2.0gti turbo conversion?

[bob23]

Ok, so the car and bike mechanics are wrong, what carbs would you suggest?

Switching to carbs is a bonkers idea, fuel injection is a lot better in the long run.

Why? Please explain why running a car on carbs as a weekend/show car is a bonkers idea, everyone is quick to pick faults, I'm trying to do something different to the run of the mill, everyone does a 1.8t conversion, so much so that there is even a thread on this site telling you how to do it, well that is just boring, my car is for me, and i don't want the same thing as everyone else, and if you think this is bonkers, I hate to think what you'll think of my next engine.

[tshirt2k]

He's saying its bonkers because its not the best way to do it. All very well wanting something different, but you won't get the best performance or have it run very well using carbs. There may be a way of getting around it, but proper management and an injection system will have it running much better.

You need full spark and fuel control to stop the engine blowing up and if doesn't blow up, you may also need a healthy bank balance to fuel the thing. All that trouble for measly 150hp. 

Also, you say you don't know much about doing something like that. A compromised (due to the carbs) turbo car won't be the most reliable, so are you going to take it back to the guy every time it plays up.

I have a 2.0L 16v turbo and at the start running on standalone management was tricky to sort out. Hopefully the guy will have enough jets and a method of measuring air:fuel ratio to get it running well enough for you to drive it at weekends.

[Gavv8]

I think the general feeling is that there are more constructive ways to spend your money, anything is possible but sometimes there is just little point.

[danny_p]

he chould well be doing it for sh!ts and giggels.

turbo and carbs is never going to be optimal but it can make power,   basicly you just shove the carbs inside the plenum and shove the FPR in there ( or get one desinged for turbo carb applications and connect a pipe from it to said plenum )  fuel pressure about 1psi over plenum  and off to go.  just have to give it a fair glug more fuel than you would have to with efi.    i'd never sugest it to be a good idea for a daily but for the hell of it crack on and it's diffrent to the usual 20vt swap.  if i was going to build a show car i would use any engine but the 20vt just so it would be diffrent.

anyway these 2.0 crossflow 8 valve motors,  I'M STILL ACTIVLY TRYING TO KILL THE SAME FECKING ONE. done 235,000 miles near as dammit  its been working up the nitrus jets from 25 bhp over the last few months upto 175's  now and its still not poped 

[bob23]

he chould well be doing it for sh!ts and giggels.

turbo and carbs is never going to be optimal but it can make power,   basicly you just shove the carbs inside the plenum and shove the FPR in there ( or get one desinged for turbo carb applications and connect a pipe from it to said plenum )  fuel pressure about 1psi over plenum  and off to go.  just have to give it a fair glug more fuel than you would have to with efi.    i'd never sugest it to be a good idea for a daily but for the hell of it crack on and it's diffrent to the usual 20vt swap.  if i was going to build a show car i would use any engine but the 20vt just so it would be diffrent.

anyway these 2.0 crossflow 8 valve motors, I'M STILL ACTIVLY TRYING TO KILL THE SAME FECKING ONE. done 235,000 miles near as dammit  its been working up the nitrus jets from 25 bhp over the last few months upto 175's  now and its still not poped 

Well why didn't you say so, just get a holset Scania R730 turbo and fit that, that will blow the f**king internals out through the exhaust and the valves out the bonnet, I was going to stick with fuel injection and fit a holset 144 530 turbo but decided to do the build with at least a small chance that the engine won't go bang.

My next engine will cost about £2000/£2500 for the entire build,it will have over 300bhp in it's standard natrually aspirated state, then when I have worked out all the problems and got used to it, I'll then buy a turbo kit for it which is £2800, at 10psi it will be kicking out just over 500bhp.

I just need to find out if I can fit it in the engine bay, how hard it will be and obviously wait for the finances, I am moving out of the room I am renting and renting a bungalow next week and that has cost me £8k with the deposit, first months rent and furnishing the place

Also with the fact the company I work for had no work for me for 2 months and have not paid me for 2 months work that I did do I have also been using the money I had saved to live on for the last 4 months, and that was money I had put aside for doing a conversion on the golf, which is why I am now carrying on with turbo 8v idea, as I bought the parts last year and gave up on the idea in favour of more power, but have decided I might as well try and get it finished and can use it while saving up again.

[tweed]

None of my business but if your not being paid and just moved out I wouldn't even waste money on a 99p DVD let alone a turbo 8v project!!

I think you might actually not be normal 

[bob23]

I am working and getting paid again now and still have a couple of £k in the bank put to one side, and as i say i already have all the parts to build it.

Although your definitely right, I'm not normal!

[danny_p]

i spend loads of money on cars when i'm not working .

more work will appear more time won't

[bob23]

i spend loads of money on cars when i'm not working .

more work will appear more time won't

True, although I prefer to spend the money on parts when I am working, then fit them when I'm not working.

[Diamond Hell]

Wrong

Mine has past the last 3 MOT with the S3 engine, and NO cat
My car is a August 1993

Yes but you live in a different world to the rest of us, your so-called 'real world', which to the outside sometimes appears maybe a touch pikey and 'flexible' in some respects.

From the DFT MOT manual:

Basic Emissions Test procedure (BET)
The basic emissions test is applied to all petrol fuelled vehicles first used on or after 1 August 1992. Despite its name this test is primarily aimed at identifying, and assessing emissions from, vehicles with advanced emissions control systems such as three-way catalytic converters. The test uses EC minimum in service emission limits for modern cars.

For cars subject to this procedure emissions are assessed during two separate tests. As the procedure is more complicated than the non-catalyst test, the emissions analysers include computer software aimed at guiding the Tester through the test sequence. The primary reason for the introduction of these meters is to ensure that the car is tested accurately.

The first test consists of checking the emissions at ‟fast-idle speed‟ which involves running the engine at a speed of 2500 - 3000 rpm. During this test the emissions of CO and HC will be checked and a further check will be made on the lambda value.

The second test consists of a check of emissions at "normal idle speed" in which the engine will idle between 450 and 1500rpm, but in this case only the CO emissions are assessed.

The emissions limits to be met are specified for both the fast and normal idle tests. At fast idle, CO must be at or less than 0.2%, HC at or less than 200 parts per million (ppm), and the lambda value must be between 0.97 and 1.03. At normal idle, CO must be at or less than 0.3%.

You can read the whole lot here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/Emissions%2017th%20Edition.pdf

So although it is *possible* Dear Brad's rocket-powered tugboat might have passed an MOT without a cat on it, provided all of the emissions standards were met, it is unlikely most cars without a cat would pass, especially carb motors, which don't have the same control over the mixture and emissions that an electronic injection controlled motor has.

 

Now, where's BenVicky to back up dear Brad's viewpoint?