Quote:
Quote:
But go ahead and prove me wrong if you think you're good enough!
Steve
Come on Steve, that's not like you to be arrogant! I'm sure you didn't mean it that way.
Didn't mean to come off as arrogant! I'd kinda like to see it done, just as intelectual engineering interest!
Problems offhand to start with,
The block isn't strong enough, particularly round the centre main web
The crank isn't strong enough (spend enough on tuftriding and stress relief and it MIGHT be)
The conrods aren't really man enough.
The standard compression ratio is too high.
The way the head is secured isn't really up to turbo combustion pressures
Ditto the head gasket.
The cam design doesn't allow for variations in cam timing between inlet and exhaust for max benefit.
Internal engine cooling isn't good enough, a turbo will generate almost twice as much heat as NA.
Packaging IS the big one though. No matter how you slice it, there is no WAY you can get a turbo near enough to the head to avoid massive lag. Roger's simple suggestion of reversing the manifold won't work, the holes don't line up. And in any case the turbo needs to be more or less in the middle or the pulse pathways are all different lengths. So, unless you are willing to have the turbo poking up through the bonnet like some American dragster, it's a bit of a non starter.
The final nail in the coffin is that there are at least a half dozen purpose built turbo'd engines that WILL fit the hole, deliver decent and reliable power increases and cost a lot less (and deliver more) than anything you can do with the Sprint lump. Yes it was cutting edge tech in it's day, but that was 50 years ago, engines have moved on since then!
Steve