Guest TurboSedan Posted June 27, 2003 Report Share Posted June 27, 2003 my TGP T25 is on top and the T03 that goes onto my 2.2 T2 Lebaron GTS is on the bottom. kinda funny a WAY bigger turbo going onto a smaller 4 cylinder. http://www.captaineleven.com/josh/lebaron/T03%20vs.%20T25%20-%201.jpg TGP turbo on the right, T03 is on the left (doh) http://www.captaineleven.com/josh/lebaron/T03%20vs.%20T25.jpg after i chopped the CAT out of my car i spent the rest of the day installing a 2.5 Turbo I engine from a '90 Caravan into my brothers '86 Dodge Omni GLH Turbo. it has an A525 from an '84 Charger, and a Turbo II head/intake/exhaust from a Maserati TC by Chyrsler. this thing should be in the 13's right off the bat, and after a big NPR intercooler it should be hitting high 12's. the turbo is from Turbos Unleashed and has stock A/R ratios, but a quick spool option plus a 3" swing valve (1st part of downpipe). it will also have a COMPLETE 3" exhaust to match. no matter what i do to my Cutlass i won't be catching this car...... joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted June 27, 2003 Report Share Posted June 27, 2003 I knew the TGP turbo was small, but that is rediculous. Now you can swap them and put the big turbo on the TGP and the little one on the 4 banger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted June 27, 2003 Report Share Posted June 27, 2003 i may actually go with the Chyrsler 2.2 T03 when i get a custom crossover made for the Turbo 3.1. but my current T03 is staying with my GTS, my GTS is super clean and only 268 were made. it is the king of Chyrsler H-bodies along with the '89 Lancer Shelby. my GTS is going to kick my Cutlass Supremes ass even after i put the TGP engine in there....Chrysler really knew what they were doing with the '88 & ecspecially the '89 2.2 Intercooled Turbo II engine....in big part thanks to Caroll Shelby. why the hell did ASC/McLaren stick that T-too small on the 3.1? ugh. joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90TGP Posted June 27, 2003 Report Share Posted June 27, 2003 I think I read somewhere that the TGP prototype had a 300hp 3.1 5-speed with a T3 turbo. Why didn't they release it like that. Hell, I'd be happy with just the 5-speed or T3 turbo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted June 27, 2003 Report Share Posted June 27, 2003 They put the small turbo on it because "They wanted to completely eliminate turbo lag altogether." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted June 27, 2003 Report Share Posted June 27, 2003 and i'm sure the prototype TGP would be faster than the same year L98 Vette. GM doesn't seem to like releasing any cars that are faster than the Vette, but they did in '89(?) with the 20th Aniversary TTA and '87 with the Buick GN/GNX. go figure. too bad the prototype TGP was 'detuned' so much. and about eliminating lag altogether - that's the problem with the T25 really. EXAMPLE: the 2.2 turbo dodges w/T03 turbo do have noticable lag, but after boost hits 10-13 psi it REALLY.....REALLY makes up for it. 2.5 turbo dodges had a different much smaller Mitsu TDO5H (i think that's the model) and that has much less lag but not so much pull when boost comes on. that's what the TGP is like. the 2.5 does have more low end torque (stroked 2.2), but it's also not intercooled like the 2.2 Turbo II is. ack i'm getting off the subject.... i guess what i'm saying is i wish ASC/McLaren would have taken the "T03" approach instead....i'd sacrifice some lag for more upper end pull. and use a BOV to help. joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted June 28, 2003 Report Share Posted June 28, 2003 and i'm sure the prototype TGP would be faster than the same year L98 Vette. GM doesn't seem to like releasing any cars that are faster than the Vette, but they did in '89(?) with the 20th Aniversary TTA and '87 with the Buick GN/GNX. go figure. too bad the prototype TGP was 'detuned' so much. and about eliminating lag altogether - that's the problem with the T25 really. EXAMPLE: the 2.2 turbo dodges w/T03 turbo do have noticable lag, but after boost hits 10-13 psi it REALLY.....REALLY makes up for it. 2.5 turbo dodges had a different much smaller Mitsu TDO5H (i think that's the model) and that has much less lag but not so much pull when boost comes on. that's what the TGP is like. the 2.5 does have more low end torque (stroked 2.2), but it's also not intercooled like the 2.2 Turbo II is. ack i'm getting off the subject.... i guess what i'm saying is i wish ASC/McLaren would have taken the "T03" approach instead....i'd sacrifice some lag for more upper end pull. and use a BOV to help. joshua One could ask why the L67 GTP's don't come with 300hp factory, since this number can be so easily reached in the aftermarket Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbtk2 Posted June 28, 2003 Report Share Posted June 28, 2003 One could ask why the L67 GTP's don't come with 300hp factory, since this number can be so easily reached in the aftermarket 1 reason and 1 reason only. The tranny isn't rated for it. I have been saying for a while that GM should come out with a "performance L67." That is what they should've put in the Bonne GXP. They could easily put on 1.8 rockers, a 3.5 pulley, and make the exhaust a little more free flowing, and easily be at 300hp & 340 or 350 lb. ft, but they would rather just throw in a V8, oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kheider Posted June 28, 2003 Report Share Posted June 28, 2003 why the hell did ASC/McLaren stick that T-too small on the 3.1? ugh.joshua The 4T60 (renamed/somwhat improved 440T4) couldn't handle corvette performance! I'm sure Pontiac wanted near L98 Corvette performance. But since Pontiac has to warranty the tranny to 36k miles they went with a smaller turbo and even a restrictive air intake. Blaim the bean counters, not the engineers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92turboLE Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 funny, i thaught that the chrysler 2.2 turbos wer mitsu turbos... thats whats on all of the 2.2's i have, including the 4 heads with turbos that we pulled from pull-n-slave that one day i met ya josh.... maybe cuz yours is newer??? anyway... physical size makes no real difference... look up all the specs for the two turbos and see which one puts out more CFM, boost, higher efficiency, ect. but i think the 2.2 will do better one note: josh, strip off the exhaust elbow so it is just the turbo alone, not attatched exhaust elbow.. - Justin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 funny, i thaught that the chrysler 2.2 turbos wer mitsu turbos... thats whats on all of the 2.2's i have, including the 4 heads with turbos that we pulled from pull-n-slave that one day i met ya josh.... maybe cuz yours is newer??? anyway... physical size makes no real difference... look up all the specs for the two turbos and see which one puts out more CFM, boost, higher efficiency, ect. but i think the 2.2 will do better one note: josh, strip off the exhaust elbow so it is just the turbo alone, not attatched exhaust elbow.. - Justin ALL 2.2 Turbo engines recieved the Garrett T03 turbo, except the rare VNT turbocharged cars and the DOHC Spirt R/T. and ALL 2.5 turbo engines got the Mitsu TD05H turbo. it kind of went like this: '85 Turbo I 2.2 debuts (Shelby Chargers, Omni GLH turbos etc), and has the T03 with a 2.25" swingvalve (elbow/downpipe). the turbo I 2.2 engine had no intercooler either and a 'log' style intake. around '87/'88 the Turbo I 2.2 and the Turbo I 2.5 debuts, got either a two piece or 1 piece intake (they look alot the same but WAY different than the log style), still no intercooler, and still had the small 2.25" downpipe. the 2.5 is a stroked version (more low end torque) of the 2.2, so i think that is why all 2.5 engines got the smaller Mitsu turbo. then in '88 Chyrsler released an intercooled HP version, aka the 2.2 Turbo II. the Turbo II lasted for 2 whole years. it had a forged crank, same T03 w/2.25" downpipe, and different electronics. in '89 the Turbo II got the 2.2/2.5 'commonblock', so i could actually drop in a 2.5 crank and different pistons if i wanted to, all in the #'s matching block (i'd rather keep the stonger crank and 2.2 liters - but it would basically be a 2.5 Turbo II ). it also got a bigger 2.5" downpipe, and shorter shifter. the TIII 2.2 turbo is the rare 16 valve DOHC Spirit & Daytona R/T engine, which is famous for head gasket problems and broken timing belts. but hey, with 224 HP and a Getrag 268 5-speed from the factory in a little car like that? yeah.....i'd take a test drive. the TIV is the rare VNT turbo, which from what i've heard is basically a Turbo II engine with a small VNT turbo (variable nozzle turbo). those were mostly in stripped down Dodge factory 'competiton package' cars from what i've heard. and i don't understand what you mean by stripping off the elbow on these turbos - they NEED it! besides holding the wastegate, it is a part of the downpipe. my brother just got his T03 from Turbos Unleashed with a 3" swing valve & 3" downpipe, all going into an '86 Dodge Omni GLH Turbo (2400 lbs) with an '89 Turbo I 2.5 engine from a Caravan, A525 5-speed from an '84 Charger, and head/upper intake from an '89 Maserati TC. he's also got a BIG NPR intercooler that will be going in. this car should be in the 13's no problem. helluva lot of info over at http://www.turbododge.com joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.