 Turbo Vs Non Turbo, Differences between turbo and non-trbo |
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||
  |
|
| Do you like Volvo-Forums.com? Link to us and help spread the word about our forum. Thanks! | |
| Turbo Vs Non Turbo, Differences between turbo and non-trbo |
 Jun 3 2008, 12:48 PM
Post
#21
|
|
 Member  Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 3-June 08 Member No.: 43,533 Status:  Location: Florida Drives: 1995 850 T5, 1998 V70 NA  |
Back to the orignal question. What is the difference from an NA to a Turbo engine?
The NA has larger cams to let more air in and and out. It also has a larger throttle body. The NA also has a different exaust manifold and different pistons. The computer is obviously tuned differenlty and the vacuum system is less complicated. The transmissions have different gear ratios too. Just to name a few things. It is not recommended to turbo charge an NA motor. |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 3 2008, 03:46 PM
Post
#22
|
|
 Veteran  Group: Super Mod Posts: 3,521 Joined: 9-August 07 Member No.: 31,123 Status: Location: Brooklyn, New York Drives: 1968 SS clone Camaro,1963 pan/shovel chopper, 1949 Panhead bobber, 1967 Triumph Bonneville, 1967 Honda 175, 1999 Suzuki Hayabusa, 1996 Impala SS big-block, 2004 Mercedes E500 (the mrs.), 1934 Dodge, |
well, in theory you are correct, but i know of a guy who turboed a mustang v-8. just that, nothing else. hasn't grenaded the engine either, 5 years and he beats the piss out of it. now, the engine difference notwithstanding, you are correct in the description of the volvos engine. and bear, you are right, pulling not pushing. :grin: only have the volvo as FWD, the rest are RWD. still trying to get used to the idea of too much horsepower in the front as opposed to the rear. :grin: keep your minds out of the gutter. also to bear, about the boost in torque explanation, it used to be a rule of thumb that when buying a RWD american car, you were supposed to buy the biggest engine you could afford. but there was a catch, there was a point where the biggest engine was detrimental to fuel savings. too big and all it would do was waste fuel. ex. the sixpack on all chrysler models, the dual fours on chevys and fords.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2008, 04:12 PM
Post
#23
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 3-June 08 Member No.: 43,533 Status: Location: Florida Drives: 1995 850 T5, 1998 V70 NA |
QUOTE(TheGreekMason @ Jun 3 2008, 03:46 PM) well, in theory you are correct, but i know of a guy who turboed a mustang v-8. just that, nothing else. hasn't grenaded the engine either, 5 years and he beats the piss out of it. now, the engine difference notwithstanding, you are correct in the description of the volvos engine. and bear, you are right, pulling not pushing. :grin: only have the volvo as FWD, the rest are RWD. still trying to get used to the idea of too much horsepower in the front as opposed to the rear. :grin: keep your minds out of the gutter. also to bear, about the boost in torque explanation, it used to be a rule of thumb that when buying a RWD american car, you were supposed to buy the biggest engine you could afford. but there was a catch, there was a point where the biggest engine was detrimental to fuel savings. too big and all it would do was waste fuel. ex. the sixpack on all chrysler models, the dual fours on chevys and fords. [right][snapback]82398[/snapback][/right] I was speaking purely about Volvo 850 NA vehicles. Any engine can take boost. How long it lasts is another story. Most people who boost a stock engine only run 3-7psi as well. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2008, 04:13 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Veteran Group: Super Mod Posts: 3,521 Joined: 9-August 07 Member No.: 31,123 Status: Location: Brooklyn, New York Drives: 1968 SS clone Camaro,1963 pan/shovel chopper, 1949 Panhead bobber, 1967 Triumph Bonneville, 1967 Honda 175, 1999 Suzuki Hayabusa, 1996 Impala SS big-block, 2004 Mercedes E500 (the mrs.), 1934 Dodge, |
true, the man knows his stuff. i bow my head in repect. good call, boost.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 3 2008, 09:43 PM
Post
#25
|
|
 Veteran  Group: Admin Posts: 7,504 Joined: 1-March 05 Member No.: 3,464 Status: Location: Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA Drives: 1996 Volvo 855 T5 FWD, 1989 Honda Civic 2-Door |
OK.
:) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 06:02 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Expert Group: Members Posts: 549 Joined: 17-June 06 Member No.: 15,939 Status: Location: Victoria, Australia Drives: '88 240 Wagon, '95 850 T5 Wagon, '00 Nissan ST Twin cab ute. |
QUOTE(Volgrrr @ Jun 2 2008, 07:30 PM) Yep, 20v 2.0L 850 Volvo Turbos were produced and they were no slouch either! [right][snapback]82218[/snapback][/right] For those who find it hard to believe Volvo produced a 2.0L turbo, I've just stumbled across a turbo for sale on eBay to suit the 2.0L Volvo 850. Details are: Made by: Mitubishi Model: TDO4HL-13G-6 Volvo part #: 9146786 To suit: 93-97 Volvo 850 2.0L petrol engine. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 06:05 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Expert Group: Members Posts: 549 Joined: 17-June 06 Member No.: 15,939 Status: Location: Victoria, Australia Drives: '88 240 Wagon, '95 850 T5 Wagon, '00 Nissan ST Twin cab ute. |
QUOTE(S_E @ Jun 3 2008, 02:11 AM) is there a fundamental reason why the 2.5 can't take big boost? there is light pressure 2.5 S60s, but still no high 2.5s. [right][snapback]82249[/snapback][/right] The compression ratio is too high (9:1) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2008, 09:04 AM
Post
#28
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 3-June 08 Member No.: 43,533 Status: Location: Florida Drives: 1995 850 T5, 1998 V70 NA |
QUOTE(Volgrrr @ Jun 4 2008, 06:05 AM) The compression ratio is too high (9:1) [right][snapback]82470[/snapback][/right] This has been up to some serious debate. Although :offtopic:, the 2.5L Engine has been turbo charged with high boost. There is the infamous "Silver" Evolve car that eventually cracked a piston ring. That being said these engines can hold boost if you replace the piston rings and push rods. I have not ever heard about the compression being to high. <_< As for the 2.0L engine. IIRC those were in Europe and mostly Italian. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 30 2008, 11:42 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 30-June 08 Member No.: 44,925 Status: Location: Sully, IA Drives: Volvo 850 Turbo |
I read in another post that the turbo engines are smaller to allow for better cooling and thicker cylinder walls. I'm not sure if this is true but it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 1 2008, 05:28 AM
Post
#30
|
|
|
Veteran Group: Admin Posts: 7,504 Joined: 1-March 05 Member No.: 3,464 Status: Location: Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA Drives: 1996 Volvo 855 T5 FWD, 1989 Honda Civic 2-Door |
Yes it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Topics
| Topic | Replies | Topic Starter | Views | Last Action | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Turbo Boost Gauge INSTALLATION |
2 | skibbe | 19 | 24th December 2008 - 05:55 AM Last post by: ampangbear |
|
Turbocharger Unhappy Spools up, but no boost |
16 | CGodfrey | 841 | 13th December 2008 - 04:38 AM Last post by: ampangbear2 |
|
 Turbo And Wheel Bearing Replacement On 02 Awdhelp |
9 | notny41 | 327 | 23rd November 2008 - 02:16 PM Last post by: raydar |
|
Turbo Versus Non-turbo...and Certain Years? | 2 | NewToVolvos | 113 | 5th November 2008 - 02:26 AM Last post by: fupabox |
|
Turbo Problems | 23 | mjm421 | 300 | 30th October 2008 - 09:21 PM Last post by: Sparky4688 |
Link To Us| If you found our site useful please link to us <a href="http://www.volvo-forums.com">Volvo-Forums.com</a>. |
Time is now: 9th January 2009 - 08:40 AM |
||
| © 2004 Volvo-forums.com | ||
