Well I looked into this and its very posible to boost a 3.0 but the big problem with doing it is that they like to blow up. I would say get a small turbo for it, thats what I read responds best on them if I remember right. I'll post pics of the prototype Turbo 3.0 manifolds from mopar that they were working on you could use that as a template for getting custom parts done.

 

Wouldn't the easiest way be to take the darn thing out and put in a 2.5 TI?

-Rich

 

If i was plannin that then i'd just buy a t1/2 car and be done with it....that would be easiest way but im gettin thiss car and i like different non-norm ideas/cars rather they've been done before or not. And there still arnt very many 3.0 turbos runnin around out there so still a odd setup for most part which is what i like.

 

I'd like to know since when the 3.0 likes to blow up? They smoke because the valve guides drop, but they don't blow up unless you do something REALLY stupid for the most part. I'm sure there are the few out there that were bad apples, but I've been in the 3.0 and TD community since 1996 and found it pretty rare to have heard of one blow without a good reason. Crazyace, you wanna comment??

If you want to boost it, there's no issue, but be sure to use common sense like you would on anything else you'd put a turbo on...

 

I agree and they had a recall for the valve guides but most people dont realize its a simple fix.....but i just like the idea of things that are different....i own a festiva that i swapped a 1.8 sohc into and i even considered putting a turbo on it for a while but now im bored so time for a new toy
well im going to the car tonite to make sure it runs good etc and then probably tues will drive it home so we'll c what happens from there.

 

well looks like the cars gonna be mine as i started it up tonite and after a yr of sitting it ran and moved....actually pretty darn well....so now a matter of getting tires on the rear and the new rad in it and see hopw it "RUNS" lol j/k i'll give her a bit befgore opening her up

 

BTW, just thought I'd throw this out there...my Daytona has in the neighborhood of around 300,000 miles on it(odo's broke, but I kept track based on tanks of gas and oil changes over the years added to the scanned milage when we got back from Germany in '94 which was around 154,000...odo reads around 134,000 IIRC). The bottom end has been opened once to install a new oil pump(it came with the FMS installed and it was leaking, plus since it is crank driven I figured a new pump would be best because if the pump was on the way out it would have caused the seal to go bad). Other than that, the heads were off once for replacing the lifters in '94(I *think* they came off...I didn't own the car then, mom did). It's had three timing belts and two water pumps. I did the front cam seals when I did the water pump, belt, and oil pump/FMS this last time. The RMS was supposedly replaced when the third tranny went in back in '98. Other than that I've NEVER had an issue out of my 3.0...and I beat the living crap out of it. I've done slight mods, but nothing major. It put down 130hp and turned a best of 15.949@86.2mph in the 'Tona, but has since lost a lot of pep. The best I could muster out of it the last time I took it to the track was 16.5....so it is definatly slowly going downhill, but it's still good enough and economical enough to drive around town(that is if the trannt wasn't screwed)...

 

im pretty sure the factory was not wrong when they decided on the position and method of turboing the 3.0. As many have said before, copy the best.

 

Wouldn't the easiest way be to take the darn thing out and put in a 2.5 TI?

-Rich

Working on that and no its not much easier

 

BTW when I was talking about them blowing up I was talking about after you put a turbo on it. But I think if you can get your hands on some 3kgt vr4 pistons you'd be set. 3.0 is a good motor I liked mine want to get another.

 

Working on that and no its not much easier

Actually swapping in a 2.5 (or 2.2 obviously) is pretty freakin simple.

BTW when I was talking about them blowing up I was talking about after you put a turbo on it. But I think if you can get your hands on some 3kgt vr4 pistons you'd be set. 3.0 is a good motor I liked mine want to get another.

As far as I know ther are only a small handfull of turbo 3.0s running and none of them has run over about 8PSI that I know of. None of them has ever blown up or had any catastrophic failure that was not the owners own fault either.

The VR4 pistons are a bad idea, since the SOHC pistons are strong and have a nice dish in them that matches up with the head very nicely.

I personnaly do not like the 3.0 AT ALL. I have put over 50,000 miles on mine and don't like the thing much at all. The power is lower than a stock 2.5 TI along with worse gas mileage. Parts are more expensive. The reliability is worse than the 2.2 or 2.5, but is not terrible. They are smokey bastards but that can be fixed easily some of the time. Working on it is not really any more difficult than a 2.5, but is certainly more time consuming.

After putting lots of time into planning a turbo 3.0, gathering parts, and prepping the motor, I still decided to swap in a 2.5 and do a neon head swap on it.

-Kyle

 

the first documented person I know of to supercharge the 3.0 ran 12 psi unintercooled. bad detonation thanks to using a roots and no intercooling, but he didnt blow the motor.


I really think its funny to hear someone on this site say they like their 2.5 turbo because its reliable moreso than the 3.0. That is completely not true. If you are comparing a 4 speed auto with a 3 speed then thats not a fair comparison. I dont see anyone in these threads that even has that combination. compare 3.0 5 speed to 2.5 turbo 5 speed or 3.0 3 speed to 2.5 turbo 5 speed. buy 1 of each, and drive them across america.....Im quite sure Id rather take the 3.0 over those thousands of miles and not have any breakdowns. Now, you definitly might not have as much fun...........but last time I checked my 3.0 stock was about the same as most stock t1's in the 1/4. Ive driven a stock 2.5 t1 87 new yorker and it was definilty not faster than my 3.0 stock, and it probably weighed the same or less.

Lots of people own a 3.0 to drive around when their turbo is broke. 3.0 will only smoke if you are an incapable repairman unable to perform an easy fix correctly.
My 94 does will not have this same problem besides normal aging, and the 3.0 has been produced for 9 years without this problem......longer than the years it had the problem. Gee, lets go comparing an 83 2.2 to a early 3.0 and tell me which is a more refined motor.

I would think its a lot easier to swap in a 2.x turbo than turbo the v6 but thats not what I want to do.

 

Ive driven a stock 2.5 t1 87 new yorker...
Lots of people own a 3.0 to drive around when their turbo is broke. 3.0 will only smoke if you are an incapable repairman unable to perform an easy fix correctly.

First off theres no such thing as a stock 2.5 T1 87 yorker but im sure you meant 2.2, lol. Secondly i think in mid range/high rpm after the 3.0 lost its steam the 2.2 would pull past. Ive never driven a heavy 2.2 T1 log car though so i dont know... Lastly whats this easy fix you keep talking about on the 3.0's?? I had to get a valve job and new seats and before i knew it 500 dollars was down the drain doing it myself... If chrysler would have tested a bit more they wouldnt have such a bad rep right now with the smokey 3.0

 

Bronze C-clipped valve guides and new style valve seals.

The reason most of the older 3.0L motors burned oil was because the valve guides would drop and the older style valve stem seals would leak and allow massive amounts of oil to go into the combustion chamber.

 

anyways,
The new yorder had a 2.5 t1 I consulted the owners manual which was in the glove box.

Show me on a dyno where the 2.2 power curve flies past the 3.0 at any point stock.
I know the 87 new yorker was very slow whatever motor was in it.

I think the whole point of my post was to say that people dont buy their turbo dodge for reliability, and you didnt seem to have any arguments with that.

The valve fix isnt that hard, sorry you got burned because you didnt do your homework.

The only reason why stuff like that is famous and not other cars, is because other companies spend lots of money trying to make mitsubishi look bad, and lots of money to cover up their own problems. The Toyota v6 is a total pile of junk, but they have that all covered up.

Mitsubishi has been forced to make engines that never have a problem because there is so much bad press, but the things that go wrong with other companies cars would put a stake in the heart of mitsu if they did the same thing.



Hmmmmmm, and I think we should all know that the 3.0 motor saved chrysler from going out of business (thank you turbo motors) so I dont see how you can come down on it so hard. i cant think of a single motor that has done more for any car company in the last 20 years.

 

anyways,
The new yorder had a 2.5 t1 I consulted the owners manual which was in the glove box.

Show me on a dyno where the 2.2 power curve flies past the 3.0 at any point stock.
I know the 87 new yorker was very slow whatever motor was in it.

I think the whole point of my post was to say that people dont buy their turbo dodge for reliability, and you didnt seem to have any arguments with that.

The valve fix isnt that hard, sorry you got burned because you didnt do your homework.

The only reason why stuff like that is famous and not other cars, is because other companies spend lots of money trying to make mitsubishi look bad, and lots of money to cover up their own problems. The Toyota v6 is a total pile of junk, but they have that all covered up.

Mitsubishi has been forced to make engines that never have a problem because there is so much bad press, but the things that go wrong with other companies cars would put a stake in the heart of mitsu if they did the same thing.



Hmmmmmm, and I think we should all know that the 3.0 motor saved chrysler from going out of business (thank you turbo motors) so I dont see how you can come down on it so hard. i cant think of a single motor that has done more for any car company in the last 20 years.

The 5.0 maybe?

The 3.0's are quite easy to work on! But Mitsubishi gets a bad rep from its owners and their bad parts, I mean, yes, the 6G72 and 4G63 had there problems when they first came out, but both are still around almost now for two decades, which just means they have been built reliable, but mitsu gets more of a bad rep mainly for the transmissions for the DSM, and 3/S's and lots of people have been ticked off how they didn't have recalls for the longest time to fix its issues.

Just a few problems with the 1st gen chrysler 3.0s was the valve guides, the fuel delivery system, sludge buidup on the rear bank, and egr on the plenum which was fixed by was all fixed by 92' which was about 5 years after the engine release.

The Mitsubishi DOHC in the 3/S's engines weren't quite as lucky with the 1st gen as in the CAS was a problem, the ISC/IAC motor if it got stuck would blow up the 1200$ ECU. lifter tick, timing belts slipping which aren't good for a interference engine. And if your a lucky one, main bearings wear out (main bearings and timing belt plague both the 1st and 2nd gen 3/s's)

And thats just the engines! All cars have there flaws, its just to what extend of a problem it is.

I have 3 3.0 cars, my 92 lebaron convertible has only had the timing belt water pump done with the original tranny and motor still strong at 184k on it.

So we need to get back on topic, I'd say at first you don't want to go big, but at 12psi you should be near 300hp, which a Super60 should be able to give you, i'm still learning all the turbos, so you guys add more info!

 

I really think its funny to hear someone on this site say they like their 2.5 turbo because its reliable moreso than the 3.0. That is completely not true.

Well in my experience of being a professional mechanic and owning several of each it is certainly true.

If you are comparing a 4 speed auto with a 3 speed then thats not a fair comparison. I dont see anyone in these threads that even has that combination. compare 3.0 5 speed to 2.5 turbo 5 speed or 3.0 3 speed to 2.5 turbo 5 speed.

No, I am comparing the 3.0 and the 2.2 / 2.5 just as I said. I have used A543's with the 3.0 and various 5 speeds with my turbo cars, but I never compared them in this thread, only engines.

buy 1 of each, and drive them across america

Been there and done that. Well that is if you count half way across several times. I do prefer the turbo motors quite a bit. The gas mileage on my 3.0 was surprisingly good though.

3.0 will only smoke if you are an incapable repairman unable to perform an easy fix correctly

Now that is way out there! The fact is the valve guides tend to sink and that cannot be repaired without pulling the heads off. Skill has nothing to do with that fix. Once that happens it doesn't matter what condition your seals are in either.

Gee, lets go comparing an 83 2.2 to a early 3.0 and tell me which is a more refined motor.

No one is comparing an early carb'd NA motor to the 3.0 in this thread, so why bring it up?

I think the whole point of my post was to say that people dont buy their turbo dodge for reliability, and you didnt seem to have any arguments with that.

Actually a LOT of people by turbo dodges because of the combination of reliability, low cost, ease of maintenance, and hop up potential. The fact is the 3.0 just doesn't have the same features. It CAN be a reliable engine, and no one is debating that. You either need a later model engine to start with to get that or you need to make many updates to the older ones. You will still not have the hop up potential though.

Hmmmmmm, and I think we should all know that the 3.0 motor saved chrysler from going out of business (thank you turbo motors) so I dont see how you can come down on it so hard. i cant think of a single motor that has done more for any car company in the last 20 years.

The 3.0 did nothing good for chrylser at all. They started producing there own 3.3 to replace it after a few short years. A company does not spend the time and money to replace something that is saving them from going out of business. They did keep using the 3.0 for quite a long time once the problems were fixed, but that was only because it is cheap to produce and they had an agreement with Mitsu that they didn't want to back out of.

As far as engines that have done more, can you say hemi?

I do not mean to sound argumentative with any of this, although it probably is coming across that way. My original intention was to provide an alternative idea (2.5 TI swap). I stated the fact that I abandoned my own 3.0 turbo project to let you know that there are other alternatives. You seemed upset in your reply and I am trying to respond to your comments with my own information and reasoning for swapping to a 2.5. I am not trying to argue or flame you or anything, so please do not take it that way.

I did a lot of work on turboing a 3.0, so if for some twisted reason you are set on it, I can help answer some questions.

-Kyle

 

this whole post has gotten way out of hand and way off the subject.......simple as that!

 

Well ive done a few t1/t2 daytonas in past but have never conisdered a 3.0 turbo setup until i just found this 3.0 5spd lebaron and so i want to know where i can get as much info as possible such as where to get custom exhaust manifolds or have most been just getting a custom "y" pipe with the t3/4 flange welded onto it with the turbo above the tranny? and a manual boost controller for boost or??? i never boosted a non turbo car before so im new to this type of thing....any suggestions?

Basically for now i just want to run a very small amount of boost (4-7#) on a stock high mileage motor then later on once the new motors built then i'll upgrade to a hybrid setup/high psi fuel pump and so on. So whats everyones opinion on my very stock and very mild setup??

thankx in advance for any advice
brooks

putting the turbo over the tranny is the most common. You will need to flip the upper intake plenum so that the throttle body is on the opposite side of the engine bay. This is ideal so that you have the most clearence.

One problem is that with any boost, you will experience a lot of blow by from boost creaping past the rings, etc. You will probably want to remove the current pvc system and install a catch can. There are tons of ways to implement this... just do a search.

If you are going to stick with low hp goal... max of 250hp, then go with a Garrett from a T2. If you try to go for more then that, you will probably wear the turbo out.

Hows that for on topic.


Frank

 

Well, I love being misquoted, thats so fun, yes this is off topic.
I dont enjoy being picked apart for incorrect translations.....
I said trannies because a 3 speed 3.0 is a lot different in reliability that a 4 speed (most 3.0 complaints are on the 4 speed and NOT on the motor, smoking never stopped anyone from driving). I compared a 83 2.2 to a 91ish 3.0 because thats about equal for those 2 motors in their development. You cant compare a 15 year refined engine against a 1st year motor and dance about in victory. turbo killed chrysler, people dont know how to take care of a turbo cars. Please argue they do because I would enjoy that.

2.5tbi=reliable in my junkyard experience.
ON TOPIC

I have successfully turned my intake around, but it would not work without my 1" intake spacer. Otherwise my TB would be pointing into the motor mount. I dont know if anyone else has had this trouble. There are a lot of AC lines and stuff that are in the way of my 90 degree cai turning towards the headlight. It barely fits and the hood is pushed up a few mm.....I had to bend a few a/c parts a little bit to get more clearance. I dont know how the a/c works so I dont know how to move stuff around.

Now there is TONS of room on the drivers side. If I move the battery, wow crazy amounts of room.

If anyone has ideas on moving the battery to the passenger side without putting it in the trunk, that would be cool. I dont want to lose a/c.

The thing about using a dodge turbo, is that your flanging will not fit when you upgrade to better turbo's (unless you buy turbo's from dodge vendors). I think its nice to have the T3 flange. Very versatile.