"Turbos and deserts don't mix," why not?

I've heard it said many times that turbo engines shouldn't be used for any kind of desert racing...but why not?

If it's due to the general reliability hit of a more complicated engine, that's not insurmountable, just more expensive to solve.

If it's due to the increased heat...see above. Just add cooling.

If it's due to small particulate matter that can get past a traditional air filter, there are oil bath filters that will catch it.

Anyone know if there's a good reason?

I think you misspelled that.

Its Turbos and Desserts don't mix.

When the boost hits, your dessert will end up in your lap.

??? I think you're on the right track. I think it's a perceived reliability problem that's not insurmountable. Note that I'm just making an educated guess with no actual experience.

1. Dry heat:
   hotter air = less temperature differential, so less cooling for same volume of air
   dryer air = less energy to change temp
   turbo = way more heat being generated
   In general, cooling efficiency is way down.

2. Particulates: perhaps turbos are more fragile/susceptible to failure due to particulates?

3. Combo? clogged filters and spinny turbos join together to make a time bomb?

scardeal wrote: 1. Dry heat: hotter air = less temperature differential, so less cooling for same volume of air dryer air = less energy to change temp turbo = way more heat being generated In general, cooling efficiency is way down.

I would think this is the primary reasoning. Not insurmountable, but depending on what you're trying to do, something to consider. Less gains, much more heat, etc.

I think "All of the Above Combined" answers the question. There IS more complexity. There IS more heat that is harder to dissipate. There ARE more particulates to filter. There IS a greater chance of failure etc.

When you're building a race vehicle it's not always as simple as "ADD MORE COOLING"

Except the diesels that have done well in rally raid racing in the past decade or so have all been turbo. The big trucks for longer than that. I don't think turbos have an inherent reliability problem, but perhaps turbos on gas engines are an issue.

Again, speaking out of foggy remembrances, but don't gas turbo engines produce a lot more heat than diesel turbos?

Don't show this thread to the guys down in AZ running around with turbo sand buggies.....they will laugh at you.

Does Bonneville count as desert racing?

In reply to MadScientistMatt:

Yes, because it is a desert.

I was thinking more off-road stuff, including diesel.

Landspeeders usually run on salt, not the same thing (especially since they don't have to worry about anyone else's dust clouds). They usually run conventional filter setups but some run no filter at all.

"I've heard it said many times that turbo engines shouldn't be used for any kind of desert racing..." This sounds like one of those old rules of thumb that should be ignored out of principle. Turbochargers and anything like this has pretty much changed entirely over the last decade or more, yes?

In reply to GameboyRMH:

The turbo buggy guys that play on the sand dunes don't seem to have issues.....

"buggy in sand dunes" = WOT for a few seconds at a time

"any kind of desert racing" = pretty broad description, difficult to answer

but for something like the BAJA 1000 i probably wouldn't turbocharge an air-cooled engine (that is but of countless scenarios covered by "any kind of desert racing")

yamaha wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: The turbo buggy guys that play on the sand dunes don't seem to have issues.....

They rarely see WOT for more than a few seconds and many have open body work allowing better cooling.

Desert, yes. Turbo, yes. Full body work. Yes. Dust clouds, yes. Lots of WOT, yes.

I don't see a problem here.

I was told it was for two reasons: (years ago watching a baja race on TV)

1) particulates. Filters aren't perfect, so the additional dust can dramatically shorten the life of a turbo.

2) desert racing usually uses highly variable throttle positions. Its not like drag racing or nascar where you have the throttle open for a long time. The amount of time you're off the throttle or applying the throttle (waiting for boost to build) isn't a situation where turbos shine. You can tune a turbo to have very little lag, but the fact is that lag will always exist.

I can certainly see throttle response being an issue along with complexity. Desert racing is usually remote (so you really don't want a break-down) and bumpy (so things are going to fatigue or vibrate loose on a complex system) and don't have many drivetrain rules/limitations. If you aren't limited to a small engine, why put up with the complex/fragile system needed to get high power and good throttle response; just toss in a big V8.

I don't buy the particulate argument at all. A turbo 2.0L making 400 whp and an NA 6.0L V8 making 400 whp ingest the same amount of air and can do it through the same size/type/location intake tract and filter. Why does the turbo change anything? I don't think the compressor and turbine themselves are going to be significantly degraded by any small particles that make it through a filter during the course of the race.

So yeah, I'd say it's a complexity/reliability issue mostly (probably cost too). If your rules don't limit you, I would think a big NA engine is a far better choice than a small turbo engine for the application.

In reply to HappyAndy:

And yeah, WRC has done this without huge issues, but they do it because of the rules.

wvumtnbkr wrote: I think you misspelled that. Its Turbos and Desserts don't mix.

I once had a cupcake sucked into the inlet of my friend's Grand National.

HappyAndy wrote: Desert, yes. Turbo, yes. Full body work. Yes. Dust clouds, yes. Lots of WOT, yes. I don't see a problem here.

To be fair...fully rebuilt after each event, yes.

In reply to GameboyRMH: As are nearly all top tier race vehicles that aren't prohibited from doing so by cost restraint rules. Including, I'd imagine all the top running Baja trophy trucks.