Turbocharged 360 Magnum?

Mark Nixon

Mark Nixon

The Best Fun In The World Is Right There,
Okay, so I may be going "69.5 Cuda" :D on you guys, but is it practical to twin-turbocharge a 360 Magnum?
The reason I was thinking of a 360 Magnum to do this with, is because of their better type of fuel injection (port injected, like the turbo 2.2/2.5 engines).
From what I've seen on the 2.2 engines, the turbo feeds just prior to the injectors, yet after the throttle body, making the throttle body on the intake side of the turbo.
Would I HAVE to put the TB on the 360 in the same position or can I blow it into an air cleaner assembly that's pressurized by the turbo, then pass it through the TB?

I've already acquired 2 of the mid-'80s turboes from 2.2 cars, and I have a 360 Magnum (somewhat torn down, but complete) to guinea pig with.

I know the plumbing is a nightmare, but I have avenues I can go through to do exhaust work for it cheap.
Not to mention that the 2.2 turboes also use water to cool them. :doh:

I'm also considering a V-6 with an old D.C. cam and these turboes, but more for in-car plumbing considerations than anything.

Any insight on this would be appreciated.

Mark.
 
I've seen turbocharged TPI Chevy small-blocks where the throttle body stayed in the factory location... not sure as to the advantages or disadvantage as to throttle-body locations. If I recall, the MPI 2.2L had the turbo upstream from the throttle body as well.

Way back when the whole Super 60 package was still available, I used to think about a 273 with twin Super 60 setups on it, since a 273, size-wise, is about the same as two 2.2L engines.

On similar ground, I have three 2.6L Conquest turbochargers lying around (one is still assembled, the other two in parts) and the thought of a single or twin turbo 3.9L or even LH-car 3.5L have stumbled across my brain a time or two rather than a heavy V8 where the four once resided.
 
Jass, the turbo on the earlier 2.2 cars is downstream of the TB, upstream of the injectors.
Was wondering if I could put the turbo upstream of it all and just pressurize an air cleaner housing instead.
The Magnum is tight to the hood on an A body, the air cleaner barely clears the hood with no scoop.
Stealth mode is desired, here.
Yes, I'm thinking of a tarantulizing an A body.

From what I've read so far, the smaller turboes are a better idea, since I'm not interested in pushing more than @ 10 psi.

Mark.
 
well even the little mitsu turbo's can handle 20psi befor grenadeing...hell stock calibration on mitsu turbo'ed 2.5s cuts out at 14.5....the super 60s lag a tad more but can go up into the higehr psi's.....i think for a small block i would run 2 super 60's idealy..but i see no reason why a set of mitsu's pumping out say 12-14 wouldnt do the same job with less lag....

as for plumbing...id plum it just like a 2.5 turbo with 1 minor change...bolt a aircleaner to the turno inlet instead of running tubeing to another location for an air box
 
I may be wrong, but it would seem like two smaller turbos would spool faster, making throttle response snappier. Due to the heat, I'd also look into stainless for the headers.
 
Preferred arrangement is placing the turbo charger upstream of the throttle body. The carbureted turbos like the draw through method since the air vents are exposed to atmospheric pressure rather than boost pressure like the pressurized box mentioned previously. The only trouble there is dealing with the fuel air mixture passing through the compressor. Typically its a seal issue.

Back to the EFI turbo. It's an easy deal. Leave the throttle body where it is and plumb the outlet of the compressor up to it via an intercooler. I'm not familiar enough with the Magnum EFI to know how its arranged. I know it's a speed density system so you won't have to worry about plumbing an air meter in the intake piping.

Are you keeping the factory ECU and reprogramming or are you thinking aftermarket fuel/spark management.
I'm fortunate with my project in the fact that the factory did most of the work for me right down to the ECU.(turbo charge d 2.3L Ford in a Fox body) However, I'm really diggin' the Megasquirt II DIY EFI controller. Cheap, versatile, and as easy or easier than the big name management systems.
 
mopar_man said:
If you ask the "turbo gurus" on a local forum I frequent, twin turbos on ANYTHING is pointless.
Click to expand...
Jeez, I dunno... The Supra Turbo was a twin setup, as was the ridiculously-fast last-gen RX-7 (particularly the R1 and R2 variants). Admittedly, they were staggered turbos of different sizes, but then again neither car had an engine with a V configuration. However, Audi's V-engine S cars are almost all twin turbos, and the S4 I rode in last year was incredibly fast from 80 to almost 150. The old Maserati Biturbo was a hellion in its day, and it seems every aftermarket tuner working with a V-configuration engine seems to prefer a pair of smaller units. Also, as I recall, the two fastest production cars ever built--the McLaren F1 and the Bugatti EB110--both sported four turbochargers.

The way I see it, for large-displacement engines the twin turbo makes a lot of sense. Smaller turbos spool faster which means less lag, and unless you're planning on running a Y-pipe of some kind with a large single, you'd have considerable exhaust-flow imbalance between the left and right banks. The twin setup equalizes exhaust flow equal side-to-side since both sides are pushing an impeller.

Admittedly, I haven't studied this in a lot of depth, but that's what seems to make sense to me.

69.5, the 2.6L StarQuests (as they're called) were limited to around 10PSI stock depending on year, but would "flash" (instantaneous boost) to around 14.5 for a split second. The drawback to that induction setup was the fact that it was a TBI setup, and the simply awful reverse-tri-Y intake manifold. The MCA Jet head seemed like a good idea in 1977, but from what I've read the hot setup is to use a 2.6L Caravan two-valve head, aftermarket intake and MPI, and the MPI conversion is no walk in the park on those cars... enough so that the V8 conversion is a lot more appealing simplicity-wise, among other options.

Along the "other options" line, there's a guy on one of the SQ forums I check out that's building a twin-turbo Conquest using the Yamaha V6 from an early Taurus SHO and a T5 trans with G-force internals. Get this--the bellhousing he had to use is from a 3.0L V6/5-speed Aerostar. I worked in a Ford dealership and never even knew they built manual-trans Aerostars. :D

Mark, I think I'd pass on trying to pressurize a stock air-cleaner housing. I think you'd be better off with one of those hats that bolts down like the air cleaner unless you want to not run a filter and weld the lid on the housing. That housing was never designed to hold pressure; vacuum just helps seal the lid. Running a filter in that housing with a turbo seems a bad plan, as I'm guessing there'd have to be pressure loss through the filter media, as well as the possibility of blowing filter bits into the engine with a pressurized air charge. Also, you can forget the factory computer, as it has no way of dealing with the increased airflow and would allow the engine to detonate itself to death... pricey though it is, I'm thinking an Accel DFI or Edelbrock system would work better. Adapting to a mass-air system similar to a 5.0 Mustang would maybe be more cost-efficient, but you can still plan on having to have the computer flashed a few times at a dyno shop to get the calibrations in line... EFI Ed has had to do that with his custom Ford-based mass-air EFI system to get peak power out of his non-pressurized 492-inch stroker RB.
 
Last edited:
Jasser, interesting you should mention the Aerostar manual trans vans, because I've seen TWO of those things, one with a 3.0 and the other with a 2.8(?). Last one I saw was the 3.0 version....5 years ago.

Upon looking close it's going to be a real feat to incorporate those turboes under the hood of an A body.
That and the fact that they would have odd lengths of exhaust, no matter how I try to do it, pretty much has done in the idea from a simplicity standpoint.
Even removing the fenderwells and standing them upright for a more uniform exhaust length creates new issues.

It amounts to both turboes being the same, instead of one a reverse image of the other, not to mention the ever infuriating Mopar driver's side issues of manifold and steering gear.

I'm calling this idea a dead one. lol

Mark.
 
RustBucket said:
The carbureted turbos like the draw through method since the air vents are exposed to atmospheric pressure rather than boost pressure like the pressurized box mentioned previously. The only trouble there is dealing with the fuel air mixture passing through the compressor. Typically its a seal issue.
Click to expand...
If I recall, the other issue is fuel droplets hitting the compressor vanes as they're travelling at 30,000RPM. If not atomized properly, they'll actually crack or break the vanes. I'm not sure how they get around that, but I know the Pontiac 301 Turbo was a pull-through design, and actually a somewhat-entertaining engine for its day... a friend of mine used to have an '81 Turbo Trans Am with a couple of minor mods and it wasn't a world-beater, but it was a fun car. I never bothered to look at the setup closely, though.

EDIT: Mark, why not move the turbos? If you ran, say, upside-down shorty headers and ran a pipe, one turbo could reside where the battery used to be (since you're putting that in the trunk anyway--because I said so :D ) and the other in the matching location on the other side. Though it might complicate exhaust routing (it might simplify it, too, though), it would certainly aid in running pipes to an intercooler or two ahead of the core support. If not considering intercooling, it would still leave you with room for a couple of smooth 90s to come straight at the throttle body and into a Y-pipe that leads to the TB. It's a thought. There ain't no rule saying the turbos have to sit right on the manifolds/headers.
 
Last edited:
Jass has a point. Did I really just type that? :D

It would be a feat similar to feets' twice hairdried RB in a B. Flip the headers and feed the turbo from the collector. While it's a bit more complicated than that, that's the basic idea. It might even get you out of that driver's side clearance issue.

They wouldn't even have to sit up top. You could fab a set of headers that basically just change the direction from back to front exit and mount the turbos down low. Isn't there enough room on both sides of the radiator to do this now that Doc has moved your battery to the trunk?
 
if i was going to attempt this...and i have the 2 mitsu's to prove i mowed it over considerably(and its not a "dead subject" just back burnered for the 68)..id modify a set of stock driver s9de manifolds to route the exhaust to the front of the car or use a set of modified shortys...turbo's would be mounted 1 where the bat box is the other in the same spot on the other side...as for exhaust itself exiting the turbo ...simple go thru the fender well itself and hug the fender well untill just above the frame rail and either curve under the sar at that location or punch back into the car above the rail and then down as normal...this takes the steering box out of the hot seat and creats only 2 issues...fuel line must be re routed and the brake line prop valve must be re-routed as well...hole dutting is to a minimum and there is plents of clearance to do it hell theres even plenty of space for a BIG IC unit...and running the exhaust in this way would yield no foul clearance effects that any good header will do
 
Okay guys, I'll look into it further.
I'd actually figured on removing the inner fenderwells and the most minimal amount of the core support that I can and tuck them up in the corners by the battery area and below the horns.

One other thing I may do is rotate the intake side housings to help some of the fit.

As far as flipping the manifolds upside down, that works okay on big blocks, but smallblocks have that confounded oddball pattern and it really puts the stops on "flipping".

I'm wondering if it might be possible to take the Magnum manifolds and put them on reverse sides, which puts the outlest at the front of the engine, passenger's side might clear bacause the Magnum altenator sits way up, but the driver's may hit the power steering pump.

Looks like I need to gut a certain '67 Valiant Sedan and get it all mocked up. :D

Mark.
 
You can put the turbo anywhere. I saw something not long ago that replaced the muffler on a last gen camaro with a turbo set up it worked well and eliminated the need for mufflers. The turbo muffled the exhaust also. I don’t recall where I saw it but they did dino it before and after.
 
Interesting thread, turbo's are something I would like to toy with someday. :) As for the not flipping of the smallblock headers..if you have a sawsall and a welder simply cut the flanges off, flip and weld 'em back on.
 
Stretch said:
You can put the turbo anywhere. I saw something not long ago that replaced the muffler on a last gen camaro with a turbo set up it worked well and eliminated the need for mufflers. The turbo muffled the exhaust also. I don’t recall where I saw it but they did dino it before and after.
Click to expand...

Good point. I forgot about that. There's a guy on the local forum I mentioned on the first page who has a Camaro with a setup like that on it. Here is a picture of it:
sts.jpg

http://www.ststurbo.com/
 
or haul off a roller front clip "wink wink"...something that may or may not help for some extra hood clearance would be a tube steel intake smoothed into the TB.....pulse changed length headers into the turbo's would work as well ..equal length (in headers and intakes)is realy only good for 100% perfection not for something thats simply beat on....think about it ...when was the last time you saw a true equal length header? or exhaust manifold

it is true you "can" mount them anywhere but imagine the tubeing needed to run the boost back to the front of the car and the coolant/oil lines...what a mess
 
With the legnth of the tubing required to return the pressurized air you could use a smaller IC or maybe even run without one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

SiteLock

SiteLock
Back
Top