<VV> Are Turbo Vairs worth having?

[JVHRoberts@aol.com]

Actually, it was at a drag strip. Turned in the low 13s overall. If it had a 
modern turbo, which would have a LOT less lag, that 0-60 time would have 
improved a LOT. 
Also keep in mind that even an LM Corvair weighs a LOT less than the cars you 
mention, and has MUCH better traction. 
By the way, a 50% bump on a turbo engine is very easy to do. Just add boost. 
On an NA engine, you're right, it's tough to do. But then again, I have a 
300ZX twin turbo making well over 400 HP with a 181 CID engine that's essentially 
stock except for the chip upgrade, air cleaner, and exhaust. And it turns high 
12s! 
The Corvair turbo engines came from the factory with modest power ratings 
because of the small valve heads, the TINY carb, and a restrictive muffler. 
A Jag 2" SU took care of the carb, the 140 heads help breathing a LOT, and 
the lack of a muffler (still not as loud as I thought it would have been, 
there's that turbine muffler for ya!) helped breathing IMMENSELY. And it pulled like 
a freight train until I pinned the tach past 6 grand, where a stock 180 would 
have been gasping for breath. 


In a message dated 11/21/2004 7:14:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
flash@vicspdi.com writes:
I doubt that was a seriously instrumented test.  By way of comparison -- a 
180 engine was measured in gross hp.  Convert to net as most cars are 
(subtract 22% is the general formula)  so call it 140 hp.  Say you bump it 
50% (very hard to do) and you are in the 200 net hp range.  A modern 
economy car or mini-van has that.  A hot Mustang or GTO has over 300 NET hp 
... the hottest Mustang 400+ !!!

At 01:45 PM 11/21/2004, JVHRoberts@aol.com wrote:
>Hmmm... My 65 turbo did 0-60 in the mid sixes, with just a SU carb, 140
>heads, and no muffler. And the thing was easy to drive. I did it on the 
>cheap, as I
>was a VERY poor teenager. <G>