Electrified from Jersey

[grapeofwrath]

Hello, looking for more info on the instant electric boost. I have a 94 Camaro with a 2006 3.5 liter v6 which I boosted with a Borg Warner 66 mm turbo. I was searching for a way to rid the turbo lag and came across the torqamp turbo. Although the torqamp does spool up the turbo it makes no boost on its own. Looking forward to posting and learning from this site.

 

[brettus8]

Swap to an EFR

 

[grapeofwrath]

EFR?

 

[brettus8]

The fastest spooling turbos in the world .... Borgwarner EFR series 8374 or 9180 with a twin scroll housing. Why add complexity when you can just change the turbo?

 

[maticulus]

Hello, looking for more info on the instant electric boost. I have a 94 Camaro with a 2006 3.5 liter v6 which I boosted with a Borg Warner 66 mm turbo. I was searching for a way to rid the turbo lag and came across the torqamp turbo. Although the torqamp does spool up the turbo it makes no boost on its own. Looking forward to posting and learning from this site.

94 Camaros and Birds came with a 3.4L V6 option, how did you get to 3.5L, swap in a 3500 short block? I'm pretty sure I was the first to do something similar years ago prior to the 3500 front wheel drive motors being manufactured. Provide some real details and pictures of your swap so that some informed opinions can be given. I bet your turbo lag has all to do with old habits being applied to new technology, a ridiculously low compression ratio. Not even factory turbo cars come with compression ratios below 10:1 anymore.

I once owned a Firebird, and two IROC-Zs with the tuned port motor and learned a lot about the cars. I've also done a lot of traditional turbo setups and figured out that higher compression is the way around turbo lag instead of small turbine housings that choke the top end.

 

[grapeofwrath]

94 Camaros and Birds came with a 3.4L V6 option, how did you get to 3.5L, swap in a 3500 short block? I'm pretty sure I was the first to do something similar years ago prior to the 3500 front wheel drive motors being manufactured. Provide some real details and pictures of your swap so that some informed opinions can be given. I bet your turbo lag has all to do with old habits being applied to new technology, a ridiculously low compression ratio. Not even factory turbo cars come with compression ratios below 10:1 anymore.

I once owned a Firebird, and two IROC-Zs with the tuned port motor and learned a lot about the cars. I've also done a lot of traditional turbo setups and figured out that higher compression is the way around turbo lag instead of small turbine housings that choke the top end.

Yeah, I did a 3.5 liter swap out of a 2006 Malibu so my compression ratio is 9.5:1 I presently run 15 lbs of boost, with water meth injection and intercooler. I also supercharged the original 3.4 with a m90 and later changed to a turbo.

 

[maticulus]

Yeah, I did a 3.5 liter swap out of a 2006 Malibu so my compression ratio is 9.5:1 I presently run 15 lbs of boost, with water meth injection and intercooler. I also supercharged the original 3.4 with a m90 and later changed to a turbo.

Very nice but, what are you doing with a 3500 when GM made 3900 motors in that small 60 deg V6 package. I built one for a Fiero, offset grinding the forged steel large crank pins to small block chevy 2.00 journals, swapping in chevy H-beam rods and using Mahle forged pistons for the LS1 which shares the same bore and has a compression height within the needed range. All I had to do was cut eyebrows for the valves to clear.
I also used water-meth injection and when it was done I had 11.5:1 compression and a lagless launch that I'd put up against anything from the Chevy showroom floor. I used a T67 turbo with a .81 turbine. The transmission couldn't handle the torque and started coming apart after about 6 mo. More important for you is that I ran that motor as high as 20 psi despite the high compression without any knock.
I datalogged it quite a bit, so there's plenty of room left in your setup to reduce lag. You may need to checkout your exhaust system for flow as well, it doesn't take much to cut your performance with a turbo exhaust obstruction. I could feel the difference easily between having my exhaust cutout valve open and closed on acceleration.

The professionals recommended a 62/62 mm turbo, so you might be a little on the large side turbowise depending on what your turbine housing size is. As previously stated, I don't believe any manufacturer delivers a factory turbocharged motor below 10:1 compression. Technology, metallurgy and combustion science has come a long way. GMs stock 3.6L motor is rated for regular unleaded and has an 11.5:1 compression and several motor heads have boosted that motor to 15 psi on stock internals although it is direct injected which adds an advantage to doing that.

 

[grapeofwrath]

I know all about the 3.9 engines, I've been tempted many times to get one but I have two 3.5's (one in the car and a spare in the garage). I just installed a Borg Warner S300SX-E 66mm with a twin scroll .91AR it is on the big size but I was looking for more top end power. I also have a quick spool valve and the torqamp to get the car moving from a dead stop. The lag isn't horrible but I'm always looking for a little more. I went through a couple 4l60e's and finally put a performabuilt level two which has been holding up good. I have a 4 inch downpipe with a cut out at the bottom so no back pressure issues.

 

[maticulus]

I know all about the 3.9 engines, I've been tempted many times to get one but I have two 3.5's (one in the car and a spare in the garage). I just installed a Borg Warner S300SX-E 66mm with a twin scroll .91AR it is on the big size but I was looking for more top end power. I also have a quick spool valve and the torqamp to get the car moving from a dead stop. The lag isn't horrible but I'm always looking for a little more. I went through a couple 4l60e's and finally put a performabuilt level two which has been holding up good. I have a 4 inch downpipe with a cut out at the bottom so no back pressure issues.

.91 sounds like a lot for that motor using the one I built on comparison with .7 more litres, and much higher compression on a .81 turbine. I talked to at least two different experienced turbo suppliers and T-67 was the highest recommended for my 500 hp goal. For more top end you need a camshaft regrind, I had one done for both the 3900 and 3500 and still have a near new 3500 with the cam in it that I no longer have a use for having moved on to the 3.6L. I also had 7x rings laser cut for the 3500/3900 crankshaft to replace the removable stock reluctor ring on the crank to avoid the need to attach anything to the front of the block for crank sensing.