Turbocharger in the Valley of the engine?
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Turbocharger in the Valley of the engine? Has anyone ever seen or placed the turbocharger in the valley of the engine rather than hanging off the sides, i.e. switching the heads to have the exhaust point toward the valley and then have a single turbocharger mounted between them?
I understand it'd be a lot of work, i.e. casting the new manifold, doing all of the timing which I'm sure would be a nightmare lol.
A similar car that recently employs this is the BMW X6 and much much older was the Oldsmobile JetFire.
So anyone ever see this on an LSx engine?
I understand it'd be a lot of work, i.e. casting the new manifold, doing all of the timing which I'm sure would be a nightmare lol.
A similar car that recently employs this is the BMW X6 and much much older was the Oldsmobile JetFire.
So anyone ever see this on an LSx engine?
Could be done, but it would require a redesign of almost everything, plus you would need to build either a custom set of heads or a custom block because the head bolts/pushrods won't line up.
What will you gain for all this work? It'd be a little easier to package and the turbo would spool faster(likely by an imperceptible amount). Not worth it unless you were going to completely redesign everything on the engine, in which case it's not really an lsx anymore
What will you gain for all this work? It'd be a little easier to package and the turbo would spool faster(likely by an imperceptible amount). Not worth it unless you were going to completely redesign everything on the engine, in which case it's not really an lsx anymore
Trending Topics
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
The new 4.5 liter turbo diesel GM engines are designed this way, don't know if this light duty truck engine will ever make it out though.
This design def helps in the engine packaging department and prob help spool a bit.
Never heard of this on an LS design before.
This design def helps in the engine packaging department and prob help spool a bit.
Never heard of this on an LS design before.
You can't bolt heads like that it just won't fit right.
you could just leave the heads the way they are and have a new cam cut that would accomplish this. But the valve and port sizing would be all screwed up. If you could find a cast iron manifold for the LS you could weld a turbo flange on the top and slap a turbo on there. Then build a set of headers to work like an intake, and then take the old headers and smack yourself across the face.
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
This is what I'm talking about except instead of two turbos only using one.
Did you do something like that already? Looking at the picture in your signature it looks like you have that set up?
Why? There is are two reasons why that I can come up with off the top of my head, you will have a smaller packaging set up so if you have a small engine bay this would be ideal for you, and secondly having the turbo between the valley allows you to keep the turbocharger much closer to the exhaust ports of the engine thus keeping more heat in the air stream there for keeping a higher velocity of the flow, meaning you can have the turbo spool up faster.
Well you pretty much surmised why anyone would want to do this, and I figured it'd be a lot of word but it'd be unique and probably better for something like a Corvette to use than a remote turbo set up. Although they'd probably have to get a hood with a bulge in it for this to fit.
I'd argue that having the turbocharger that close to the exhaust ports and having both set of exhaust ports feeding into that turbo would cause it to spool a perceptible amount faster, with single turbo set ups you will have some heat lose from one set of ports feeding into the turbo, how much i have no clue lol.
Did you do something like that already? Looking at the picture in your signature it looks like you have that set up?
Why? There is are two reasons why that I can come up with off the top of my head, you will have a smaller packaging set up so if you have a small engine bay this would be ideal for you, and secondly having the turbo between the valley allows you to keep the turbocharger much closer to the exhaust ports of the engine thus keeping more heat in the air stream there for keeping a higher velocity of the flow, meaning you can have the turbo spool up faster.
Could be done, but it would require a redesign of almost everything, plus you would need to build either a custom set of heads or a custom block because the head bolts/pushrods won't line up.
What will you gain for all this work? It'd be a little easier to package and the turbo would spool faster(likely by an imperceptible amount). Not worth it unless you were going to completely redesign everything on the engine, in which case it's not really an lsx anymore
What will you gain for all this work? It'd be a little easier to package and the turbo would spool faster(likely by an imperceptible amount). Not worth it unless you were going to completely redesign everything on the engine, in which case it's not really an lsx anymore
I'd argue that having the turbocharger that close to the exhaust ports and having both set of exhaust ports feeding into that turbo would cause it to spool a perceptible amount faster, with single turbo set ups you will have some heat lose from one set of ports feeding into the turbo, how much i have no clue lol.
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
I hope that this would be purely for show, because it has failure written all over it. There is no way to justify this at all, from a performance or packaging stand point. You couldnt do it in a vette or a camaro without some hood issues, in a truck, maybe, but its useless. There are easier, better ways to make power with turbos, blowers, turbos and blowers, etc. So whats the reasoning behind it? Just because BMW did it? Youre talking about a motor than has nothing in common with anything LSx on the market right now. You would be better off swapping the BMW motor if thats what youre looking for.
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
In comparison to the whole idea and the amount of work that would need to go into this, knowing where to put the down pipe is trivial.
Why is there no way to justify this? I already gave you two reasons why, this is exactly why most car companies will not build a turbocharged V8 is because of packaging issues. Performance wise if you look at thermodynamics it says the hotter the air flow the faster it will move, so by putting the turbo charger as close to the exhaust port you will keep as much heat in the flow as possible while keeping the velocity as high as possible, meaning you will reach full boost sooner.
Not to be rude but if you read what I said earlier I did mention that there will be hood clearance issues.
Easier, definitely, better is relative. Just because something is easier to do doesn't mean its always better. This set up would be more efficient than hanging to turbochargers off of each cylinder bank. It'd take up a lot less space than two turbochargers and you wouldn't need nearly as much plumbing for this set up.
BMW's S63 was just an example, again had you read what I wrote earlier I did give other examples of other companies who have done this before. I understand that they're not the same engine, I am not saying or implying that they are, what I am saying is to take the basic concept i.e. reversing the flow of the headers and placing a turbocharger in the valley of the engine and apply it this engine.
I'd rather use the LS engine as a base for this simply because in my opinion it is a better foundation, is easier to modify, has a huge aftermarket support, and can be had for a lot cheaper.
I'd rather use the LS engine as a base for this simply because in my opinion it is a better foundation, is easier to modify, has a huge aftermarket support, and can be had for a lot cheaper.
Why is there no way to justify this? I already gave you two reasons why, this is exactly why most car companies will not build a turbocharged V8 is because of packaging issues. Performance wise if you look at thermodynamics it says the hotter the air flow the faster it will move, so by putting the turbo charger as close to the exhaust port you will keep as much heat in the flow as possible while keeping the velocity as high as possible, meaning you will reach full boost sooner.
and can be had for a lot cheaper.
and can be had for a lot cheaper.
I say why because there are already plenty of kits that work great for the car. The very minor benefits are not worth the trouble by a long shot or the insane amount of money it would cost to design new heads. This is like reinventing the wheel on these cars and engines, now if GM is building a new gas engine design around this idea then it would be ok.