Considering the 89 TTA knocked off 13.3s right out of the factory-------or so I've heard------what kind of numbers would a 4.3 turbo out of a Syclone or Typhoon put down? The 4.3 turbo puts out 280 HP@ 4400 and 350 TQ @3600.

 

Probably close to the same - 13.5-13.7s

I've got the external wastegate in, and some REAL boost control, so I can actually go WOT now. November 6th, we'll have Dyno numbers

 

My friend has a typhoon and hes putting down 14.8s

 

OH hell - yeah - it depends on what it's in. I was thinking those numbers, in my sub 3000lbs Camaro, lol!

 

I want to beat him up and steal his typhoon, he has a 69 RS as well and hes 17

 

How can another half liter make the car run slower? The only other thing that would change is the trans. And if it's put to a T-5, I would think it has the possibility of hitting high 12s. 350 lbs of TQ? And I'm not sure how that Typhoon is running those numbers if it's in good condition. I thought they were low 14s to high 13s out of the box?

 

Well I looked around a little and have found that my numbers were wrong. The Turbo TA is shown to run mid-high 5s 0-60 and low 14s in the 1/4. Both the Syclone and Typhoon are running lower 0-60 times and about the same quarter. So low-mid 13s sounds about right for a turbo 4.3 with a T-5. I would guess 0-60 would be in the mid 5s.

 

Car & Driver 6/89

TTA Road test

0-60 4.6 sec.
1/4 13.4 @ 101

Mine bone stock went 13.52 @ 103

Sy's run hi 13's low 14's, Ty's hi 14's

Putting a stick in either of them would slow them down.

 

So, the Car&Driver Test Data is very optimistic i suppose.

Normally, TTAs run 5,5 seconds 0-60 and a mid 13 on the quarter

isn't the syclone an awd?

matt

 

Syclone and Typhoon, as far as I knew, were the same vehicle (sort of an S10 Chevy vs S15 GMC)

4.3 Turbo (17c, I believe, mitsu turbo) AWD

 

a syclone is based off a gmc s15 truck. a typhoon is based off a gmc jimmy. the syclone would do 13.5 and the heavier typhoon went 14.0

 

I think the 3.8 turbo is in that perfect sweet spot, that is hard to beat or reproduce on another power plant.

Others try but more displacement can't make up for the design of the 3.8 motor.

If there was a motor that could do the same as easy, complete 3.8 turbo motors wouldn't cost $2000 used and abused.

of course thats also just part of the Buick world. Everything cost. Id like to have a "star wars" air cleaner just for kicks n giggles for my 80 Buick but ones in good condition go for $900 easy.

2 cents

 

Whay would a stick slow it down? I understand the auto might shift faster, but considering the extra weight and the drivetrain loss of an auto, I think a stick would be better by the 1/4.

I think part of the reason the 3.8 turbo is so expensive is becuase it is a little more rare and has smashed a couple of 350s in it's day. Same with the 262.

And how can a 3.8 turbo be better than a 4.3, with boost at the same levels? Doesn't the law of displacement over-rule that one?

 

And yes, the Syclones and Typhoons are both AWD--the TTA is not. The Syclone is an S-15 pickup body, the Typhoon is the SUV Jimmy body. The Typhoon is only a couple hundred lbs more than the Syclone, which supposedly adds another.2 or so in the quarter. Anyone else have something to add?

 

Ya know I wonder about something.

I see many threads with guys who plan to run pro chargers n such on older v8 carbed motors. when they get it rebuilt. have the block O-ringed for the excess boost.


I never asked why but wonder what effects it has or doesn't have on our newer motors???

 

Turbo boost will not build (spool up) when a motor is sitting in neutral with no load on it. Load on the motor is what draws air through it. If you were to sit at the start line and try to spool up the turbo with a manual trans car, the amount you'd have to open the TB to allow air to suck in enough to start winding up the turbo would send the rpms through the roof and blow the motor from over revving. This applies in gear changes also when you have to depress the clutch, spooling drops off and lag is more present. Autos shift instantaniously always retaining load on the motor, even at launching with a torque convertor.

 

Yep. In drag racing for a high-hp turbo car there will never be anything greater than an automatic transmission. There are Grand National drivers out there with setups that produce 22 psi staged on the line... absolutely no turbo lag... which you will never see out of a manual transmission car.

 

this all might be true, but theres nothing better then a manual car

 

Why is the 3.8 better than the 4.3? Well the turbo 4.3's aren't intercooled(at least I don't think) plus the design is totally different.

You have to look at headflow, cam profile etc. More cubes doesn't always mean it's faster. Also the AWD system on those things suck up a lot of power.

I'd take a Buick 3.8 over a Chebby 4.3 ANY day of the week.

vsixtoy-Glad to see someone understands that whole arguement Can't tell you how many times I've argued with people over that very subject.

 

Yes there is, a fast automatic with a manual valve body

 

The boost won't raise by raising the RPMs? I thought turbos always built boost with more gas. I know that eventually there's a point in power where the added weight and drivetrain loss is made up by quick shifts in an auto. I just like having more control over the car when braking and cornering. Plus manuals are more fun-----excpet in traffic or the city.

What's up FLY? I see you're in Bensalem. I'm just outside Philly. You race at maple grove at all or on the street?

 

Nope...go rev a turbo motor in neutral and tell us what happens

I haven't raced at Maple Grove in a few years...I usually race at Atco(since I grew up in that area).

I don't race at all right now since the motor is out of the car

Not sure what I'm doing...I have a lead on a decent TTA cheap

 

Rev a stick in Neutral and see what happens with the turbo?

I'll tell ya -

You floor it, rev to 6500rpm, and get like 2-3 psi of boost out of it - It is NOT RPM BASED. It's throttle based. WOT, with no load, will run your motor to the moon (rpm wise)

 

a 3.8 is a better turbo engine over the 4.3 for a number of design reasons. 1 it is a deep skirt block making it stiffer and stronger. 2 it has a better crank (not sure if its forged) but the journals are bigger. 3 it has better rods, they are wider and longer than the 4.3 with a better r/l to stroke ratio. 4 it has a better ignition system. but the head flow is not as good as a the 4.3.

you can build boost on a manual trans car at the starting line. you just need to change some things in the calibration.

the 4.3 was intercooled. it was a water to air setup which did not work very well i have seen 195* intake charge temps when it was not even run hard.

 

What is a deep skirt block? Are you talking about thicker cylinder walls?

If you were to take a wrecked 3.8T and a wrecked 4.3T and rebiuld all the internals-pistons, crank, rods, cam, etc...using the same brands and specs----or as close as they can be------wouldn't the 4.3 always put out more power at any given RPM due to the increase in dispacement? What if you were to max out both designs?

This is a quote I got from some site covering the 89 TTA:

"Officially rated at a very conservative 250-bhp to keep the Corvette (255 horse) from having its feelings hurt, the Turbo T/A actually pulled 301-bhp on GM's very own dyno and grunted out 340 lb-ft of torque to boot. Backed by a BOP 2004R automatic tranny, with a 3:27 limited slip rear, the hyperactive F-body ran a 13.5 quarter, hit sixty in the low-fives, and topped out at 150-mph."

And here's a clip from a Syclone site:

"Under it's pretty exterior is a mustang-eating 4.3 liter Vortec V-6. What's so damn special you're asking? Well, it could be the all wheel drive system that was mated to the TH 700R4 automatic transmission. Or it could be the liquid intercooled turbo that pushes up to 280hp (disputed to be 330hp) and torque up to 360 lb-ft."

Do you think the Syclone / Typhoon setup was also "conservatively rated" at 280 HP and 350 TQ? I would think that this would have to knock off at least .5 if it were dropped in an 89 Trans Am. Anyone else?

 

Problem with the 4.3 as i see it.
its just a chevy 350 missing two cylinders.
Thats where it loses an edge of sorts as they didn't put much work into it. They just loped two cylinders off a 350 and called it a day. or let say that how it got started. They have put some more work into the bolt on parts since it came out several years back but.....

 

a deep skirt block means the block extends past the crankshaft centerline. if you wanted to build up a killer 4.3 or 3.8 you can make ridiculous power with either (900+++). or get into race blocks for both and make power in the 1000's. the buick 3.8 stock bottom end will tolerate more power without having issues like the 4.3 (bending rods etc). as for which would make the most power i am not sure they have made pretty radical heads for both the buick and the chevy.

 

The compressor is driven by the turbine, that is why you won't build boost at no load revv.
You have to have a volume of hot mass to drive the turbine and that means you have to burn lots of air and fuel.
That does not hapen when you are at a no load revv.
The auto turbo car will turn a 1/4 in less time. A standard will turn a higher trap speed in a lot of cases.
I don't do the other V6's.
What I don't understand is why didn't GM go for more turbo V6's the power was there. It beat the vett that year.
I think 89 was the best year for the camaro.

 

why do you think this?

 

I would guess that they didn't do much on the turbo end because of:

1-Cost of additional engine R&D

2-Cost of Additoinal components needed for turbos

3-Reliability

4-Wanting to keep things "old school"

I don't think people wanted to hear that they have the premier Chevy Sports Car-------Corvette and it's got a V6 under the hood. And nothing is allowed to beat the Vette, so turbo 6 designs were stopped.

 

Air-Water, actually. Heat exchanger near the throttle body, a belt driven pump, and another heat exchanger in front of the radiator.

 

Yeah, read that a few days ago..still not as efficient as the buick though

 

the pump on the 4.3 water to air setup was not belt driven. there is a small electric one down by the front mounted heat exchanger. and like i said before you can build boost with no load you just have to calibrate the computer differently in order to achieve it.

 

How does the computer assist in building exhaust pressure ??

 

An engine brake of sorts would help.

 

I think 89 was a good year because look at the number sold, it was one of the the best selling years.
It is the best third gen year.
They had 4 engine engine options that year, I left my camaro book back home in maine but I think that is the year that the 350 came back and disk breaks started that year.
I don't know a hole lot about the other V6's becasue I never realy cared, I like my push rod 60*-V6 engines.

 

amen

 

The L98 started in 87...well 86 for the Camaro with a handful getting the 350.

Disc brakes started years before that.

 

I am not trying to stray. I think this has come up before but no video's.

Here is that LS1 with 8 turbo's

video of the engine on the dyno (http://www.teasdesign.com/lateral-g/8xturbodyno.asf)
video of the hood opening up (http://www.teasdesign.com/lateral-g/...orhoodopen.asf)
video of the whole car (http://www.teasdesign.com/lateral-g/inciner8or.wmv)
for more pics look here (http://www.lateral-g.net/sandlin/)

 

DOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!! thats not a car....... thats a rocket ship on wheels! wonder what the hp and tq is on that thing. hey doward, can we do this with my 2.8 and still keep decent gas milage?,lol