Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chrisgixer]

Theoretical value for any v6. As the bottom end is quite similar I believe?

If so that's only 40hp over stock.

[cem_devecioglu]

there are many parameters that should be taken into account in a turbo conversion..


oil cooler, oil pump, intercooler size, turbo size , exhaust manifold size and shape .. I bet 2.6 was tested with a stock ecu which will end in disaster before bottom end gave up..

[chrisgixer]

I'm sure those interested can search and reveal all. But I'm sure it was supercharged as said, not turboed. If that makes much odds I don't know, or care really tbh.

As the lesson learned from the numerous threads was, don't force feed. Supercharge OR turbo. The bottom end can'nay take it captain.

[chrisgixer]

But for the op, my opinion will always lead to a n other engine. He knows this from the Ls 1/Mv8 project. So it's a bit pointless me posting on the subject in all honesty.

I like the straight 6 Toyota supra idea too though. Obviously both will take all the boost from which aver fan you choose to fit.

[Varche]

So to ask my question again on page one of the thread.

Is there any way of changing the Bore and or Stroke to gain say 800 or more cc? That would seem to be a more cost effective solution than turbo/supercharge or V8 as it would all fit and "look" standard.?

[Broomies Mate]

Not being funny, but my Mickey Mouse 4pot with a blower gives 250HP as standard.  Stage 1 (purely a software update) gives 265-270HP.

Replace the downpipe with a 3" and Stage 2 will see near to 300HP.

Just a shame it's Wrong Wheel Drive.

Webby - Stop trying to get more performance from your 2.5.  As I've said many times............. If you want a faster Omega, buy a faster Omega.  The 2.5 is pretty poor mid-range compared to the 3.0 and the 3.0 is nothing compared to the 3.2.  Torque from the 3.2 is awesome.

[Broomies Mate]

So to ask my question again on page one of the thread.

Is there any way of changing the Bore and or Stroke to gain say 800 or more cc? That would seem to be a more cost effective solution than turbo/supercharge or V8 as it would all fit and "look" standard.?

In short, no.  The engine fitted is pretty much at its tolerance.

[Varche]

So to ask my question again on page one of the thread.

Is there any way of changing the Bore and or Stroke to gain say 800 or more cc? That would seem to be a more cost effective solution than turbo/supercharge or V8 as it would all fit and "look" standard.?

In short, no.  The engine fitted is pretty much at its tolerance.

I don't disbelieve you as this subject crops up most years on the forum but all the unknowns with turbo/supercharging versus gaining extra stroke from the crank and bore from new pistons and liners (if that is indeed possible) would seem to me to be far more sensible use of money. Has anyone actually investigated it? 

[cem_devecioglu]

So to ask my question again on page one of the thread.

Is there any way of changing the Bore and or Stroke to gain say 800 or more cc? That would seem to be a more cost effective solution than turbo/supercharge or V8 as it would all fit and "look" standard.?

800 or more cc is a serious demand Varche..  you need to find a suitable crank or build it custom and even in that case 3.2 stroke is pretty long which you will struggle with the same block.. if you bore 3.2 you will decrease the engines resistance to heat..  I guess may be 3.4 or 3.5 litre volume can be gained but with risky sacrifice and on a na engine this gain is small..  but one thing you can do is using  high compression pistons but still gains will be negligible compared to forced induction


and you need to pay for custom forged high compression pistons , rods which wont be cheap also

[Broomies Mate]

So to ask my question again on page one of the thread.

Is there any way of changing the Bore and or Stroke to gain say 800 or more cc? That would seem to be a more cost effective solution than turbo/supercharge or V8 as it would all fit and "look" standard.?

In short, no.  The engine fitted is pretty much at its tolerance.

I don't disbelieve you as this subject crops up most years on the forum but all the unknowns with turbo/supercharging versus gaining extra stroke from the crank and bore from new pistons and liners (if that is indeed possible) would seem to me to be far more sensible use of money. Has anyone actually investigated it? 

I've not investigated it, but lets look at facts.  The Lotus Carlton used forced induction.  There are a few 4.0 Senator engines running, but nothing like the performance of the LC.

Adding circa 25% extra displacement would be quite impossible. 

[cem_devecioglu]

on a naturally aspirated 3.2 the only method ( or combination of methods) is to use variable cam timing and independant throttle per cylinder setup to gain real performance like the bmw did on m3..  but I think thats beyond the capability and budget of an avg omega owner..

[humbucker]

The X30XE was equipped with  a low pressure turbo under the bonnet of the Saab 9000. I think it was designated the engine code B308.

[humbucker]

From Wikipedia:

For 1997, Saab introduced a turbocharged version called the B308 for their 9-5 model. The engine produced 200 hp (149 kW) at 5000 rpm and 229 lb·ft (310 N·m) of torque at 2500-4000 rpm. The engine was unique in that it used asymmetrical turbocharging; with the turbocharger driven by the exhaust gases from only one bank of cylinders. A charge pressure of 3.6PSI (.25 Bar) was produced using a Garrett GT15 turbo. The engine was equipped with a special version of Saab Direct Ignition and utilized the Trionic T7 engine management system.

[humbucker]

Small gains (if any?!) for the efforts involved in bolting the bits on to an Omega. Go for an engine swap.

[henryd]

From Wikipedia:

For 1997, Saab introduced a turbocharged version called the B308 for their 9-5 model. The engine produced 200 hp (149 kW) at 5000 rpm and 229 lb·ft (310 N·m) of torque at 2500-4000 rpm. The engine was unique in that it used asymmetrical turbocharging; with the turbocharger driven by the exhaust gases from only one bank of cylinders. A charge pressure of 3.6PSI (.25 Bar) was produced using a Garrett GT15 turbo. The engine was equipped with a special version of Saab Direct Ignition and utilized the Trionic T7 engine management system.

Thats less bhp than a stock 3.0 isn't it