raggedout91RS

Will it work? I recently got a turbo from a friend that seems to be in good shape. I think its a T25, but not sure. It came off of an 80's turbo Sunbird. Would it be worth trying to make it work on a 2.8 or am I wasting my time thinking about it?

Yarnboy

I'm not sure, but I think that's a bit tiny. I think that's what comes stock on DSM's..

raggedout91RS

Yea it looks small, and I heard it came on some eclipses also, esp. 2nd gens. The only reason I was asking was bcuz it was free.

Battery

No reason if you had the time and few extra bucks to make it work. You could really bump the boost on it. It wouldnt be that much of a power adder though even with like 12 or so lbs. But it's all that 2.8 could take anyways. I bet you could bust off some 14 second slips, which isnt shabby for that POS engine.

Cronic3rd

Get a 2nd ome and run twins


btw they go for 50 to 100 bucks.

B4Ctom1

twins sounds good to me, that is the size they ran on the 1.9 turbo sunfires I believe, just to give you an idea of the size.

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

alright, i tried this suggestion in the v-6 board while they were ranting on with that 4page thread. i don't have the v-6 in my car anymore, but i thought this would be good for consideration.

run a blow through carb setup on the v-6. do away with the electronics. find a stand alone ignition system that will do the job. i think that it would be easy to fab up some log stye headers and bolt the twin turbo on those, run to an intercooler, then to a blow through cap on top of a small 4bbl. you can run the torker II intake by edlebrock. i know that they make them for the 2.8, so don't say they don't. is this not a possibility? has anyone thought about it before? what are the limitations to such a project?

B4Ctom1

I must have been off, when someone comes along interested in a turbo on a 2.8 I always think EFI. If this was a EFI car a building of the actual system could be done and for fuel a FMU could be used. Depending on how the FMU worked out you could make a decision on what kind of investment into burning a chip you wanted to make. A T3 with the proper A/R's could be well worth it. I tend to take the path of least resistance then make considerations towards larger projects. If this is a carb vehicle a little Eaton or nitrous could be a consideration?

Cronic3rd

It would be the same as a tt setup on a v8 only with out some of the clearence issues.

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

people all the time do buildups on the v8 platform, and i think that it would be easier to do this on the v6, but no-one seems to think that way.

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

any takers?

Cronic3rd

I will be happy to do all of the work if someone else will provide the car, parts and tools to use

EDIT - cause I am broke as a joke and would love to see a v6 car autocross.

onebadwagon

the 2.8 is a piece of crap, waste your time and money, but dont be surprised when it make 250hp and then blows up.


adam

B4Ctom1

Although I would have put it more graciously the 2.8's have a propensity for broken cranks, no power adder needed. Consider an alternative V6 if possible. The 2.8 is from the line of 60 degree V6's. The most helpful 60 degree V6 hop-up info I have ever seen is found at http://www.s-series.org/

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

so, why is it that they use this platform for sprint car racing and such with such good luck?

Cronic3rd

honesty I have blow up every 60* I have owned. Granted both cars had a street value of $500 but both motors died and I haven't killed another engine (out of 9 cars).

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

i just think it would be fun.

i am actually going to do this with my buddies car. he is stupid and has money. well let me rephrase that. he is all about being different. we already have the motor. he has a 2.9 in his car right now that i built (2.8 bored .040 over) and the car hauls for what it is. he has a second 2.8 at my boss's house that we plan to do a tt project with. anyone have any suggestions for a stand alone ignition system? a t-5 swap would probably be in order as well.

onebadwagon

that car may haul for what it is, but i have a stock 2.4 4 cylinder in a 3300lb car (plus my 300lb ***) that would show it some taillights, im quite sure.


do as you please, but the 2.8 is suitable as a boat anchor, not much more.

b4c, i know you would have, but everyone here seems to like to prance around the subject, and frankly, if somethings "crap" then i will say its crap, because nobody else does. and people tend to not listen when you gently break it to them.


adam

Cronic3rd

You might think about stroking the motor. I know a 3.1 crank will work and I believe a 3.4 will too.

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

what would be absolutley great is too find a 3.4 mill for cheap because they have more meat around the mains and can take alot more boost. i think it would be fun to do. besides, it's not my money that we are dealing with here. i am building a 355 for my car. should see high 11's naturally asspirated. i am hoping for a procharged 406 one day.

so, bad wagon, what kinda car has a 2.4 4cylinder that will show tail lights to my buddies 60*? just curious.

the motor in his car will put him in the mid 16 second range, which is respectable.

Cronic3rd

Whit I ment is that I think you can stroke aout a 2.8 to 3.4. I believe the bores are the same. And I believe any motor after like 90 will have the beefier mains.

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

no, the bores are different. the mains of a 2.8 won't handle that much stroke. i was thinking about doing this when i had the v6 in my car back about a year ago. the best bet is going to be a 3.4. your right in one aspect. the 2.8 has the same bore as a 3.1 but it has a shorter stroke. the 3.4 has the same stroke as a 3.1 but a bigger bore.

onebadwagon

95 nissan 240sx.

its my daily driver, and is pretty damn quick, especially from a roll.


adam

Cronic3rd

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

raggedout91RS

FYI, 240's arent that fast...maybe low 16's in the 1320.

raggedout91RS

a stock 240 that is.

zupmanZ28

just to stir the pot a little on this subject...friend of mine has a 95 auto 240sx...ran 16.4. Another friend of mine has a 96 5-speed car, ran 14.98. both are stock, but the 96 is a freak of nature, it destroys other 240's, stick or auto.

back to the turbo 2.8, who cares if it's garbage, if you can do it dirt cheap, or free in some of your cases, why not? i think it'd be cool to see a little turbo 2.8 runnin around.

Eric

onebadwagon

its cool to waste alot of time on something that not only, WONT perform, but WILL Break?

my car is probably a mid 15 second car. PROBABLY, from a roll, it is quite fast, but id be surprised if it would muster a 2.6 60'.

i lied, my car isnt EXACTLY stock, i have a couple of free mods.


adam

Cronic3rd

THere is a guy with a TT 2.8 in a datsun. It preforms quite well and hasn't broken.

Why is it that ppl on this board feel the need to bash others when they want to do something diffrent? And not to mention the weight distrobution on a 6cyl car is near perfect whic means they do handle better,

Black363IROCZ

dude, that's about the same times as a stock Camaro RS.
burning money away is only fun if you've got a huge and healthy supply. if you are willing to waste lots of money on an experiment that is guaranteed to fail then go for it, if you want something with proven results, just do a V8 swap or if you feel the need to have a V6, get a 3.8L either the L36 from the new W-Bodies and V6 f-bodies, or from a GNX/TTA and then go from there.

raggedout91RS

I know what stock RS's run...I've got one and it ran a high 15 in stock form , thank you very much. And besides how am I wasting money by installing a free turbo on a $500 car? I wasnt intending on cramming some huge amount of boost down its throat, maybe 5 psi at the most, especially w/ such a small turbo. I already have two V8 cars, my 91 RS and my 85 S10, so what is wrong w/ putting a little bit of time into something just for s*1ts and giggles.

onebadwagon

because you would have to file it under the "Pissing into the wind.
category.


adam

Black363IROCZ

he's got there. $100 for an exploding car isn't worth it, even if it's that low cost, of course, it's not gonna be.

onebadwagon

lmao "exploding car"

nice one

adam

Cronic3rd

A waste of time to one person is another mans weeks of enjoyment. Just cause something doesn't sound fun to you does that mean you get to flame anyone who might like to do it?

Black363IROCZ

you misconstrued what I said man. I said it's a waste of time AND money, if he wants to do it go for it. Fun = success IMO, and a 2.8 turbo is a failure from the start IMO lol, no offense

raggedout91RS

Hey Cronic, I think we are on the same level w/ this idea. You know TGO is really useful sometimes but then you got to put up w/ people that think they know everything when they really dont. I know that onebadwagon has nothing to say unless it is negative towards somebodys ideas or advice. I've seen that in other posts. Thats cool if you want to flame any suggestions by other people, I dont care, I'll just ignore you, but you really should'nt comment on something that you have never done or tried, and stuff you really dont know. I know that the 2.8 isnt the best motor that GM has ever produced and I know it has its weaknesses cuz I've seen and haerd of alot of 'em blown up. The whole purpose of this was to see if I could get that V6 to run a little quicker w/ little $. I wasn't going to try to blow it up w/ some obscene amount of boost. I'm pretty sure it could work if done right without blowing it up.

raggedout91RS

Hey Black363, How do you know its a failure from the start? Have you ever built one?

614Streets

Dont know much about turbo sizing since Im not a turbo kind of guy , but if you need direction or assistance for a 2.8 I am the one to ask. For starters the factory manifolds can be flipped side to side upside down , flanged very quickly and easily.

I am a 2.8 library on legs so if you have q's head to www.60degreev6.com , nail the forums and look for me.

To all the typical 2.8 negitive sediment in this thread , education is your freind.

P.S. if the 2.8 sucks why does #1 a single turbo version hold the record at 1300 horse power.
and 2 why does GM offer a bowtie aluminum 2.8 block still to this day............

Cronic3rd

I think that the biggest problem with the 60*v6 in the eyes of the 3rd gen community is that it was way to little to push a RWD sports car.

Black363IROCZ

I guarantee you an old 2.8L can't handle more than 9 psi on stock internals, which isn;t enough to bring it to a 305 H.O. power range so if it doesn't go boom it'll still be slow. now, if you were to build the 2.8 withforged internals and reduced compression to run like 25 psi and matched parts for the turbo, you could have a wicked and strong motor. But that costs a lot of money, and time, more than I'd want to invest in a 6...

raggedout91RS

Black363, Thanx for the more educated response instead of the immature flames you were earlier posting. I'm sure it wont be able to handle alot of boost. Nine pounds is alot more than I had planned on running. If it would produce what a 305 HO does that would be a pretty good accomplishment since the V6 is alot lighter which means it would be faster. I'm not saying that 5 pounds would do that but it would make me happy. Oh yea 2.8's were weak as crap in stock form and I'm sure that is why everyone calls them junk. Most of them that I have seem blown were becuz of extreme neglect and abuse.

onebadwagon

i dont rag on everyone, i just state my opinion.

the reason they still offer the bowtie blocks is because the factory ones wont hold enough power.

you can make ANYTHING make horsepower with a blower, as long as it wont blow up air=power.

i have driven 2.8 vehicles, and the fact that they had problems breaking parts STOCK makes me worry about even fooling with them.

i could sit and tell you all of the things that make this project "pissing into the wind", but the point is, at the end of the post, no matter how good of an arguement i made, you wouldnt change your views a single bit.

so i just say that its pissing into the wind, and if you like to do that *snicker snicker* then so be it.


have fun, dont spend too much money.


adam

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

so, whoever said he was putting a tt on a stock bottom end? my friend is all about being different. and if that means putting forged blower pistons in a 2.8 to see it perform, then that's what he will do. i could care less. the car is not mine, the motor is not mine, the money is not mine. he just wants me to do the work and research. so back to one of my other questions that never got answered. does anyone make a stand alone ignition system for the 60*?

onebadwagon

lol, stand alone ignition system? the EASIEST/ CHEAPEST way would be a carb setup, either blowthrough or drawthrough.

lol, now that is REALLY pissing into the wind when you spend 400$ on good pistons for a 2.8

why doesnt he get a 3.4?

does anyone know what deck height these motors are? things like rod bearing diameter, pin diameter?

maybe you could use some small block ford aftermarket rods, w/ custom pistons to give you a long rod 2.8

if you are going to do it, do it well.


adam

614Streets

By chance were your 2.8 vechicles 80-84? Any how the internal balanced 2.8's are very stout. the early 2.8 motors had issues. But after 1987 the motors began to hold there own relibility wise. I could go on and on about why they are good motors and whatever but Im not really here to go in depth unless someone really needed help.

My 2.8 was sprayed for 3 years in stock form then supercharged at year 4 before the stock 110 k rings let go. Nothing else ever even flinced. If you go to the v6 f- body site some kid just laid down 300 plus hp on a dyno meet for ls1 c5's and f-bodies , yet he had a bone stock bottom end 3.4.

Anyhow it doesnt take much to make 300 hp from a 2.8 -3.1 or 3.4 if you know how and use the stronger parts but what the **** do I know. Every part is available from the aftermarket , anything.

And anyone how thinks a 2.8 build is dumb , well , go to my main page , maybe you'll like the other motor I built.

http://614streets.com

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

so, ya wanna tell me alittle bit more about that motor?

raggedout91RS

I have no problems w/ changing my views in an argument when shown different w/ good educated reasoning. I aint too proud to admit it when I'm wrong, but telling me a 2.8 is better off as a boat anchor and that I will have a exploding car if I go through w/ this project is not enough to win me over.

onebadwagon

614streets, how much nitrous were you putting through your 2.8?

why on earth would you spend the money, on the aftermarket block/heads/etc. when you could make more power, more easily with a SBC, or a 4.3, etc, that is my point.

like i said, if you can get it to hold together you can go fast with anything.


adam

BOTLFED

Having had a couple V6 third gens and owning a 2.8 Fiero, I know all about the pain and agony of pulling some power out of these things..

Providing your tune is very very good, boost is not very hard on engine parts.. Especially when compared to nitrous..

With about 8 - 10 psi of non-intercooled boost you could be looking for about 200bhp from the 2.8 reliably without any internal mods.. Just make sure you never run into detonation.

I've got a huge T3/T4 hybrid for my 2.8 in the Fiero, but I plan on using the 6869 Fiero ECM for fuel and timing management. It's going to cost me between 500 - 600 bucks (canadian) for the whole setup.. (turbo, 19lb/hr injectors, BOV, 2 bar map sensor, pipe). I've got everything but the bov and map sensor, and, well, time.. lol..

I'm gonna push the engine with about 9psi of non intercooled boost. (maybe water injection) There are quite a few Fiero guys with turbo kits on their stock 2.8's and have no problems.

While I've thought about turboing a V6 in a thirdgen, I don't think I could bring myself to do it because V8's are cheap and easy to work on.. This is just my opinion tho..

I say do what you want and have some fun with it.. Just don't be disappointed if it doesn't make 300bhp..

Cheers,