Re: Turbo Dakotas

From: Jon (jonsdak@midmaine.com)
Date: Wed Jul 16 2003 - 23:52:52 EDT


I'd have to say that I don't think moving the engine forward is a good idea
either. It's a RWD, very-light-in-the-rear truck to begin with (I often
have trouble launching without breaking the tires loose on anything less
than dry pavement, with my bone-stock six-banger), moving the engine forward
will exacerbate that, and especially with a stick, you're either going to
experience traction issues, or clutch ones if you play the clutch to
minimize the traction issues. With an automatic, you're going to have TC/VB
issues, instead of clutch ones (obviously).
Turbos are serious power, even on a little 4-cylinder.
This doesn't mean that I think it's a totally bad idea (*insert Tim Allen
grunt* More Power!), but it needs work. I simply don't think moving the
engine forward is a great way to stuff a turbo in there, as it will further
upset an already-frail traction ability (these Dodges already have too much
power to keep them hooked up!) :-).

-- 
-Jon
jonsdak@midmaine.com
http://jonsdakota.tripod.com
1996 Dodge Dakota Sport 4X4, 3.9L V6, 42RE, 3.92:1 8.25 axle, "BackRack"
Headache Rack,  Dodge Motorsports decals, steering wheel cover, and front
license plate, diamond-plate bedrail covers, Lund VentVisors, Lund
BugShield, Jensen MP-3310 CD/MP3 Receiver, Pioneer TS-G1347's in front,
TS-A5713's in rear, Bulldog RS-82 Remote Starter
<jon@dakota-truck.net> wrote in message
news:bf2jli$j17$7@bent.twistedbits.net...
>
> "Aaron Wyse" <awyse@sw.rr.com> wrote:
>
> : I was discussing our concepts and ideas of the turbo 2.5L's with a guy
at
> : the machine shop; and upon looking under the hood of my Gen II. Quickly
came
> : up with a way that may simplify doing the turbo conversions.  Rather
than
> : fabricate and relocate the intake & exhaust routing.. He suggested just
> : moving the eng & trans forward ( not like we don't have plenty of room).
Be
> : easier to lengthen a driveshaft, and move the shift linkage.. Or if you
go
> : with an AT.. just the driveshaft.
> : Does this sound like it may be more feasible?
>
>    I think part of it will depend on what you are looking to do.  If
> you are doing a one-off, then this may work just fine.  If you are
> planning to put together a kit for sale, you will probably appeal to
> more people if they don't have to worry about relocating the engine or
> playing with the driveshaft.
>
>   Another thing to consider would be that generally folks try to keep
> as much weight to the rear as possible (for a closer to 50/50 weight
> bias and/or to put more weight on the rear tires for a better launch).
> Moving the engine forward would be moving it in the "wrong" direction
> if you subscribe to that philosophy.
>
>
> -- 
>
>                                               -Jon-
>
>  .---- Jon Steiger ------ jon@dakota-truck.net or
jon@jonsteiger.com ------.
>  |  I'm the: AOPA, DoD, EAA, NMA, NRA, SPA, USUA.    Rec & UL Pilot - SEL
|
>  | 70 Cuda, 90 Dak 'vert, 92 Ram 4x4, 96 Dak, 96 Intruder 1400, 96 FireFly
|
>  `------------------------------------------ 
http://www.jonsteiger.com ----'



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:46:37 EST