performance difference

[inventorgtp]

just in case i cant find a yellow/ginger 2.2 turbo car..how does the v6 perform in comparison?

[wild bill]

I like how the V6 takes off with no turbo lag. I like how the 4 cyl takes off when the turbo kicks in. For all around driving fun I prefer the turbo 4. But then I am a little wild. Merry Xmas.

[Guest Majmx]

Bill;

Thanks for the run down on the V6 vs. the 4 cyl. From the maintenance stand point which engine is easier to get parts for and maintain?

Bob Steele

1989 TC Exoit Red/Tan/Black/Turbo II

TC America

[cowancom]

Bill--I take it you have a stock engine software in your 2.2. Stock is 6 lbs of boost if EVERYTHING is perfect. The last dozen or so i've put a boost gage on-it's more like 4.5 to 5 lbs. I like my 16.5 psi of boost.

[inventorgtp]

well looks like i will just have to find a 2.2 and repaint it...grrrrrrrr

[Hemi Dude]

inventorgtp guy, your questions have not indicated what sort of interest you have in a TC. Are you looking for a car that is a generally good driver all around?

A car that needs the least maintenance? Then the one for you would be one with the 3.0L V6.

This engine is the same as all other FDW Chrysler products used from '87 and into the 90's. The weak point on these cars would be the 41TE transaxle, aka 604.

If you are interested in a performance car, the 16 valve TC with the 5 speed Getrag trans should be your choice.

The 8 valve 2.2L with the 3 speed automatic is (in my opinion) a dog. It would need a lot of spicing up to be a 'fun' car to drive and as long as it had the 3 speed automatic transaxle, I don't see how it could.

I converted my 8 valve TC from the 3 speed automatic to a 5 speed and with a better SMEC (engine controller) I find it to perform almost as well as a 16 valve model.

So, let us know what you really desire.

[inventorgtp]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hemi Dude</div><div class="ubbcode-body">inventorgtp guy, your questions have not indicated what sort of interest you have in a TC. Are you looking for a car that is a generally good driver all around?

A car that needs the least maintenance? Then the one for you would be one with the 3.0L V6.

This engine is the same as all other FDW Chrysler products used from '87 and into the 90's. The weak point on these cars would be the 41TE transaxle, aka 604.

If you are interested in a performance car, the 16 valve TC with the 5 speed Getrag trans should be your choice.

The 8 valve 2.2L with the 3 speed automatic is (in my opinion) a dog. It would need a lot of spicing up to be a 'fun' car to drive and as long as it had the 3 speed automatic transaxle, I don't see how it could.

I converted my 8 valve TC from the 3 speed automatic to a 5 speed and with a better SMEC (engine controller) I find it to perform almost as well as a 16 valve model.

So, let us know what you really desire. </div></div> Hemi, my "blondi" was a fully tricked out 2.2 turbo (2.5" exaust, low bp cat, stage 3 smec, filtron, cam key, upgraded transmission, koni's) but i totaled it . I do love the yellow color, loved the feel when the turbo came on big time, but having never driven a v6 verison i dont know. I would think the v6's extra weight cannot do anything good for the handling. As far as 16v go's dont want that headache, a 5 speed, that might be fun but a auto is just fine too.

[Guest David Simons]

I have a v-6 and a 2.2 . If you want a nice reformed driver, the v-6 runs much smoother. The hole shot, if you can call it that is better as well. I know the 2.2 auto does not compare to the 16v but it is still a fun back road driver once you can start to spool up the turbo. Mine is much like the way you described the one you had. At 70 mph it pulls real nice considering it is a 4 cyl. For my all around preference I would take the 2.2 over the v-6 but then again I'm not refined either.

[Guest LouZ]

Hi,

As far as stock is concerned the V6 is the same as any of the millions of Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth cars (what we call Mopars) with 3.0 engines. the 8v 4 cyl. is the same as the 1/4 million Mopars. as you can figure out,both are available; but I think the V6 3.0 with the A604 trans is the easiest to get parts for. ~ but ~ that being written, it is much harder to "Hot Rod" Good Luck, Lou

[Hemi Dude]

So you totaled it. That shouldn't mean that you can't salvage all those good parts for another yellow 8-valve 2.2L, does it?

Maybe you have already let it go to the salvage yard, BIG mistake although you already know what you can do with the 8-valve, so you get another and do it again.

The 3.0L drives very nicely but isn't going to give you the feel of that turbo boost unless you install a turbo on it.

However the 3.0L is the easiest to live with and maintain so long as you consider the car 'just another driver.'

[inventorgtp]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hemi Dude</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you totaled it. That shouldn't mean that you can't salvage all those good parts for another yellow 8-valve 2.2L, does it?

Maybe you have already let it go to the salvage yard, BIG mistake although you already know what you can do with the 8-valve, so you get another and do it again.

The 3.0L drives very nicely but isn't going to give you the feel of that turbo boost unless you install a turbo on it.

However the 3.0L is the easiest to live with and maintain so long as you consider the car 'just another driver.' </div></div>thats a possiablity however how much more does the v6 weigh than the 4..any idea?

[cowancom]

Well.....if you really want to turn the TC into more of a fun to drive auto.....take out the lazyboys!!!!!! After taking the seats and motors out of my car I was shocked at the fact they weighed over 220lbs. The MOMO seats I replaced them with are 15lbs each. Also where your bottom sets is 10 inches lower than with the stock seats. Lets see---lower weight, lower center of gravity, equals weeeeeeee.

[inventorgtp]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cowancom</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well.....if you really want to turn the TC into more of a fun to drive auto.....take out the lazyboys!!!!!! After taking the seats and motors out of my car I was shocked at the fact they weighed over 220lbs. The MOMO seats I replaced them with are 15lbs each. Also where your bottom sets is 10 inches lower than with the stock seats. Lets see---lower weight, lower center of gravity, equals weeeeeeee.

</div></div>interesting, got any other pics?

[Guest MiamiTVR]

First off, I am not a mechanic but I cannot help but wonder if that Chrysler 3.0 is not closely related to the Mitsubishi 3.0.

If that is the case it certainly has the potential for monster performance as anyone that has driven a twin turbo VR4 can attest.

[cowancom]

The twin turbo 3.0 mitsubishi motor has about 5% in common with the BASE single cam unit in the TC. The twin won't come close to fitting in a TC. It also required 4 wheel drive to come close to putting its power to the ground. One of the most dangerous cars to drive in history. Ask Rick Diogo sometime. Almost killed him and his mother. By the way--a tuneup on that motor-due every 50,000-was/is $2300. Takes 2 days labor and removal of the top end of the motor to get to the plugs. ENJOY

[inventorgtp]

you know, a simple long pipe turbo setup might not be that tough..no intercooler just the blower back near the bumper like the rice rocket boys do it.

[cowancom]

Hey Inventorgtp----see the enclosed link.

http://www.ststurbo.com/

[inventorgtp]

yup just like that, 3.0 toque and turbo boost...not bad notion.

[Bill Reichert]

there is a member of Turbo-Mopar.com (Ondonti) that has a turbo'd v6. Just do a search for his name. It's much simpler to up the hp on the 4 though.

[Guest MiamiTVR]

One of the most dangerous cars to drive in history.

Cowancom

I found the VR4 to be gaudy in design and did not buy one but found it to be one of the fastest and best handling cars I have ever driven. I thought four wheel steering was a joke until I experienced it. I cannot imagine this car properly handled being unsafe.

But back to the topic. I remember a while back looking up the v-6 to see if anyone had turbo charged it to get that best of both worlds performance. I did not retain the site information but there are people out there doing it. I seem to recall some parts from the 3000 single turbo were adapted.

[inventorgtp]

i think that big old garret from the 2.2 a 7 psi waste gate and mount it back by the rear bumper would do the job

[TwinCamFan]

NICE THREAD! This one has legs, 13 posts since I last checked in. Could use some pics of these performance mods though

This one is not mine but the 16V TC motor sure looks at home in this P body 89 CSX/VNT

Alan

[Hemi Dude]

Kenny Duttweiler, long-time "Turbo God

"Squires Turbo Systems' remote-mounted turbos have solved all of the problems associated with traditional engine-mounted turbo systems..."

Hmm, a close neighbor of mine to my shop in Saticoy, CA

He's the guy who did a lot of work with the Buick Grand National.

He has quite the race shop here building race engines for many record holding cars as well as Bonneville racers.

[inventorgtp]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hemi Dude</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kenny Duttweiler, long-time "Turbo God

"Squires Turbo Systems' remote-mounted turbos have solved all of the problems associated with traditional engine-mounted turbo systems..."

Hmm, a close neighbor of mine to my shop in Saticoy, CA

He's the guy who did a lot of work with the Buick Grand National.

He has quite the race shop here building race engines for many record holding cars as well as Bonneville racers. </div></div>well whats your take on a remote mounted turbo?

[inventorgtp]

pretty good article on the remote turbo thing, they say "special turbo" bla bla.....http://www.supermotors.net/vehicles/articles/sts-a1-1.php

[TwinCamFan]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: inventorgtp</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hemi Dude</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kenny Duttweiler, long-time "Turbo God

"Squires Turbo Systems' remote-mounted turbos have solved all of the problems associated with traditional engine-mounted turbo systems..."

Hmm, a close neighbor of mine to my shop in Saticoy, CA

He's the guy who did a lot of work with the Buick Grand National.

He has quite the race shop here building race engines for many record holding cars as well as Bonneville racers. </div></div>well whats your take on a remote mounted turbo? </div></div>

I know you are asking Hemi, but I'll add my .02while he is getting back to us Remote mount systems are a bit complicated because you have to not only route the hot exhaust gasses to them, but you have to get the compressed charge air back to the intercooler/intake of the motor. Remote mount systems are popular on cars that were not originally equiped with turbochargers and have no room underhood for them. One make that has embraced them are the '04-'06 GTO owners. I've seen at least a dozen of the late model GTO's so equiped. I've also seen 550-575WHP dyno sheets from those cars They are doing something right for sure!

Alan

[inventorgtp]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TwinCamFan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: inventorgtp</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hemi Dude</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kenny Duttweiler, long-time "Turbo God

"Squires Turbo Systems' remote-mounted turbos have solved all of the problems associated with traditional engine-mounted turbo systems..."

Hmm, a close neighbor of mine to my shop in Saticoy, CA

He's the guy who did a lot of work with the Buick Grand National.

He has quite the race shop here building race engines for many record holding cars as well as Bonneville racers. </div></div>well whats your take on a remote mounted turbo? </div></div>

I know you are asking Hemi, but I'll add my .02while he is getting back to us Remote mount systems are a bit complicated because you have to not only route the hot exhaust gasses to them, but you have to get the compressed charge air back to the intercooler/intake of the motor. Remote mount systems are popular on cars that were not originally equiped with turbochargers and have no room underhood for them. One make that has embraced them are the '04-'06 GTO owners. I've seen at least a dozen of the late model GTO's so equiped. I've also seen 550-575WHP dyno sheets from those cars They are doing something right for sure!

Alan </div></div>so like the v6 tc..it never was intened to have a turbo.

[Guest LouZ]

That remote placement of the Turbo (out-back) has so many advantages, it may be the way to go. As it stands now the electronic engine controller is so tight on the economy side; it can't even accept an oversized exhaust system (it would run too lean). So as I read the system includes a controller and there is no need for an intercooler. sounds good. Lou

[inventorgtp]

does the v6 use the same smec as the the turbo 2...not the same valuse but physicaly and electronicly the same?

[TwinCamFan]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: inventorgtp</div><div class="ubbcode-body">does the v6 use the same smec as the the turbo 2...not the same valuse but physicaly and electronicly the same? </div></div>

Hmm, sounds like someone is drawing up some plans over the Holidays It's been done on that motor like Bill mentioned, do some research on Turbo-mopar.com and you will have as much info as you want.

Alan

[inventorgtp]

from what i have read, the simple solution is to use a garret, get a oilpump, and a 6 psi waste gate. To handle fuel you drop in 2 more injectors wired to a pressure valve, when you got boost you pump in more juice.....