2.0 Turbo

[doingitsideways]

So,

Has anyone ever actually converted a 2.0 engine to run a Turbo?

I'm going to be breaking my Celebration, so will have a 2.0 lump as a garden ornament.

This got me thinking along these lines:

2.0 block,
Piston oil squirters from a Turbo,
Turbo head,
Some kind of decompression plate or lower compression pistons,
Maybe the Turbo crank, not sure of any differences in stroke, or whether it's stronger?
Possibly a T25 turbo, or a T2/3 hybrid.
Lots of boost.
Go faster.

Any ideas anyone??

Cheers,

Steve

[glasgowjim]

there is a thread in the forum somewhere where johnturbo did a 2.0 ltr to turbo conversion.

dont have time to look it up but it is quite comprehensive and will answer all your questions.

I think it is 2 or 3 years ago.

[Ade]

Hi Steve,
I reckon you are looking along the right lines but there is one biggie you've missed out....

Fuel and injection system. Dunno whether you could adapt the LH2.2 off a turbo or whether it would have to be standalone but either way I think it would need to be mapped on a rolling road to make sure that ignition timing etc are suitable and won't damage the engine.

Me and a mate supercharged a Mazda mx5 a couple if years back and used an adaptronic piggy back ECU which was then mapped on a rolling road. Results were superb.

[Ade]

Sorry, that was supposed to say fuel and ignition, not injection!

[doingitsideways]

Hmm...

Can't seem to find that thread Jim

Yeah, you may be right Ade, but my thinking was basically that the engine would essentially be the same as a 1721 turbo lump, just with a little more displacement.

I was thinking that the standard management may be able to cope, maybe with some bigger injectors to supply the fuel, but I.would have thought timing etc would be the same across the two blocks.

I used to he a big Ford man, the RS turbo boys have been bolting CVH heads onto 2.0 Zetec bottom ends for years.
They are vastly different engines, whereas both of these are based on Renault F3P blocks.

It must be doable?

Surely?!

Steve

[Ade]

Thinking back to the conversation we had when I came to get my towbar off you (all nicely fitted and wired up by the way gutsy puller too, shame it can't legally take huge weights, it would certainly move them!) you mentioned that the 2,0 management system doesn't have a MAF. If you start playing with forced induction you might suffer some serious air/fuel ratio issues if there is no method of measuring mass air flow. I've just been out to have a mooch under the bonnet of Sarah's ES and it appears that it has a MAP (there's a line from the manifold to a little device in the scuttle just above the brake servo, I believe this is the MAP sensor, anyone who knows better please correct me). This MAP sensor will be primarily designed to measure vacuum not positive pressure because it has been designed to suit a N/A setup. It may be possible to change it for one designed for positive pressure (many forced induction setups favour MAP sensors but they have to be capable of measuring a range of vacuum and boost) but I don't know if the ECU would cope with it, the voltage range may be too far outside what it's expecting. Don't forget a new sensor would have to be capable of delivering the same voltages for different levels of vacuum as well as having to cater for a whole new range of voltages to indicate various levels of boost pressure. Also, I'm not sure if that system incorporates a knock sensor which is very good to have with forced induction as it greatly reduces the possibility of engine damage through pre-ignition or detonation (if you want to know the difference let me know and I can explain in a separate post).

Just thinking about it a little more....
N/A setup - increased throttle opening=increased manifold depression=ECU delivers more fuel
Think about the relationship between vacuum and fuel delivery, less vacuum = less fuel, more vacuum = more fuel.
Now think about adding a turbo into that equation, increased throttle opening = LESS vacuum and eventually no vacuum at all (ie boost pressure). What will happen to the fuel delivery using the existing fuel map in the ECU? I don't think the engine will run correctly on boost at all. As far as the ECU is concerned, when the turbo is just spooling up past atmospheric and the engine really starts to need more fuel, it will think the engine is barely running. Dunno how this will tally up against speed signal from the crank sensor and subsequently what effect that might have on ignition timing because the timing will be dependant on load and speed. Load is calculated from the MAP signal and if this is cocked up for the aforementioned reasons all sorts of crazy nonsense could ensue! Your ECU may well have a nervous breakdown!

Hope you can digest all that and it makes sense! I'm sure others will be able to expand on this, my primary expertise is with the LH2.2, not the French crap found on the n/a's!

[Ade]

Of course many of these issues would be negated if there were mass air flow measurement, this is one of the beauties of the LH2.2, it may be used with N/A or forced induction as the MAF tells the ECU the actual quantity of air that is entering the engine rather that 'guessing' based on manifold pressure and speed. (The ECU will be preprogrammed with the correct mathematics based on displacement etc.)
I have owned two saabs and my 480 which all have the LH2.2, one of the saabs was n/a and the other and the Volvo are turbos and yet the system remains almost identical. Shame they didn't use it on the n/a 480's as it would have made your endeavours much less of a headache.
The only way I can think of using the existing system would be to incorporate a suitable MAP or MAF and have some sort of signal modifier which could be calibrated to send the ECU some sort of inverted signal maybe?? ie when on boost, the ECU would have to be 'fooled' into thinking there was an even greater vacuum than would be present at WOT with the standard setup. I guess this would be one way you could ensure greater fuel delivery when required. Again though, don't know whether this type of signal would be outside the limits of what the ECU deals with to calculate injector opening based on its current fuel map. Also don't know whether suitable ignition timing control could be achieved with all this 'fudgery'.
I really do believe that retrofitting the LH2.2 would be the way to go.

Whatever route you decide to go down, it sounds like an interesting project and I would be more than happy to lend you some assistance if you wanted me to. If you were to retrofit another fuel/ignition system you would probably need some little adapters and odds and sods for various sensors etc. making, I may well be able to help you out with any little manufacturing jobs as I have access to a lovely machine shop at work! I could design and draw components up for you as well and email you the technical drawings so you can have them made locally. Happily we have a turbo and a 2.0 so I could inspect threads on sensors etc to design adapters.
All food for thought...... Definitely a cool project and like I said, I'd love to give you a hand!
Cheers

Ade

[Slash01]

Thought I'd throw in my 2 cents on the comment about the origin of the B18, B18-T and B20.
The B18 engines are all based around Renaults F2N 1.7 block.
The B20 is the only one based on an F3, the F3R 2.0.
Also I believe the 2.0 has the Combustion chamber partly in the head as well as in the Piston. Whereas the 1.7 N/A and turbo have a flat head with the chamber in the piston only.

[doingitsideways]

Hmm...

Starting to look like it really would be more trouble than it's worth!

T4 transplant anyone?!

Steve

[Slash01]

I've looked into a lot of possibilities regarding each engine for the 480 when I was looking to compete with one.
The best thing for that purpose is to run a standard turbo on a Renault 5 GT-Turbo loom. As it allows manual boost control.
For non competition I agree a T4 transplant is the way forward and with light tuning you can get the same power that GT-Turbo guys get after serious mods.
I'd say now's the time to get a pre-2000 T4 as prices are low, but as anything cost, time, space and expertise come into it.
Wouldn't mind trying it myself in the future.