just curious

[3XBrownCutty]

i know of a junkyard that has a late 70's (78 or 79) turbo regal.

my car also has the 3.8 v6, but non-turbo

that regal probably hasn't ran for years. but i was wondering if it would be possible to snag all the turbo parts off of the regal's motor, and convert my 3.8 to turbo?

would i have to essentially rebuild the whole motor and beef it up a bit, or can i just run it as-is and just swap turbo parts?

or would it be easier to rebuild the motor that is in the regal?

every time i see that regal, i dream for days at a time, this would not happen any time soon if even possible due to my parents refusal and my lack of dough like i said i am just curious and wondering if it can be done, and roughly how much it would cost.

uh-oh, i'm dreaming again, no sleep tonight!!

 

[3XBrownCutty]

... :?

 

[Uncletruck]

COULD it be done? Probably, but only with a major amount of money, and it would not be worth it because it would not hold up. The turbo block is different than the normally aspired 3.8 block, the turbo block being stronger in some aspects and having provisions for turbo oiling. It would be much easier to swap in a complete 3.8 turbo engine rather than try to make a N/A 3.8 engine in to a turbo.

Any 3.8 in a G body is straightforward to rebuild. If the bores are not worn beyond spec, (not usually a big wear point) the engine can be rebuilt in frame without removing it from the car, you don't even have to remove mounts or lift the engine.

-UT-

 

[Vern]

I agree with uncletruck, its not worth the money / hassel in part because its not fuel injected & computer controled. Its a boost but no way to safely control and more serious power. 84/5 fuel injected turbo motors can be found cheap and are strong but are still bang for the buck or hassel for custom fab stuff to manage more serious power. But the 84/5 can be used as the bais to add an 86/7 intercooled setup on for a possible solution for powerful and low hassel & cheap. turbobuick(s) would be the place for good info and parts.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

Well, I think the short block could easily handle what little boost that setup would provide. The 3.8 is not that fragile, and the compression ratio is almost perfect for boost. In stock form, these early turbos made something less than 170hp ( or about what a TBI 305 had). However, the real issue would be the condition of those parts. The carb would need to be gone through, and in all likelihood, the turbo is wasted. In fact, I would lay money that a bad turbo is what put it there to begin with. Plus, it is an old design with tons of mass in the impellers, so it would take ages to spool. Then there is the issue of gearing, and ignition control, and fuel management, etc. The stock computer will not like you very much for using positive manifold pressure. The computers will be different too as early GM computers were the C4 system, while you have the completely different CCC system. It may be able to work if you could use a computer 4ME Quadrajet off a 4.1 V6, and some type of compensator on the MAP sensor as are sometimes used in the import community when turbocharging N/A engines with stock engine management. It may work. It may even work well, but undertaking such a task should be done with an understanding of the consequences of failure, and the ultimate limitations of the end result should you succeed. These early turbo G bodies were about as fast as a mid 90's Japanese 4 door subcompact with the base model engine and an automatic trans. Nothing to get too excited about. In layman's terms, you would be lucky to break into the high 16's in the 1/4 mile after all that effort.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

After writing that post, I remembered an article in the May 2005 Hemmings Muscle Machines about one of these cars, and decided to look up the exact figures. It had: 170hp, 275 ft/lbs of torque, did 0-60 in 11 seconds and the 1/4 mile in....get ready.... 18.4 seconds @74.7 mph!!! So, yeah, it's S-L-O-W.

Other specs:

1981 Monte Carlo Landau Turbo

TH350C transmission
2.73:1 open diff rear
390cfm (!!!) Quadrajet
Weight: 3,355lbs ( With A/C, and other options)
Tires: P195/75 R14 on 14x5 in wheels with wire hubacps
Turning Circle: 37.1 Feet
HP/Weight ratio: 19.74lb/hp
Wheelbase: 108.1in
Front Track Width: 58.5in
Rear Track Width: 57.8in
Overall height: 53.9in
Overall Length: 200.4 in
Fuel Capacity: 18.1 Gallons (US)

Production of Monte Turbos: 1980-13,839; 1981-3,027.

 

[3XBrownCutty]

 

[3XBrownCutty]

 

[Uncletruck]

That's just the kicker- I can remember back to the days when neighbors had those turbo Regals and such when they came out new. They were not these big powerhouses that guys today seem to think they are, and the cars certainly did not rate very well on reliability, many having short lifespans around 80k miles before ending up in the junkyard due to out of warranty problems with the turbo or its systems that just got too expensive for the everyday Joe car owner to want to fix- kinda/sorta like the GM diesels from the same era that became expensive to own after a few years and were problematic. Though like the diesels, many of these turbo V6's are still around in the form of collector cars as some were owned by people who babied them, in which case they can last just about forever.

-UT-

 

[Vern]

You are refering to 83 and older I presume.