Peak torque on the turbo is at a very low RPM ( around 2200). At lower speeds the boost does not come on as quick, but its still pretty good.

Kevin

It depends on how much power you want. The carb & header are easy bolt-ons & might give you anywhere from a 5-15% power increase and for the money, that's pretty cheap power. There's not a lot more available in the way of bolt-on power other than a freer-flowing exhaust system. If you're looking for more power than that you'll be looking at some serious dollars to build a non-turbo 2.6 that would make the same power as bolting up a turbo 2.6 would. (well, not quite a bolt-in but closer than building a new motor)

I'd be willing to bet that a non-turbo 2.6 making 175 horsepower would be virtually impossible to drive on the street due to the high-rpm powerband that it would have.

My take on the headers/carb upsize is that all you do is move the torque peak higher in rpms, thus since hp is a function of torque x rpm, you raise the hp, but into a less useful band for what he wants, which is low end torque. I have a bet with myself that a lot of the gain going to headers on a 2.6 is losing a partially blocked cat converter.

The v6 and the 2.6 both make around the same torque (about 150ftlbs, IIRC) but differ in hp, in large part due to the better breathing of the v6 fi motor at higher rpms. The 2.6 is built for torque, with an undersquare design (stoke longer than bore with a long crank throw for more leverage0, and the v6 is built for revs with an oversquare design. They bandaid this with intake runners tuned for low end torque to give a pretty flat, wide torque curve.

The turbo makes markedly better torque, and as Kevin says, it comes in early. The small turbo spools fast. In 4wlo, you should be able to push all the traction will handle with a snowplow. I pulled a 4k lb boat/trailer with a turbo 2.6 in an 87 monty a/t with no trouble, except for getting it stopped in a hurry.

If you want to make more power, you have to get more air/fuel through the motor per unit time. Air is the hard part. Turbo rams the air in there better than any other solution. Headers/cam/carb mods are like putting a better edge on your axe so you can cut down the tree better. A turbo is like switching to a chain saw...

I'm guessing that OldColt can probably tell us volumes about normally aspirated race Mitsubishi engines since he has race experience with them and would probably know what kind of max power the engine is capable of.

My first 2.6 was in a Fire Arrow that I auto crossed.

before I had my turbo 2.6 I had a built carb 2.6. High compression, cammed, ported head dual side drafts and a header.

Then I swapped to a turbo motor. No comparison. Better fuel economy, it started in cold weather and had twice the torque. Even better the power band was every day driving friendly.

In 88 or so Circle Track did an article on hopping up the 2.6. Most of the flow work was to fix the short side radius on the exhaust valve side of the head.

Kevin

Ok, I took it on the maiden voyage plowing tonight. I fixed up a 6' plow off a 60s/70s CJ5. I think it weighs around 350lb. The power was ok for low-speed, light-duty plowing. But what it could really use is:

1. Ballast (I used a hitch cargo carrier and cinder blocks)
2. higher output alternator (lights dim & radio flashes off/on -maybe a big capacitor?)
3. Better brakes
4. more aggressive tires
5. beefier/taller front suspension

For trailering I'd still like more power and definitely better brakes. But that's the scoop on plowing with a stock Raider. I'll have a better idea tomorrow when the real plowing gets done.

Not the only route, Don't you think that for lower pulling or in this case pushing power that a 3.0 V6 swap is easier and cheaper plus it's has to be better low end then doing a turbo 4 cylinder? Not only that if you swap the 3.0 v6 with EFI you don't have to sweat the real cold mornings like I did with the carbed 4.

That would be alot of work to get the V6 to fit into the 4cyl Raider. with the 5speeds you have to get a V6 5speed since you can't swap bellhousings, you have to get the wiring harness the ECU the fuel tanks I am not sure about, and I am sure we are missing alot more needed to change over. A turbo swap would also cancel out those cold morning starts, as well as not add alot more weight to the front end.

I still say the easiest route is 4cyl turbo diesel or 4cyl turbo from a starion swap, along with a V6 Raider front brake swap. Torsion bar crank to tighten up the front end to accommodate for the plows weight.

Nope.

The turbo 2.6 is also EFI.

John B.

Like Kevin, I once built up a Fiat 124 spider 1600cc motor, stock hp about 90. I swapped the progressive 2bbl weber for a pair of 40IDF weber 2bbls on a tuned length intake, 40-80-80-40 cams, headers, bigger valves, and some port work, and had a calculated 150hp, but it was a dog below 4000rpms, after which it was a screaming rocket up to 7500rpms, and it was LOUD, and very very hard to start in the cold. I only got about a 10ftlb increase in torque, but at 1500rpms higher than stock.

I restate again, doubly redundantly, the most bang for the buck power increase I've ever done is swap in a starquest turbo motor into a carb 2.6 truck.

Were you plowing in 4wd lo range? I'd consider a poly water tank for ballast and studded tires...