use the same 5x5 pattern as the trucks and astro vans.

[Wasted Income]

And let me add, that these brakes work FRIGGIN AWESOME, especially with the hydroboost.

[skorpioskorpio]

Do those rotors have the internal drum in the hub for the parking brake?