daydreaming about HP and Torque in the Six.

[SR_Crewchief]

Less fabrication? Don't think so. Different fabrication but not less. For an EFI 300/4.9l Turbocharger fabrication: j-pipe off each manafold mated at or just before the T3 adapter. New plumbing to feed the turbo and deliver to the throttlebody. (at a 4lb boost an intercooler is not practical) New down pipe to the cat and the fabrication is done. Cetrifugal supercharger fabrication: bracketry to hang the charger. New plumbing to feed the charger and deliver to the throttlebody. (at a 4lb boost an intercooler is not practical) Real estate on the front of the engine is at a premium with the EFI, especially if you want to retain A/C and powersteering. Positive displacement superchargers, like Eaton's, will mean a custom intake manafold is needed and most likely hood modifications for fitment. In all cases the stock ECU will need to be replaced with a unit that is custom tunable for best results. Yes you can play with FMU's and boost referenced ignition controllers. Keep in mind that the stock MAP sensor is only a 1 bar and the computer will not like it when it sees the signal indicating you've reached positive pressure. Vacuum will also have to be addressed. Stock power brakes require vacuum to work. Either a vacuum pump or vacuum reservoir. OR convert to a full hydraulic boosted system. But for the originally stated goal of 300# of torque at 3000rpm there is an easier and more reliable way...as has already been pointed out. If the real intent is have a forced induction 300 then go for it. But I'd stay away from turbos intended for small engines. You'll quickly run into drive pressure issues because the turbine side will be way to small for the volume of exhaust.

[Thudpucker]

SR Crewchief I never wanted a Super charger and really wasnt considering a turbo, although I'm not against it, but you've convinced me to abandon those idesa.
Here's a couple photos of a 48 Tucker engine. Its a flat six, was originally an air cooled Helicopter engine. Tucker had a water jacket wrapped around it for his automotive use.
It was supposed to have deliverd 372 Ft Lbs of torque at 2000 Rpm.
How'd they do that? That's exactly the Idea I had in mind for the 300.


This is from the Tucker enthusiasts article;
"The helicopter engine, which powered the Tucker could run for 1,500 hours without a rebuild, and exceeded every military specification required of it. At least one Tucker had 200,000 miles on the clock without needing a major repair.

Hamlin's unmodified Tucker was rated at 103 HP at 2,000 RPM. A Tucker's engine put out some 372 ft. lbs of torque and the car had 0-60 times of 10 seconds. Not bad for a 4,200 lb car. "

[91Bronc300]

What the heck? Are those two banks of three cylinders horizontally opposed to each other? It's hard to tell for sure by looking, but it looks like they are.

[6CylBill]

Very very interesting.

[Thudpucker]

Yes, its two banks of three. The crank has three journals and five mains. Two Rods on each journal.
It was originally an air cooled engine so you are looking at an 'after market' water jacket wrapped around the finning etc of six Cylinders that looked like Corvair Cylinders.

My question is; How'd they get so much torque out of that engine at such a low Rpm?
Although I dont know the cubes, maybe they have 4 or 6 hundred cube's in that thing?

[6CylBill]

Originally Posted by Thudpucker

Yes, its two banks of three. The crank has three journals and five mains. Two Rods on each journal.
It was originally an air cooled engine so you are looking at an 'after market' water jacket wrapped around the finning etc of six Cylinders that looked like Corvair Cylinders.

My question is; How'd they get so much torque out of that engine at such a low Rpm?
Although I dont know the cubes, maybe they have 4 or 6 hundred cube's in that thing?

Thudpucker, I think you're right. I bet that thing is pushing past five hundred cubes. I'm sure the pistons look like coffee cans. Massive pistons and a lot of displacment. GM used to make big block V6's in the 500 cube range for truck motors.

[91Bronc300]

Rather than a V style engine though. It looks like the two cylinder banks are directly opposed to each other. Is that true? If it is that's pretty cool. Sure is a broad, flat engine at least

I like how it has an external canister style oil filter. Looks like it even still has the original generator instead of an alternator

[Thudpucker]

Dont forget this was made in 1948 by a guy who just wasnt selling the idea to his investors and was deep in debt trying to make at least one car he could show to investor's. He borrowed existing Technology (Plaguerized...) to get this thing on wheels.

Its a flat six, similar to a Corvair, Continental, Subaru etc..
Tucker had covers made so he could put water in the engine for automotive use, but the engine was originally a Helicopter engine.

On my Subaru, I had to pull the engie to adjust the valves. Probably the same thing had to happen on this Tucker, not to mention you had to drain all the water and remove part of the water jacket to get to the valves.

A little more engineering was needed here.

[lew52]

Wow a tucker thats really rare .. Engine in the rear , and i think the headlights turned when you turned the steering wheel to ?? Lew

[70torino429]

yeah, you dont see many tucker's. Ive only seen one at a car show like 5 years ago. They are extremely rare.

[Thudpucker]

I'm not a Tucker buff. He only made a few. All hand made. Did you look at the Upper radiatro hose bib?
That middle head light swung back and forth some way.

The guy who wrote the artical said only that one Manufacturer could say that after 60 years most of his vehicles are still in existance. That's because he only made a dozer or so and they are all mostly in Collections of some sort.

I'm gonna try to find out more about the engine and I'll get back with what I find.

[70torino429]

Engines laid out like that have been proven to make lots of torque. Alot of the power equipment i work with is 2 cylinder, flat laid out motors, simply because their torque output is perfect for the application. I believe the bmw motorcycles use the same engine design, which is why their engines stick way out to the side.

The tucker engine however, had 2 models, one was 589 cubic inches, and the one used in cars was 335 cubes. The interesting thing is, those cars supposedly could get 20mpg.

I cant even begin to imagine how much it would cost you to get your hands on one of those powerplants nowadays though.