Omega Owners Forum

Omega Help Area => Omega General Help => Topic started by: ngrainqey on 21 November 2008, 18:46:04

Title: turbo position...
Post by: ngrainqey on 21 November 2008, 18:46:04
hiya, just wondering where people think the best place for a turbo would be in the engine bay on the omega...
on the LC it's behind the headlights.
i'm going to try and do away with the multiram or do quite alot of modifying to it to beable to use it with a turbo or take it out sell it and make something up :P

also i'v thought about just infront of the exhaust manifold next to the coolant transfer pipe along the drivers side of the block!

thanks
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Albatross on 21 November 2008, 20:02:16
I wouldn't fit a turbo. The V6 is not a "toppy" engine and it may even reduce your low end performance and change the characteristics of the car completely.

Personally I'd be thinking supercharger as this would complement the engine much better.
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: tmx on 21 November 2008, 21:20:01
it cannot be done! supercharging can by using a tiny eaton charger 0.5 bar Steinmetz do it


The V6 cant take the compression i have researched this and the v6 will blow up with high boost! also the Engine management cant be reprogramed for Boost injection maps.

without the multirams the V6 runs like a bag of turds ive tried it!!

Thames Valley Police & The Army & Irish Guarda had some special Courtenay turbo omegas made i spoke to courtenay motorsport and they told me they used the C30XE engine a straight 6 petrol so this confirms in my opinon that it would cost to much to turbo a v6!

if you want a turbo miggy why not get a 4 pot and drop a *20LET engine in it  
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: ngrainqey on 21 November 2008, 21:34:12
Quote
it cannot be done! supercharging can by using a tiny eaton charger 0.5 bar Steinmetz do it

The V6 cant take the compression i have researched this and the v6 will blow up with high boost! also the Engine management cant be reprogramed for Boost injection maps.

without the multirams the V6 runs like a bag of turds ive tried it!!

Thames Valley Police & The Army & Irish Guarda had some special Courtenay turbo omegas made i spoke to courtenay motorsport and they told me they used the C30XE engine a straight 6 petrol so this confirms in my opinon that it would cost to much to turbo a v6!

if you want a turbo miggy why not get a 4 pot and drop a *20LET engine in it  

it caaaan...if it cant then i'll know about it when my engine goes pop and i take bits off my spare x25 lump.... needs spacer plates to reduce the comp ratio-also can only use it upto 6psi with standard mapping-have to use a piggyback ecu or similar for the fueling.
and ok i wont remove the multiram. has anybody tried using the vectra intake system rather than the omegas plenium?


Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: tmx on 21 November 2008, 21:40:19
the vectra has single throttle body and the miggy has twins! and there are sensors on the throttle body that the vectra doesnt have! also the vectras IAC is different to the omegas and uses a different connector!
the vectras MAF is different to the omegas as that uses a different connector!

it cant be turbo'd especially the 2.5 as it has weak con rods! ring courtenay motorsport they will tell you straight like they told me!
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: ngrainqey on 21 November 2008, 22:10:05
grrrr!
how much boost is that with though?
low or high?
i'v talked to someone with a turbo'd vectra and he said it ran fine upto 6psi!
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Albatross on 21 November 2008, 22:58:34
Quote
...supercharging can by using a tiny Eaton charger 0.5 bar; Steinmetz do it...

What would that gain you on a 3.2 do you reckon?

Any ideas where I might be able to find out more?
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: cem_devecioglu on 21 November 2008, 23:05:35
ngrainqey,

you are entering twilight zone...

lets say if you turbo the miggy successfully, still you will be slower

than a 4 pot turbo astra as Miggy is much more heavy..

And the costs and problems you need to face is more than double..

but if you are insistent,  congrats and good luck mate :y
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: cem_devecioglu on 21 November 2008, 23:14:32
also I must add you must seriously modify the cooling system.. as the miggy originally runs hot..  

you will also need to take out the oil cooler, install an external one and do some extra pipe work..

I think there are many members who are really experienced in that

subject and can give detailed explanation :-/

Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Pawel_Nottingham on 22 November 2008, 04:15:10
Hi! I know that doesn't answer your question, but why not fitting camshafts from 3.0? They're sharper and will boost u to arround 190-195hp :) Then you could have one of those magic resonator boxes fitted. Are said to give up to 15hp...sounds dodgy to me, but it's cheap and easy to remove if proves useless ;)
HOWEVER - if u manage to fit a turbo/charger - i'd like to be in the know ;D
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Mr Skrunts on 22 November 2008, 05:25:35
Quote
Hi! I know that doesn't answer your question, but why not fitting conrods from 3.0? They're sharper and will boost u to arround 190-195hp :) Then you could have one of those magic resonator boxes fitted. Are said to give up to 15hp...sounds dodgy to me, but it's cheap and easy to remove if proves useless ;)
HOWEVER - if u manage to fit a turbo/charger - i'd like to be in the know ;D

Dont understand how just fitting conrods from a 3.0 gets you 25bhp gain.  Maybe an increase in CC if the stroke is different.  I am hapy to be corrected on this one.

Back to the turbo bit.  If I have missed other threads then I appoligise now.  What/why is the point for fitting a turbo,  track or event use?

Whats your budget, judging by your theory your pockets are deep unless you have access to your own scrap yard.  If its a road car and for every day use then I would be looking for low end power impovments, if a motorway car then midranges power or events then med to high end power gains.

From what I have read in general and Marks_DTM mini series on engine theory  :y :y then it seems the air box and multiram system is near 90+% perfect based on cost effective production costs

Now I was brought up on a diet of mags like car and car conversions reading the Dave Vizard stories and Bill Blydention tuning write ups for rally tuning etc  Cars of today versus the 70/8-s are obviously more refined during simple production runs, technically the basic car of today is far more powerfull and ecconomical than the same sized engine from years cone by.

Comparison.  Rover SD1 3500 versus 2.5/3.0 Omega  

Lets go a different direction.   A coiled up 100 metre electric extention is less efficient than one than unrolled and in a straight line.

A coiled hose pipe pushing water up the is less efficient than a staight pipe with water coming out but dropping over the same coiled height.

Now say a 2.5 Miggy lump was fitted in an XJS of exactly the same weight but all the air intake system could be straighted out with no bends in it and the size of the air intake could be increased to the most effient size.  Consider the internal working from the Blydenstein days of Lightning, balancing and blueprinting all the engine.  Plus the greater space allowed under the bonnet to aid cooling of the engine.

All this would aid a car/engine achieving higher RPM faster and maintaining it, with the better airflow because of space then maybe a cooler engine.  a cooler engine (remember the coiled extention lead - well they get hot - stright ones dont unless overloaded) in theory will be more reliable and I believe maintain more of its power.

Hope you understand the waffling.  like I say, depends on the purpose of the mods, the cash available.  If its ultimate BHP and £no limits then the conversion .mods are simple.  A banks 1200 BHP twin turbo racing motor.

(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk106/skruntie/Engines/350twinturbo3.jpg)

But then with power come problems, handling, brakes etc, so all things are relative.
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: albitz on 22 November 2008, 07:07:17
It says camshafts in Pawels post and conrods in your post.-bizarre. :-?
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: bighed on 22 November 2008, 07:15:58
Quote
Quote
Hi! I know that doesn't answer your question, but why not fitting conrods from 3.0? They're sharper and will boost u to arround 190-195hp :) Then you could have one of those magic resonator boxes fitted. Are said to give up to 15hp...sounds dodgy to me, but it's cheap and easy to remove if proves useless ;)
HOWEVER - if u manage to fit a turbo/charger - i'd like to be in the know ;D


YEAH! What he said  :D ;)
Dont understand how just fitting conrods from a 3.0 gets you 25bhp gain.  Maybe an increase in CC if the stroke is different.  I am hapy to be corrected on this one.

Back to the turbo bit.  If I have missed other threads then I appoligise now.  What/why is the point for fitting a turbo,  track or event use?

Whats your budget, judging by your theory your pockets are deep unless you have access to your own scrap yard.  If its a road car and for every day use then I would be looking for low end power impovments, if a motorway car then midranges power or events then med to high end power gains.

From what I have read in general and Marks_DTM mini series on engine theory  :y :y then it seems the air box and multiram system is near 90+% perfect based on cost effective production costs

Now I was brought up on a diet of mags like car and car conversions reading the Dave Vizard stories and Bill Blydention tuning write ups for rally tuning etc  Cars of today versus the 70/8-s are obviously more refined during simple production runs, technically the basic car of today is far more powerfull and ecconomical than the same sized engine from years cone by.

Comparison.  Rover SD1 3500 versus 2.5/3.0 Omega  

Lets go a different direction.   A coiled up 100 metre electric extention is less efficient than one than unrolled and in a straight line.

A coiled hose pipe pushing water up the is less efficient than a staight pipe with water coming out but dropping over the same coiled height.

Now say a 2.5 Miggy lump was fitted in an XJS of exactly the same weight but all the air intake system could be straighted out with no bends in it and the size of the air intake could be increased to the most effient size.  Consider the internal working from the Blydenstein days of Lightning, balancing and blueprinting all the engine.  Plus the greater space allowed under the bonnet to aid cooling of the engine.

All this would aid a car/engine achieving higher RPM faster and maintaining it, with the better airflow because of space then maybe a cooler engine.  a cooler engine (remember the coiled extention lead - well they get hot - stright ones dont unless overloaded) in theory will be more reliable and I believe maintain more of its power.

Hope you understand the waffling.  like I say, depends on the purpose of the mods, the cash available.  If its ultimate BHP and £no limits then the conversion .mods are simple.  A banks 1200 BHP twin turbo racing motor.

(http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk106/skruntie/Engines/350twinturbo3.jpg)

But then with power come problems, handling, brakes etc, so all things are relative.
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Mr Skrunts on 22 November 2008, 08:51:27
Quote
It says camshafts in Pawels post and conrods in your post.-bizarre. :-?

I did the quote and posted to the thread based on conrods, he must have edited later . . . just checked he did do, but he changed it before I posted. as it took me ages to reply. :-/


In the case of cam shafts I agree.  Not a problem.  It was the early hours,  :y
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: TheBoy on 22 November 2008, 08:57:26
Chavney, sorry Courtney, did a turbo for 3.0 v6 Omega.  Not that common to find one now.

Only one i saw had a nasty knock from bottom end...
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 22 November 2008, 09:16:32
Lol....covered this a few times

You would want.

Saab rods and pistons (they did a low blow turbo version so the compression is lower and the rods stronger).
Super charger (jag?)
Modifications to the block cooling.
I would stud the mains.
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: tmx on 22 November 2008, 10:45:13
albatros google Steinmetz and find theyre website on there is a supercharged tuning service for the 3.0 and 3.2 btw Jim has been to steinmetz and he told me its very very very expensive!
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Albatross on 22 November 2008, 11:09:16
Quote
albatros google Steinmetz and find theyre website on there is a supercharged tuning service for the 3.0 and 3.2 btw Jim has been to steinmetz and he told me its very very very expensive!

Thanks, but I've tried them (well the UK distributor at least) and apparently this is not available any more worldwide.

Recommended Courtney Crapney Autosh!te.

As if!
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: tmx on 22 November 2008, 11:17:47
hmm ive often thought about supercharging ill share my thoughts:

a small supercharger could run off the A/C compressor pulley a small supercharger like the EATON E62 the same one as a mini cooper S this would provide a small amount of boost enough for a noticible difference i reckon without destroying the engine!

the 3.2 is a much stronger engine than my 3.0 so you could get more boost through it unlike myn! my only stumbling point is that the inlet manifold would have to be changed to incorporate an intercooler and the s/c etc

my 2nd concern is that all this extra air going in has to get out and ive already seen that the omega has restricted exhaust manifolds so a set of custom one off manifolds would need to be engineered! which is where i reckon there would be big costs!

still i reckon it could be all done for less than £1500! not bad really considering you could have it all set up for tourqe or bhp personally id have myn set up for extra tourqe as my mv6 i reckon is powerful enough
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Ian_D on 22 November 2008, 11:48:54
Quote
hmm ive often thought about supercharging ill share my thoughts:

a small supercharger could run off the A/C compressor pulley a small supercharger like the EATON E62 the same one as a mini cooper S this would provide a small amount of boost enough for a noticible difference i reckon without destroying the engine!

the 3.2 is a much stronger engine than my 3.0 so you could get more boost through it unlike myn! my only stumbling point is that the inlet manifold would have to be changed to incorporate an intercooler and the s/c etc

my 2nd concern is that all this extra air going in has to get out and ive already seen that the omega has restricted exhaust manifolds so a set of custom one off manifolds would need to be engineered! which is where i reckon there would be big costs!

still i reckon it could be all done for less than £1500! not bad really considering you could have it all set up for tourqe or bhp personally id have myn set up for extra tourqe as my mv6 i reckon is powerful enough

Ive been thinking about using an E62... However my budget is less than £500  ;D
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: markey mark on 22 November 2008, 12:14:22
you wont get much from a e62 as is desgined for a 1.6  :-?
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: ngrainqey on 22 November 2008, 16:27:58
im getting a t25 off someone on uksaabs... might beable to get the uprated rods- seen it somewhere that the rods on the 2.5 are stronger than the 3.0

anyway...
the main difference between turbo and non turbo 3.0 saab is the torque is like massive! which on the omega would be fine
(think it's around 320nm compared to 270 that the 3.0 omega puts out
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: tmx on 22 November 2008, 18:19:49
Quote
you wont get much from a e62 as is desgined for a 1.6  :-?


aye it is designed for a 1.6 but its the one steinmetz use!

ngrainqey have you not noticed that the exhaust manifolds cannot be frigged with so you would also need a set of one off manifolds! costing around £1000 for a small engineering works to produce! thats where chavney motorsport had trouble with doing the 3.0 turbos
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: markey mark on 22 November 2008, 19:29:16
Quote
Quote
you wont get much from a e62 as is desgined for a 1.6  :-?


aye it is designed for a 1.6 but its the one steinmetz use!

ngrainqey have you not noticed that the exhaust manifolds cannot be frigged with so you would also need a set of one off manifolds! costing around £1000 for a small engineering works to produce! thats where chavney motorsport had trouble with doing the 3.0 turbos

mabye but i bet its not standard inside it would not shift enough air for a 3.0 straight from a mini ! ::)
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Albatross on 23 November 2008, 00:02:47
This is a Stienmetz supercharger.

It doesn't look like that under a mini bonnet does it?

(http://k53.pbase.com/o6/69/14969/1/72882644.5ynsBmLa.1999_Cadil_ncept3.jpg)


(http://i.pbase.com/o6/69/14969/1/72882748.2astZ1WN.600580_11_full.jpg)


(http://i.pbase.com/g6/69/14969/2/75017658.W5ESnzxm.jpg)
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Albatross on 23 November 2008, 00:18:48
What about swapping this out to make the flow more direct?

(http://i.pbase.com/o6/69/14969/1/75016178.r8sBkAF8.2189123_124_full.jpg)

And doing something like this...

(http://i.pbase.com/o6/69/14969/1/75016177.HT3sBboT.2189123_123_full.jpg)

Stupid amount and very ugly usage of jubilee clips, but you get the point. This is not my car by the way.
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Albatross on 23 November 2008, 00:30:59
And apparently (according to this picture at least) Irmscher did do a V6 turbo conversion.

(http://i.pbase.com/o6/69/14969/1/75677587.pyWWWZEm.IrmscherV6Turbo.jpg)



and what engine is this?

(http://i.pbase.com/o6/69/14969/1/75677598.WrF4xqOA.Meg1resized.jpg)
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Albatross on 23 November 2008, 00:33:41
Or just go V8...

Big American lump

(http://i.pbase.com/g6/69/14969/2/75677597.BpMfLT9D.jpg)


Or a full on 1000+bhp Lexus turbo jobbie!

(http://k43.pbase.com/o6/69/14969/1/76264175.nMV38EUU.OmegaV82a.jpg)

(http://i.pbase.com/g6/69/14969/2/76264173.6ziyFJzq.jpg)
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Albatross on 23 November 2008, 00:38:25
Albrex do an SC too...

(http://k43.pbase.com/g6/69/14969/2/75721325.FRd7WNTE.jpg)

(http://k41.pbase.com/g6/69/14969/2/75721326.mhysfqVT.jpg)

(http://i.pbase.com/g6/69/14969/2/75721327.KxoRg93a.jpg)

Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: ngrainqey on 23 November 2008, 16:45:33
Quote
Quote
...supercharging can by using a tiny Eaton charger 0.5 bar; Steinmetz do it...

What would that gain you on a 3.2 do you reckon?

Any ideas where I might be able to find out more?

you'd be better searching on the internet for th catera supercharger kit ;)
they do a v6 and v8 version supercharger i think (without checking)
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: ngrainqey on 23 November 2008, 16:47:05
Quote
Hi! I know that doesn't answer your question, but why not fitting camshafts from 3.0? They're sharper and will boost u to arround 190-195hp :) Then you could have one of those magic resonator boxes fitted. Are said to give up to 15hp...sounds dodgy to me, but it's cheap and easy to remove if proves useless ;)
HOWEVER - if u manage to fit a turbo/charger - i'd like to be in the know ;D

it's got the 3.0 cams in as from today but that's only 185 bhp not 190/195
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: ngrainqey on 23 November 2008, 16:49:59
thanks for those pics nath ;)
i'd fancy a supercharger but i dont like the stupid whistling noise!
cant really have a chavy blow off valve on an omega turbo because the maf has "issues" when it doesnt have the air recircing back to it so there's no nonesense noises...just power :P
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: Elite Pete on 23 November 2008, 16:50:34
Quote
Chavney, sorry Courtney, did a turbo for 3.0 v6 Omega.  Not that common to find one now.

Only one i saw had a nasty knock from bottom end...
I nearly bought that very car but ended up loosing the telephone No :'(

I believe the Courtney one wasn't any quicker that a N/A 3.0 anyway ::)
Title: Re: turbo position...
Post by: ngrainqey on 23 November 2008, 17:06:33
Quote
Quote
Chavney, sorry Courtney, did a turbo for 3.0 v6 Omega.  Not that common to find one now.

Only one i saw had a nasty knock from bottom end...
I nearly bought that very car but ended up loosing the telephone No :'(

I believe the Courtney one wasn't any quicker that a N/A 3.0 anyway ::)

im not so much bothered about hammering a 3.0 lol!
i'm after power and lots of torque- the torque comparison between n/a 3.0 omega and turbo 3.0 9-5 is massive