Anyway, don't take my "more fun" comment too seriously... just as I age I am appreciate miles per gallon almost as much as I appreciate neck-snapping power. And turbocharging allows you to balance the two fairly well.
I assumed you meant more fun in that the pay-off was nearly as good for power, but in a smaller lighter package. And I assumed it fit in the engine bay a lot easier with less clearance problems. S-10s are small, tight, and crowded anyhow, and a smaller engine would make for easier maintanance. No, I did not take your comment too seriously.
I was at my local junkyard a week ago looking for a small steering rack for my son's kart, and they were carrying an old 50's caddy with the big beautiful wings on it right into the crusher, and within a minute it was flat as hell. What I saw of it before it was flattened it had a few dings, the paint was badly faded, but I didn't see any rust holes and all the glass was there.
Yay for cash for clunkers.
What a shame, people will crush anything. 30,000 miles, spotless, a classic, and in running condition means nothing to some people. They're dumb for not realizing that old cars have value other than their weight in scrap iron, and could easily get more money. Fortunately cash for clunkers protects cars older than 1985, but cars 1986 and newer will be classics and collectors someday. Oh well, you can't save them all, and its none of my business when it comes to someone elses car, unless I am offering the most money.
Our RWD Taurus project (small block, turbocharged) in contrast came out much better. It's actually a well behaved car but then it only looks like a taurus when you're sitting in the car as the interior is stock other than the full cage. And yes, it's a four door ;-) But it no longer is a strut-based car and there's no truck space either.
Sounds bad a$$. please supply us with pics if you can
I and several friends managed to shove an EFI 460 into an early 90's Ford explorer, and eventually turbocharge it and the hood closed. You're right, a lot of modifications had to be made to the body of the vehicle. The radiator core support was "reshaped" so that the radiator was essentially about 1/4" from the plastic grill on the outside of the core and the 460 required short-nose water pump, pulleys, and what not. The firewall was simply cut out and replaced with a flat piece of steel and the bell housing pattern traced at the bottom and the engine and transmission bolted directly to the firewall, using it as an engine mount in a sense. A tranny shield was shaped and formed over that, as the original trans tunnel had to be cut out. The C6 did not fit. While a very fast truck in the acceleration department with all the other modifications, the one thing that has not been compensated for very well thus far is braking. If one brakes hard enough they can pretty much guarrentee the front bumper will tap the ground. My buddy installed higher LB springs and then the shock towers started tearing apart. At this point the stock explorer frame (it wasn't a unibody in those days like it is today) was replaced with an F250 frame that was reshaped and narrowed and shortened to fit. It gets to the point however where it's getting out of control and while fun to do because "we can" it's getting expensive and every problem solved introduces another really annoying problem.
Was is worth it? Maybe my 8.1L s-10 wasnt such a good idea, even though I didnt give it much thought. A 350 is too big for the engine bay in the new body style s-10s, and the 8.1 is much bigger, and appears much taller in the trucks they came in, so I'm sure it would have to look like a modified drag race truck to make it work. I just like the idea of a sleeper, where it looks stock from all around, but is an overpowered rubber burning machine.
The 8.1L was introduced to replace the big block chevys(454) in the 90s series trucks, and was the low priced option to the diesel (about $7,000 cheaper). They were also made to compete with the big ford gas engines(v10). The early 2000 series chevy trucks(2500HD and up) with the 8.1L get about 12-14 MPG unloaded, and with a fully loaded trailer on they get 9-10 MPG (trailer doesnt fade them much). They are rated at something around 360 HP and 455 ft. lb. of torque, but I think they have potential for much more. The reason why you never see one (or see aftermarket parts for one), is that they didnt produce them long in 3/4ton and 1 ton pickups before dropping the option because I believe GM was trying to protect its time and investment in the duramax diesel engines. I believe they still put them in big trucks, like kodiaks, though.
One of the magazines put one of these engines in an SS454 truck. A fullsize truck would probably be a more realistic home for one.
I've also thought about putting an turbocharged oldsmobile 350 diesel into an S-10. When built properly(with stronger head bolts, higher quality head gaskets, and larger main studs) they make a respectable diesel for their size. Add a turbo from a 90s chevy diesel and they put out decent power. But they only made them for a short time in the late 70's, early 80's, and I'm sure most of them had bitten the dust by now, since many were abandoned because it was easier to replace the troublesome deisel with a 350 gas engine. But, they were experimenting with them all the way up until their demise, and by the time they had worked out the issues, there was no demand for them.
While on the subject of Olds diesels, did I read somewhere that you converted one into a high performance gas engine? If so can you go into detail? I've heard of this conversion before and understand that the diesels have a strong bottom end, but I don't know much about what is necessary for the conversion.
Comparing the turbocharged 3.8L Buick to the turbocharged 4.3L Sy/Ty the Buick has some advantages, particularly in the bottom end. The crank is for certain stronger, due to the fillets on the journals as well as the larger diameter of said journals. The webbing is stronger (the part of the block the main caps bolt to) and surprisingly enough the turbocharged 3.8L blocks have a higher nickel content than the turbocharged 4.3L blocks.
I've always heard the buick 3.8 engines are great, and I know first hand. A friend had one in his high-mileage buick and he beat the living crap out of it for a month straight until he lost his license (speeding @ 109MPH). From a cold start it would see high RPM... all the time. Sounds like hell for the rod and crank bearings, since it takes a short time for the oil to reach them (or so I've been told). It still ran perfect the last time I saw it.
Nickel content in engine blocks are supposed to help the engine run cooler, correct? I know cadillac experimented with adding nickel to the blocks with their 500 CI engines back in the 70s.
Sorry 88S10 durango, I promise I will stop veering your thread off-course, and it will return to normal soon.
