Turbo systems for X1/9's

Going back to my prior post about knock sensing technologies.

As mentioned there are basically two general approaches; to determine knock levels as part of the initial tuning/setup process, and to sense knock real time with onboard engine management to control it. The technology for either approach is nothing new, but perhaps more refined in recent years. It's my understanding one major reason for this is faster processors, able to sample much more frequently in much smaller increments. As a result more aftermarket products are incorporating this enhanced technology (especially for the second application onboard the ECU), at a notably lower cost than before - although that's a relative thing.

After review of the information I collected at SEMA, looking at what's new on the market, and reading a bit more on the subject, I've come to a decision (at least for now). For my particular turbo project, the interest is more for the first application noted above - to determine at what point knock exists when setting up the initial tuning, so the tune can be kept conservatively below that threshold. Therefore I will stick with the advice I've been getting all along and not attempt to incorporate knock sensing into the onboard engine management system. Furthermore I do not intend to invest in one of the advanced detection devices to use with my initial tuning. At some point I plan to get the car on a dyno and let an experienced professional do some fine tuning with more elaborate equipment. But until then I'd like to see if I can get the baseline stuff sorted out enough to have things working reasonably well. That way the tuner can focus the dyno time on the fine tuning.

To do this I like the idea of using a laptop connected to a Bosch knock sensor, with a oscilloscope type sound analysis software. I've been reading about use of FFT and bandpass filters to help isolate the knock signal from engine noise. Granted it does not utilize crank position "windows", RPM, load, or other parameters to assist with detailed analysis. But that really isn't critical for this intended use. The goal here is to simply identity the existence of knock, so this method is sufficient. An even simpler method is to use any of the "listening" devices and just hear the knock. Unfortunately for me than won't work, my hearing is severely compromised. Too many years of heavy metal music, machinery operation, and hanging around racing engines. So I need to rely on other senses, and a visual display seems best for this.

The setup is quite simple. Bosch "donut" sensors are very broad scope (<5 to >20 kHz) and generate a low voltage signal (100mV). Therefore it can literally be plugged directly into the microphone jack on the computer using a shielded cable with a "minitimer" connector on the sensor end and a 3.5mm mono plug on the other. The sound card is capable of processing the signal and the analysis software is available as a free download and not difficult to use. If you wish to listen with headphones you can plug them into the headphone jack (sound card adjusts volume). Doesn't get any easier or less costly (total of about $15).

The (over simplified) principal is to play with the tune until you induce some knock, as detected on the laptop. Then back off the tune until the knock disappears, and finally back off a bit more for a safety cushion. Some road testing while a passenger monitors the laptop under various driving conditions will help with the process. Add some notes on RPM and relative load and you should have enough to know where the ignition maps need to be. Record AFR's during the process and the fuel maps can also be set (autotune will also help a lot with that). As stated, it isn't intended to be highly scientific and certainly not definitive. It is only to help get some sort of baseline until dyno testing fine tunes it.
 
no - it won't rise/fall fast enough
Myron, thanks for that. Makes perfect sense. Funny because I was looking at those affordable thermocouples and meters when I considered doing EGT measurements. However I determined EGT's were not that helpful on a gasoline low boost conservative tune engine, so I dropped it. Didn't even occur to me the same device would be good for measuring intake air temps. Do you think these inexpensive units will be fast enough for our intended use?

Discussing intake air temps, don't we already have that data from the IAT input to the ECU? How is using a thermocouple and external meter different from just reading the IAT through the ECU? The software for the ECU I intend to use offers capability to display any parameters onto a tablet or laptop realtime. So it would be easy to see the air temp for wherever you mount the IAT sensor. Isn't that what you want to know? Or am I missing something.
 
Jeff

what you are suggesting will work - provided all other variables remain the same, namely

fuel octane
air inlet temp
water temp
oil temp
etc

this "isn't common" in the real world.



filtering / frequency - kinda important.

rgds
sdo
 
Myron, thanks for that. Makes perfect sense. Funny because I was looking at those affordable thermocouples and meters when I considered doing EGT measurements. However I determined EGT's were not that helpful on a gasoline low boost conservative tune engine, so I dropped it. Didn't even occur to me the same device would be good for measuring intake air temps. Do you think these inexpensive units will be fast enough for our intended use?

Discussing intake air temps, don't we already have that data from the IAT input to the ECU? How is using a thermocouple and external meter different from just reading the IAT through the ECU? The software for the ECU I intend to use offers capability to display any parameters onto a tablet or laptop realtime. So it would be easy to see the air temp for wherever you mount the IAT sensor. Isn't that what you want to know? Or am I missing something.

With our Megasquirt we datalog IAT along with other data. You can also read data on a laptop, tablet, or phone while the engine is running whether you are datalogging or not.

The use of a knock sensor brings up another possibilty. I was looking for an engine to replace the Ecotec in the Fiat, something nearer to the 3200cc limit for OHC engines in EM. I found that the (2012?) GM 3L V6 was a possibility as it put out 270HP at 7000. Looking further showed that the compression ratio was 12:1. This is for a normal street engine running on pump gas.
I don't know but I assume this engine relies heavily on knock sensors and a fast ECU with a lot of GM programming.
Would it be practical to use the same technology on a high compression X motor and do away with the complexity of the turbo system? Not for a race engine, just a street engine with a normal cam. Hopefully it would provide a wide torque band and decent power.
 
When I considered a air/water intercooler I researched the electric pumps available for circulating the coolant supply. I was surprised at how little volume/flow they have. I discussed this with people from Bosch and a couple of other pump manufacturers. Even the largest one (if I recall it was for a Cobra Mustang or such) wasn't that much flow. To put it into perspective, most of the little pumps used for boat bilge water removal have a greater flow rate (I actually thought about using one of them, and they are also much less expensive). Naturally the assumption is that it will be enough if it works on those factory boosted applications. However keep in mind those applications do not have to circulate the coolant from one end of the vehicle to the other, they don't have the engine and intercooler crammed into a tiny "hot box" mid-engine bay, their frontal air flow and fan air flow is much greater, they are very low boost systems, and they have significantly better cooling systems for the rest of the powertrain. Also consider that one of the first upgrades made to the factory boosted systems is to increase the intercooler system's capacity; I've seen aftermarket solutions that use two of those pumps. So I wasn't certain the available pumps would be sufficient. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying don't do it or it won't work. I'm only relaying a concern I had. I understand someone here has done it and it seems to work for him, so I'm sure it is o.k. but it bothered me - just one more factor in my decision equation.

Another factor for me was the available configurations of the intercooler itself. I wanted a particular overall size with the inlet and outlet nozzles aimed a certain way. I could not find exactly what I wanted without going to a custom built unit. But this will differ greatly for each application and component arrangement. Again, just another thought on the subject. To be honest, when it came down to it for my low cost project the cost of a air/water system was too much to warrant it.
I've got a supercharged car that uses air-to-water cooler with an ice tank. There is a heat exchanger mounted in front to the rad, and an ice tank mounted in the trunk, so it has a couple of pretty long coolant lines.
The company that manufactures the tanks offers several types of pumps. Lots of good info on their web site.
https://pnrwelding.net/our-products
This is the pump they think is the most reliable.
"Stewart EMP reprogrammed pump WP32 4600: If you want the best of the best with a good warranty then purchase our WP32 EMP reprogrammed pump! (Programmed to 4600 rpms/ 25 amp.)

Pros: The most efficient pump on the market.

Cons: Expensive and mounting can be difficult. However, we can make mounting easier with a specialized bracket, powdercoated black with stainless hardware for easy install!
"
https://pnrwelding.net/ice-tanks/fuel-cells?olsPage=products/emp-4600-pump-and-harness-and-slash-or-bracket
 
Lots of great feedback, keep it coming.

In my opinion if you are looking for maximum performance, in terms of getting the most power output from your engine and its systems, such as for racing or even a extreme street vehicle, then you must be prepared to go the whole way with everything - and spend the funds needed to get there. And while that is the goal for many of us - especially on a forum such as this - it isn't necessarily always the case. And certainly not for my turbo project. I realize that sounds contradictory, why build a turbo engine if you aren't looking for maximum performance? In my case the answer is I'm looking to enhance the drivability of the car for normal road use, complete with things like air conditioning that otherwise rob the engine of its already lacking output. In other words, try to gain enough to overcome such accessories, and add a bit more grunt to make the drive less boring (as I find the X to be in stock trim). Certainly not the same as aiming for a high performance X. Not sure if that distinction makes sense to everyone, perhaps think of it the same way many of the automotive manufacturers have. They want to reduce emissions, increase fuel mileage, and keep the vehicle interesting to drive. So they are going toward much smaller engines, but adding low boost turbos to offset the otherwise lack of power. That is pretty much what I'm hoping to accomplish; in this case the vehicle manufacturer (Fiat) has already provided the underpowered engine, so the low boost turbo is merely finishing what they (unintentionally) started.

Given that distinction, I don't believe it is necessary to have the same level of engine management as a full race extreme performance engine requires. And by that I mean you can keep the ECU mapping more conservative, and well within safe settings to avoid damaging things like detonation. For example not trying to get maximal ignition timing at the razor edge of knock, or not looking to keep AFR's at the edge of lean mixtures, or not upping the boost levels to the limits of the engine's design, etc. Hard to imagine but I am NOT building a "performance" engine for once, so the usual rules do not necessarily apply here...again just my opinion. ;)

Would it be better to use the latest and greatest technology anyway? Absolutely! But keep in mind my OTHER goal here. I'd like to see if this low boost turbo idea is possible to do on a small budget. Again, that sounds contradictory I know. However so far I've been quite surprised at how affordable this project has been. If it proves to work (a big question), then it might be a reasonable option to enhancing the X's fun level; with a simpler and more affordable approach than the two next options - engine swap or traditional high performance SOHC build. Truely an experiment, and a really fun learning experience. :)
 
Lots of great feedback, keep it coming.

In my opinion if you are looking for maximum performance, in terms of getting the most power output from your engine and its systems, such as for racing or even a extreme street vehicle, then you must be prepared to go the whole way with everything - and spend the funds needed to get there. And while that is the goal for many of us - especially on a forum such as this - it isn't necessarily always the case. And certainly not for my turbo project. I realize that sounds contradictory, why build a turbo engine if you aren't looking for maximum performance? In my case the answer is I'm looking to enhance the drivability of the car for normal road use, complete with things like air conditioning that otherwise rob the engine of its already lacking output. In other words, try to gain enough to overcome such accessories, and add a bit more grunt to make the drive less boring (as I find the X to be in stock trim). Certainly not the same as aiming for a high performance X. Not sure if that distinction makes sense to everyone, perhaps think of it the same way many of the automotive manufacturers have. They want to reduce emissions, increase fuel mileage, and keep the vehicle interesting to drive. So they are going toward much smaller engines, but adding low boost turbos to offset the otherwise lack of power. That is pretty much what I'm hoping to accomplish; in this case the vehicle manufacturer (Fiat) has already provided the underpowered engine, so the low boost turbo is merely finishing what they (unintentionally) started.

Given that distinction, I don't believe it is necessary to have the same level of engine management as a full race extreme performance engine requires. And by that I mean you can keep the ECU mapping more conservative, and well within safe settings to avoid damaging things like detonation. For example not trying to get maximal ignition timing at the razor edge of knock, or not looking to keep AFR's at the edge of lean mixtures, or not upping the boost levels to the limits of the engine's design, etc. Hard to imagine but I am NOT building a "performance" engine for once, so the usual rules do not necessarily apply here...again just my opinion. ;)

Would it be better to use the latest and greatest technology anyway? Absolutely! But keep in mind my OTHER goal here. I'd like to see if this low boost turbo idea is possible to do on a small budget. Again, that sounds contradictory I know. However so far I've been quite surprised at how affordable this project has been. If it proves to work (a big question), then it might be a reasonable option to enhancing the X's fun level; with a simpler and more affordable approach than the two next options - engine swap or traditional high performance SOHC build. Truely an experiment, and a really fun learning experience. :)

Long, long ago (1984 to be exact) I bought a new Pontiac Sunfire Turbo. It was 1800cc, 150hp, SOHC, port injected and limited to 12 lbs of boost. It came with a 3 speed auto and a high stall converter. CR was 8.5 I think.
12 lbs provided reasonable performance and it was a fun car to drive.
On the occasions when the check engine light came on the boost was limited to 5 lbs.
At that point the engine was absolutely dead.
My point is that a low compression small engine running 5 lbs of boost is not going to give you much performance. "Low boost" on your engine seems to be a secret, so obviously I'm guessing on the 5 lbs.

One other thing to think about is that a low compression 1500 at idle is not really a torque monster and this might cause you problems running 2 rad fans, two engine bay cooling fans, a fuel pump, a tight water pump, intercooler pump, and maybe an AC compressor and its' in car fan. Headlights?, maybe, maybe not...
Just something to think about.
 
"Low boost" on your engine seems to be a secret, so obviously I'm guessing on the 5 lbs.
Sorry, I've described it in other posts. About 8-9 psi; pretty much most current factory systems allow around 7-8 psi. To me levels below 10 psi are "low". It will be enough to wake up the SOHC, but not so much as to be lethal for it. I'm a little surprised the OEM setting on your Sunfire was 12 psi, as that is a bit high for a factory design. Maybe back then they hadn't learned much about turbo engines yet? Turbo technology is '84 was very lacking, which would have made it even more dangerous.



a low compression 1500 at idle is not really a torque monster
That's pretty much the whole point of adding a turbo, to up the torque. It is a small, quick spool turbo, I'm not looking for a lot of top end.

And as for the electrical loads, if you mean in terms of the stock alt not putting out enough amperage, that is why the alt has been swapped to a non-stock item with greater output. Naturally that increases the engine's work load a little, but again the reason for boost.
 
This kept popping up as a recommended video when I went to YouTube, finally watched it after seeing this thread's activity lately.

Electric turbo, peak 5psi boost, nearly 30% increase on Chev Cobalt 2.2.

 
Sorry, I've described it in other posts. About 8-9 psi; pretty much most current factory systems allow around 7-8 psi. To me levels below 10 psi are "low". It will be enough to wake up the SOHC, but not so much as to be lethal for it. I'm a little surprised the OEM setting on your Sunfire was 12 psi, as that is a bit high for a factory design. Maybe back then they hadn't learned much about turbo engines yet? Turbo technology is '84 was very lacking, which would have made it even more dangerous.




That's pretty much the whole point of adding a turbo, to up the torque. It is a small, quick spool turbo, I'm not looking for a lot of top end.

And as for the electrical loads, if you mean in terms of the stock alt not putting out enough amperage, that is why the alt has been swapped to a non-stock item with greater output. Naturally that increases the engine's work load a little, but again the reason for boost.

Some of the current turbo systems are running 15-20 psi. Modern ECUs are wonderful pieces of equipment.
The '84 SunBIRD (my mistake, Sunfire came later) worked fine on 12 psi. The problem came when the converter resisted unlocking especially on hills. After the second cylinder head I installed a switch to manually unlock it and didn't have any more problems.

The knock sensors of the time worked really well and saved a lot of motors from excessive timing under boost. The biggest problem they had was distinguishing knock from other noises. You could drive down a gravel road and the gravel hitting the oil pan would cause timing retard that would leave you with about 5 hp as long as you were on gravel. This is not a joke, you could end up with so little power that you thought it was having engine problems.

I understand the torque/hp increase with the turbo, my comment was whether the engine off boost at idle had enough power to drive all of the accessories. We have an electric fuel pump, small 20 gpm water pump, and a 10" fan on the radiator. Even at 2200cc, 14:1 compression we still have a slight drop in rpm when we turn the fan on. We have a100 amp alternator.
 
Some of the current turbo systems are running 15-20 psi. Modern ECUs are wonderful pieces of equipment.
True, technology has come a long way. Wonder what we will have in a few years, and think back on the worrable stuff we're using today?

Regarding boost levels. I consider "high" to be the stuff guys are doing with 25-30 psi and above. I'll be happy under 10 lb. Remember that I'm keeping the engine basically stock.

I see what you mean now about the alternator load. A lot of what I'm doing will be figured out when it happens. One thing that might help is the idle control valve I'm adding to the ECU? Not sure, guess I'll find out. I suppose if all else fails then up the idle RPM a bit.
 
Electric turbo, peak 5psi boost
Your post reminds me of something I saw. Although I don't watch much TV, when I do then it is automotive related programming - races, some tech stuff, etc. I avoid most of the silly stuff, but a while back I happened to see a show about a couple of guys from one of the American performance magazines doing stupid things. They attached a bunch of leaf blowers into a common pipe and fed it to the intake of the car. Actually got some boost from it and saw some power increase.
 
True, technology has come a long way. Wonder what we will have in a few years, and think back on the worrable stuff we're using today?

Regarding boost levels. I consider "high" to be the stuff guys are doing with 25-30 psi and above. I'll be happy under 10 lb. Remember that I'm keeping the engine basically stock.

I see what you mean now about the alternator load. A lot of what I'm doing will be figured out when it happens. One thing that might help is the idle control valve I'm adding to the ECU? Not sure, guess I'll find out. I suppose if all else fails then up the idle RPM a bit.

The idle control system on our car is part of the GM cable operated throttle body. The Megasquirt controls this and it does a good job keeping a stable idle speed.
 
Idle control on mine is a bit different. It is kind of similar to how the warm up circuit works on the stock X, using a air bypass valve to control the idle speed rather than moving the throttle plate like yours. However the valve in my case is a electronic solenoid rather than the mechanical heat activated one on the X. So the ECU controls it electronically (PWM) in real time by fluctuating the valve open/closed as needed. I know it can be programmed to increase the idle speed when the AC compressor comes on, so hopefully it can compensate for other loads as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HaG
Idle control on mine is a bit different. It is kind of similar to how the warm up circuit works on the stock X, using a air bypass valve to control the idle speed rather than moving the throttle plate like yours. However the valve in my case is a electronic solenoid rather than the mechanical heat activated one on the X. So the ECU controls it electronically (PWM) in real time by fluctuating the valve open/closed as needed. I know it can be programmed to increase the idle speed when the AC compressor comes on, so hopefully it can compensate for other loads as well.

We are using the same system. You can set the idle and the ECU maintains your set speed. I pulled an old one out of storage and shot some pics.
Our 2010 direct injected G6 uses drive by wire and that one controls idle with the throttle plate. Not what we are using on the 600.
20191123_135527.jpg
20191123_135539.jpg
 
We are using the same system.
I misunderstood. I thought when you said "The idle control system on our car is part of the GM cable operated throttle body", that meant like your drive by wire system does and actually opens the butterfly to control it. Ya, your 600 is the same principle as my VW one:
md_161d108c-6e05-4880-9240-b175378a5d9c.jpg
 
Uno Turbo info sought.

I'm just curious, I have a stock Mk1 (1300) Uno Turbo factory cast iron exhaust manifold and matching heat shield. They seem to have a black coating on them. On the manifold the coating is thicker and looks like it is (was) on the inside and outside. While on the heat shield it is much thinner and appears to only be on one side (the smooth metal side). I said "was" because in some areas of both parts it has worn away or flaked off. But whatever it is, it's extremely hard to remove. Strong chemical cleaning did nothing to it. If I media blast it long enough some areas will eventually erode away; on the heat shield it tends to flake off in small pieces, on the manifold it just gradually wears through. For the manifold, grinding on it with a Roll-Loc disc almost does nothing. A carbide burr/die grinder was needed to cut through it there, and even then it wasn't easy. It appears to be from the factory but I have no way of really knowing. Given how robust it is, and the way it has worn off in some areas, makes me think it has been there from day one.

I don't know exactly what this is. At first I thought the thick layer on the manifold was either from the casting process (there's a noticeable difference in the surface where it is missing), or really baked on carbon deposits (especially on the inside). But the more I worked at cleaning it up the more I'm thinking it is a coating applied to it. Particularly on the heat shield where it flakes off. Did Fiat use some sort of ceramic coating on the exhaust components of the Uno Turbo?
 
Uno Turbo info sought.

I'm just curious, I have a stock Mk1 (1300) Uno Turbo factory cast iron exhaust manifold and matching heat shield. They seem to have a black coating on them. On the manifold the coating is thicker and looks like it is (was) on the inside and outside. While on the heat shield it is much thinner and appears to only be on one side (the smooth metal side). I said "was" because in some areas of both parts it has worn away or flaked off. But whatever it is, it's extremely hard to remove. Strong chemical cleaning did nothing to it. If I media blast it long enough some areas will eventually erode away; on the heat shield it tends to flake off in small pieces, on the manifold it just gradually wears through. For the manifold, grinding on it with a Roll-Loc disc almost does nothing. A carbide burr/die grinder was needed to cut through it there, and even then it wasn't easy. It appears to be from the factory but I have no way of really knowing. Given how robust it is, and the way it has worn off in some areas, makes me think it has been there from day one.

I don't know exactly what this is. At first I thought the thick layer on the manifold was either from the casting process (there's a noticeable difference in the surface where it is missing), or really baked on carbon deposits (especially on the inside). But the more I worked at cleaning it up the more I'm thinking it is a coating applied to it. Particularly on the heat shield where it flakes off. Did Fiat use some sort of ceramic coating on the exhaust components of the Uno Turbo?

Not just plain old powder coating? We had our Super Vee exhaust powder coated and it sounds like what you have.
One other possibility is porcelain coating, not used normally these days but still done on high end classic car exhausts.
 
I'm pretty certain it's not powder coat judging by how hard/resilient it is. On the manifold it has the strength and thickness of porcelain, but it doesn't chip (maybe not all porcelain chips?). However it is also kind of a matt finish and it seems most porcelain is more glossy - though the dullness might be from age and heat cycles. After all of my attempts to remove it from the cast iron manifold it looks very different now than it did before, so difficult to judge by the current appearance. On the heat shield it is a thinner coating and not quite as durable as on the manifold.

This may just be lots of carbon really cooked on, but it sure is stronger than any carbon buildup I've ever seen. Chemicals did not soften it at all and very little cuts through it. And I can't imagine carbon collecting on a heat shield (anything is possible I suppose). I also wonder if on the manifold it could be from the casting process, like a layer of cast material that stuck to the piece in places? But I'm not sure what type of casting processes they used at Fiat back then.
 
There is no coating on my exhaust manifold at all. Just plain cast iron. The heat shield is painted with a "normal" paint that is quite easy to remove with a grinder. No trace of a ceramic layer etc. My UT engine is from 1987 but I don't think it differs from 1988-89 engines. Almost certainly a previous owner of your engine did a ceramic treatment on the manifold and heat shield.
 
Back
Top