bcdavis

It's hard to say if these SC engines will withstand the test of time. They are making a lot of power, but will these engines last ten years, or two?

As far as the Euro cams and heads, I would say that I have a Euro with headers, etc, and I still want more power. People with s4s want more power. So my guess is that if you have a US s2 engine, and you swap for an s4 engine, or get a Euro top-end, you will not have the level of power you were wishing for.

My guide to power, is that I want more than the tires can handle. I want to have to be the one in charge of how much power I lay down... Too much power is the perfect amount! I want my biggest problem to be throttle control...

Tim Murphy

I tried to buy the 83 euro car off ebay yesterday but I couldn't get ahold of the seller in time. Someone else did the "buy it now" and I lost my chance. If I would have won that car I would be on the road to supercharging it since I already have most of the parts to do it. When I get some time I'll pick up an earlier car and supercharge it. If the results are favorable I'll get a kit together in the same fashion as I am doing with the 32 valve cars. As far as racing sc'd cars, there is no real good history of doing it and there is a lot of history with the stroker cars. There is a guy in Wisconsin running a 16 valve sc'd car on the track for a couple years now. He has had some issues but the car is still going around the track every chance he gets.

bcdavis

<a href="http://www.928trackcars.com/fausett/index-f.htm" target="_blank">Carl Fausett's Supercharged 16v Racecar...</a>

<img src="http://www.thedeathknight.com/928/928CarlSC.jpg" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://www.928trackcars.com/fausett/images/supercharger1.jpg" alt=" - " />

<a href="http://www.928trackcars.com/fausett/index-f.htm" target="_blank">Carl Fausett's Supercharged 16v Racecar...</a>

Blown Beast

"A lot of the failures so far, such as the issues with the Huntley car, were due to bolting the SC on a car with a problem engine..."

What happened to the Huntley car?
I made several calls down there to go look at the car and could never get them to return my phone calls.My understanding was that the customer wanted the car back in stock form.
Did they ever get the car running?
Anyone know if they are still working on the project?

bcdavis

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica"> The test car had some pre-existing issues (cracked block) which we were not aware of. That customer is going to a 6.8 ltr big block motor which is nearing completion. That had left us searching for a test car that has a stock motor. We have a customer car we are making arraignments to have fit into the schedule right now. We expect to be back on track with testing very soon. After seeing a SC 928 at California Speedway (centrifugal) over the weekend, we feel out kit will have vastly improved fit and finish and improved injection to support it properly. I will give you guys some updates as things progress again. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">

Z

There are a few 32v cars that have been supercharged for several years already without any problems when properly done. On the other hand, there have also been some that never made it out of the shop without major damage when not properly done.

The amount of additional strain on the bottom end from supercharging is a lot less than some of you guys seem to think. High RPMs and high piston speeds are definitely a lot harder on the bottom end than supercharging. Those high tech, light weight, super strong bottom end parts are typically needed to deal with higher RPM more than any increase in power. John's turbo Callaway has been around since what, 1982 or so? Has he had any bottom end problems due to the extra power?

None of the successfully supercharged cars that I can think of had an engine rebuild for the installation. I also know that at least a couple of the failures were not as a result of pre-existing problem engines.

Fastest928

Stroker reliability is well into the "I do stupid things to my engine" and with over 130,000 miles, a stroker still makes 98% power of original build and will show little to bearing wear!

Since strokers are visually no different than a stock 929, and run cleaner than a stock 928, can be serviced by any tech, and they pass the sniff and visual smog tests of CA.

On the other hand, this level of reliability, power on demand time and time again and the fact that you have a "new engine" with every wear item replaced...the process is not cheap.

It takes me over 100 hours to prep and build a stroker engine, not including remove, install and start and test. Add up the parts and labor...again, not cheap.

The maximum hp we have acheived so far using stock cams and fuel management system is 440 rwhp on 91 octane. Tims supercharged 928 is close to 75 rwhp more! And it can be done in a weekend (granted, it is 3 very knowledgable folks working 10-15 hrs per day for three days) and the parts cost is about $8,000.

I think that for some folks, that this is a perfect solution!

And for others, strokers do the trick....

...........sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't!!

Marc
DEVEK
5.4l nut coming soon???

martin D

Hey, bcdavis
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica"> My guide to power, is that I want more than the tires can handle. I want to have to be the one in charge of how much power I lay down... Too much power is the perfect amount! I want my biggest problem to be throttle control...
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">you been reading my mind ?

Normy

I've been studying cars for decades it seems~

In 1986 when I should have been studying aviation subjects in Embry-Riddle's library, I was instead doing desperate searches in the microfiche files [kind of a 1986 version of the internet] of car magazines to find out more about Reeves Callaway's totally hot turbo kit for Volkswagen Sciroccos. I had had a chance to test drive one of them the previous summer...and I was HOOKED. I dreamed of doing this to my own '85 Scirocco...of course it never happened.

[It did acquire a turbo eventually, in fact a factory-supported Jackman "Legend" kit, probably collectable since it was covered under the original VW warrantee and only 54 kits were made- Until the 1.8t cars came out these were the only 54 factory gasoline turbo VW's ever sold in the US~]

And then my best friend at ERAU had a friend visit Daytona for Spring Break...in his Dodge Omni GLH Turbo. This car had attitude- it was gentle as any crap Omni typically was until the rather large TO4 turbo spooled up, then all hell broke loose! This car had the right attitude, kind of like the drink of a child alcoholic: A sweet fizz followed by a deadly kick-

GAWD that car was fun, and since then I've been convinced that a "Q-Ship" was probably the most fun conveyance on the planet. Dodge Omni GLH Turbo? Nissan Sentra SE-R? Subaru Imprezza STI? Hang on!

-Boost sure seems the way to go for the ability to put some serious wear and tear on your seat backs. I still feel that way, and I've been paying careful attention to John's recent Northern Kentucky rebuild of his Callaway Twin Turbo. John, call me first if you ever want to sell that car.

AND...there I go to the dragstrip. First time with my previous car, a Volkswagen Corrado SLC- a car that probably comes closest to perfect in my 37 years of life. It could do anything- it outran [at the dragstrip, yes, with papers to prove it!] a '72 Corvette convertible, turned 14.9 second quarter miles, nearly swallowed [we ALMOST got the hatch to close~] my roomates' girlfriend's full sized futon....and got exactly 30 mpg at 70-75 mph on the highway. And the one time I drove it in 6 inches of snow...I couldn't tell I was in snow. Teutonic perfection, the Volkswagen way-

[Volkswagen: I think it is truly sad that this otherwise fantastic car looked like a damned chevette-!]

I watched several Mitsubishi Eclipses and Toyota MR2 Turbos friggin WAIL down the strip. 12 Second quarters [read: similar to Dodge Vipers~] were typical for the MR2's...and low 13's seemed to be typical for the Eclipses. In the pits I found out that most of these cars were running around 20 psi of boost, courtesy of easily available [read: cheap] electronic modifications.

AND MORE THAN ONE reached the finish line trailing huge quantities of blue smoke. It seems Toyota's fuel injection tends to run a bit more lean naturally than Mitsubishi's- With a boosted engine, FUEL = LIFE. If your engine goes lean for a second with boost levels around 20 psi...kiss your pistons good bye. They burn holes in the tops almost instantly-

AN engine built for boost by the best funded hot-rodders on the planet [the factory engineers] has certain characteristics that many of our "Boostards" have not added to their engines. Such as sodium-filled valves, rings designed for boost, pistons and heads purpose built from special materials just for this application-

WELL. From all this, I've come to the conclusion that what my dad said to me when I told him about the turbocharged Scirocco was probably correct: "Yeah, son, but remember: there's no replacement for displacement".

Porsche builds the living-hell out of their engines and drive-trains- these cars with their 300 hp engines have 600 hp drive trains. YES you can add blowers like several members here have done, but let me tell you the laws of physics haven't changed in Stuttgart [I know; I've been there~], and boost WILL reduce engine life. Reduced from 350,000 miles per overhaul to [insert your opinon here~] miles? How much is it worth to you?

I'm of the opinion that the M28 engine is less susceptible to failure from excessive RPM than from excessive boost. This primarily because I do not think the fuel injection system can be relied upon [despite the tiny amount of time that the engine spends at full boost] to supply the engine with safe amounts of fuel.

Boost is far more cost effective than cubic inches. I talked to Susan at Devek one day, and found out that if I wanted 6.0 liters and 400 rear wheel horsepower from my '85 [means low 13 second quarters] then I could probably wind up spending more than $10,000 !

DEVEK is the only place that I would trust to do this sort of modification, and expertise doesn't come cheap. If there is one lesson that I've learned from my car...you get what you pay for.

From my experience, the weakest link in any engine is the electronics. ONE SECOND of obfuscation by your fuel injection on your boosted engine-

[AND when was the last time you heard about a 928, with it's multi-thousand-dollar engine, having an injection problem... <img border="0" alt="[soapbox]" title="" src="graemlins/soapbox.gif" /> ]

And you are pulling the whole thing apart to replace about 3 pistons which now have holes burned in their tops. Of course...YMMV~

-FOLKs...for my money, if I were to spend even MORE of it on this car- I'd buy a good drivers course first. I don't know how to drive and I admit it, despite the fact that I have a clean driver's record. But if I was in the Tim Allen mode and wanted MORE POWER...I'd go for cubic inches!

Normy!
'85 S2 5 Speed

TAREK

Normy,

I agree with your viewpoint. Just want to mention that I'm about to mate an S4 bottom end and 16 v head in order to cheaply (in my particular case) yield 7.5:1 CR that would - theoretically of course - allow significant boost without risk of detonation, even in the case of total fuel starvation [at a certain, yet to be accurately calculated max boost, but way up there]. In this particular case the major drawback of supercharging is solved. As for reliability, the answer will not come until serious street and racing mileage is logged on the boosted cars...but it's worth the gamble to me.

Now of course, in a more perfect world, I'd want a well designed, bored, stroked, and supercharged engine yielding 1000 hp for under $100 - with 350,000 racing miles limited warrantee

Z

Normy:

I'm affraid I'd have to disagree on a few of the points you made, but I will agree on one. If I were going to build a stroker motor I'd do it myself. If not, I could count the number of people or shops in the whole country that I'd trust to do it on one hand, and still have fingers left over. In case anyone's wondering, Devek is one of them.

In many aspects of automobile design, building, and modification, there are those who know what they're doing, and those that think they know what they're doing. Sooner or later you're bound to find out which of the two groups you're really dealing with. Unfortunately in way too many cases you end up not very happy to find out though.

I've never heard of even one supercharged 928 burning a hole in a piston. There have been some engines blown up by supercharging in the past, and I'm certain there will be more in the future. I expect the same to happen with some stroker motors that get built in the future too. A little knowledge really is a dangerous thing. The picture of the stroker motor parts below shows that's not limited to just supercharged 928 engines though.

Normy

Z-

I WHOLELY appreciate your opinion and your picture- it is worth a thousand words.

But...

That is from what? I'm imagining someone with 6+ liters missed a shift, and in the parlance of a thousand rednecks:

"threw a rod".

OK. I have hit the rev limiter on my 4.7 liter dozens of times [6000? Come on! The S2's cams feel like they are built for 7000-!], but how fast does an engine have to spin in order for an engine to eject parts forcefully enough to make a hole?

I'll point out that I said the M28's weakness is the electronics...not the mechanicals.

Again, on my trips to the dragstrip...I have seen many cars blow their engines via going lean either under boost or nitrous, but haven't seen many come apart from RPM.

I'm sure it happens, but YMMV. Sorry, sir...but I'm not convinced-

N!

Fastest928

Z,
Hmm, very intersting...I have never used a rod like that in any of the 40ish stroker engines that I have built? Which model year is that rod from?

What was the result of the failure analysis?

Marc
DEVEK

BC

People People People. -
NORMY

The 928 engine management system is the FIRST to go if you want to make sure you don't blow a stroker OR a boostard up. Very simple. If you are going to spend 15k on a stroker or 10k on a boostard, would not not spend 2500 on a ECU?

Z

I can't say anything much about the picture, since I think the attorneys are still at work on that situation. It was a stroker motor of less than 6 liters though. It was posted to help illustrate the point that not knowing what you're doing can be just as bad with a stroker, or even stock engine, as with a supercharger. Sometimes it doesn't even take that much. There was a post from someone a while back about him having blown up his stock 928 engine, at high RPM, due to oil ingestion from the breather system into the intake causing detonation. There's been more than one stock 928 engine that's blown up at high RPM for various reasons. The reason that boost gets such a bad reputation for blowing up engines is the same as that of nitrous. It's way too easy for people who don't know what they're doing to mess with it. It takes a good bit of time, money and knowledge to get even a really bad stroker motor put together to the point of where it will even run to be able to blow up. Compare that to how hard it is for someone to crank up the boost on a stock factory turbocharged econobox. A well done stroker motor built and installed by someone very knowledgeable and with years of experience: maybe $20K and a lot of time and work? Doubling the boost on a stock turbo econobox: some 16 year old messing with a vacumm line that he found out about in an internet chat room. After the inevitable outcome, the conclusion is that boost blows up engines.

The other day I saw an article on a GM corporate engine that's used in Saturns, Cavaliers, and cars like that. It was four cylinders, 2.0 liters, 30psi of boost, and making 1,000 crank horsepower. I'm pretty sure that engine wasn't designed by GM for boost or those power levels either. Yes, it's been modified, by someone that knows what they're doing. On the other hand, I'm sure you could find one of those same GM corporate engines that blew up after a stock rebuild, by somebody who didn't know what they were doing, and when it was making 120 horsepower.

As for the stock fuel injection electronic systems, they seem to work pretty well for Marc Thomas, Mark Anderson, Don Hanson, Mark Kibort and a number of others, including the sucessfully supercharged cars. I know that there have been some blown up engines, but none that I've heard of was due to a problem with the electrics as they relate to fuel injection. The same goes for the supercharged engines that have had problems.