Brian Hart isn't a name many know of these days, but from the 70s to the 90s he was a bit of a legend in the UK tuning world, especially the Ford world, and this feature is about the wildest engine he and his small company produced, the Hart 415T.
​
While Cosworth famously initially produced the legendary Ford BDA engine, what most don't realise is that is was Brian Hart that made is the success it was, producing the 2ltr BDG version that dominated the World Rally Championship (and practically every other rally worldwide) in the 1970s, and it was also him who developed the full crazy Group B rally version of the RS200 BDT engine, the BDT-E.

Anyhow, what was known in the Ford Motorsport world as the BDG was initially developed by Brian Hart as a Formula 2 engine, firstly as the 420S, then in full developed, kick ass, practically nothing left of the original BDA (not even the block) version, as the 420R. Hugely powerful for it's size and weight, and there's versions right up to 3ltr that's been made, and still are to this very day.

The Hart 420 kicked ass Formula 2 from 1976 on, and it was so good that the Toleman F2 team agreed in 1978 to help finance development, which clearly worked, with the engine taking Toleman to a 1-2 in the 1980 championship.

And this is where shiz gets interesting, as for 1981 Toleman decided to step it up a notch, and despite being a small team vs the big manufacturers, they decided to enter Formula One, which by now allowed either three litre naturally aspirated engines (the Cosworth DFV still powered most F1 cars by then, though Alfa and Matra both had versions too- 14 out of the 17 teams used non-turbo engines), or 1.5ltr turbo engines, which Renault, Ferrari, and Toleman chose to use in 1981.

As Brian Hart showed his amazing talent for mental 4cyls, it was decided that was going to be the new format for their 1981 F1 1.5ltr Turbo engine. Bear in mind this is a small team, and a small tuner, producing his own engine from scratch, to compete against engines built by some of the biggest companies in the world. A serious David vs Goliath battle, it seems and insane plan, but they did it...

The Hart 415T engine looked similar to the 420R, and they were both 4cylinder 16valve engines, but the 415T was another ground up development by Hart, a 1.5ltr purpose built turbo engine that was actually a monobloc, ie the head and block are cast as one piece- No head join = No head gasket to blow!
​
According to an old issue of MotorSport magazine at least, until this engine Hart had never seen a turbo in the flesh, didn't understand intercooling (might explain the chargecooler- reality>theory!), and the original 1981 engines were NOT monobloc either, though how true that is I don't know (Maybe just test engines weren't mono? that'd make more sense, but I've not found that info out).
Unfortunately, as with all this old F1 Turbo stuff, most the truth is lost because of both secrets and age...

Anyhow, here's some bare engine pics you can click on to check out the construction of this all-alloy monobloc lump. Note no head to block join, 4x throttle bodies, and individual external water ports above and below each exhaust port.

The 1981 and 1982 seasons used a single Garrett (I've heard KKK mentioned too, but never confirmed this to be true) turbocharger mounted on top of the engine, and an alloy chargecooler under the inlet manifold to help keep temps down. Here's a 1981 engine, which made a touch under 600bhp in the race, and I think 700odd in qualifying...

This is a 1982 engine I'm fairly sure, much the same basic setup, but a nicer manifold, especially for the wastegate take offs. These were also, as per all F1 Turbo engines of the era, a little more powerful than the previous year, as development progressed.

Here's a few more early spec 415T pics showing the chargecooler etc, before we get to the big change and where things get really interesting...

ANYHOW, the 415T engine so far, while getting a lot of praise for being a pretty amazing and strong engine considering it was developed from scratch by a very small UK firm with an absolutely tiny budget (in Formula 1 terms at least), it was still down on power versus the others, and while it often showed flashes of it's potential, the results so far didn't really materialize.

With bigger sponsors and therefore bigger budgets appearing for 1983, the layout changed a little, with the engine looking a bit more conventional; a big intercooler, and the turbo mounted to the side on a long runner tubular manifold. Power was up, and the car overall was better, scoring points in the last 4 GPs of the 1983 season- Finally starting to show what this clearly very strong and capable engine can do.

And then came 1984, and the appearance in Formula One for the first time ever, of the now legendary, and then reigning Formula Three champion, Ayrton Senna.
Unfortunately things did NOT go well for Senna or his Toleman teammate in the first race of the season in Brazil, as BOTH cars retired with blown turbos, a problem that has always held the team back from the beginning, Senna after just 8 laps, his teammade Cecotto 10 laps later. Senna was pissed off, everyone was pissed off, but they had a solution, and rather than write it myself, here's it straight from one of the team...

In yet another fantastic example of "Most famous names sure as fuck don't mean the best stuff", they fucked off the Garrett turbos that had held them back all these years, and went to the Holset turbos that they only really knew about due to their sponsor using them on their trucks.
Holset knocked them up some suitable spec turbos in FOUR DAYS (More proof, if you need it, that the BS about 'truck turbos' not being made of the right materials for cars is bollocks- You think they magically fashioned them some stronger custom stuff in 4 days? Not possible. They were 100% off the shelf Holset parts), and lo and behold suddenly Toleman's unreliable turbo days were over.
In fact, from what I understand, the one time a turbo did blow (unsure if it was 84 or 85), once inspected it turned out it was because a bit of valve seat (supposedly a weak point on these engines) went through it.

These 1984 Holset boosted engines made 800bhp at 4bar boost, pretty insane for a 1.5ltr 4cyl engine, and while only about 50bhp down over the top cars at race boost, they were still around 200bhp down on the top cars at qualifying boost, simply as they didn't have the budget for special grenade-spec qualifying engines like some top teams did. Aside from that though, if it was BHP per £££ spent, they would've been the top by miles.
These engines were 6.7:1 compression and revved to 11,000rpm in 1984.
The actual Holset turbo used I'm unsure, but looking at pics, especially the compressor side and the compressor back plate, it looks to be a HX50 of some description.

Unfortunately, despite the engine finally showing it's full potential in 1984, with 3 podium finishes for Senna, the following season didn't go well.
While the engine was no longer an issue, Senna left for Lotus, and as the Toleman team had a habit of pissing off tyre manufacturers, first Goodyear, then Pirelli, meant they could only use Michelin, which massively backfired when Michelin withdrew from F1 after 1984 too, leaving them with no tyres at all for the start 1985.
They missed the first three races due to having no tyres, and by the end of 1985 Benetton fully took over the team, which then became the works Renault team, and that was the end of the badass little Hart 415T engine.

​The last thing worth mentioning is the majority of the modern pics in this feature have been taken at Geoff Page Racing, who is pretty much the god of Group B and Formula 1 turbo engines, and looks after pretty much every legendary car from that era you can think of. I'd love to go there and do a feature on the place, as there a whole crapload I've yet to learn no doubt, but as yet it's never happened.

Christ, if I could go back in time (this time armed with a decent camera) to about 2000-2001 when Joe Stevens from Bluesprint built my Cossie engine, I'd be able to show you some amazing F1 Turbo stuff- That place, both the actual workshop and warehouse, was full of BMW/Hart/Zakspeed/etc F1 turbo engines, manifolds, wastegates, all sorts, it was pretty incredible.

Anyhow, that's all I know, I wish I knew more, but it's a pretty amazing story considering how much of a (in F1 terms) shoestring budget they were on!

In the UK and Europe, the Ford Pinto was about the most popular Ford engine to tune in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, and to this day powers loads of fast road and race cars.
The Pinto has spawned loads of legendary variations, most famously the YB Cosworth engine, but also things like the Millington Diamond engines you see powering most top Mk1/2 Escort rally cars these days, among other things.
The thing is, while the Pinto was cheap and common, let's be honest, it wasn't that great, and didn't exactly set the tuning world on fire. Granted, it can be made to push out decent performance, and the bigger bucks and much rarer YB/Millington/Warrior/etc headed versions can be pretty insane, but for your average Joe road car tuner, once the 80s and 90s came along with various other, better, engine options, it just didn't cut the mustard; especially as there was very little serious turbo development done by tuners or racers on the basic 8 valve production Pinto engines.

In the USA though, they didn't get 'our' Pinto, but oddly, and on a similar time scale to our engines (ie early 1970s on), they got a very similar looking, but it turns out totally and utterly un-interchangeable engine, fitted to a car that was called the Ford Pinto. But the engine wasn't called a Pinto, the engine was the Ford Lima.

It looks like a Pinto, with it's inline 4cyl 8 valve setup and iron block and head, but the Lima is, aside from de-stroked race engines late small bore versions, 2.3ltr, 0.3ltr more than the biggest production Pinto, which is a bonus for tuning from the outset. In fact it's even more of a bonus than it first seems, as thanks to the engine design, the capacity can be increased hugely with stroker kits, with high revving engines up to 2.9ltr (just under 400bhp N/A!) have been built from the Lima.

Standard capacity is one bonus, but another is, like it or not, the Lima block seems to be a lot stronger than the production Pinto block too. Normal Pinto blocks are generally considered a liability above 400bhp (though more has been done, with some risking pushing the 205 block YBs beyond 500...), and beyond that it's generally the stronger (but interchangeable) YB Cosworth (4wd and RS500) blocks that are needed for the Euro Pintos.
​The Lima block though? Well, 1000bhp+ has been known...

Another massive advantage is the Lima attracted a huge tuning and motorsport scene in the USA and South America, so unlike the Pinto, there's a large amount of tuning knowledge and parts out there enabling BIG power; especially with turbocharging them.

Perhaps the biggest single advantage though from a road car tuner point of view, is, from 1979 to 1989, it was sold as a factory turbocharged engine on a huge number of vehicles. This means it was not the lucky rich few who got to play with them, but your average Joe had no problem affording one, as they were cheap and relatively commonplace.

As always with road car tuning though, there's always the question of "Where IS the limit of this engine?" and without motorsport it's rarely found out. But just like the YB Cosworth engine we all know and love, the turbo Lima was used by the Ford Motorsport teams for their race engines too, which meant a whole shitload of expensive R+D the road tuners could never do was done for them by Ford, advancing the tuning scene massively...

In the early-mid 80s XR4TIs in the USA kicked quite a bit of ass in IMSA GTU racing using 2ltr 400bhp versions of these engine, still using the factory iron heads etc etc, but then for the TransAm race series where more many more mods were allowed, the Lima engine went fucking mental...

Bashing out 800bhp (allegedly 1000bhp+ wasn't an issue in dyno testing, but of course it needs to last full race distance) from the little 2valve per cyl turbo engine, while still lasting full race distance, these things were mental.

Check out the small water lines from the head next to each exhaust port- Cool little mod to prevent steam/heat pockets in the head, which is one of the many reasons big power turbo engines shit out head gaskets and so on...

​Even Ford themselves considered making the engine even better, funnily enough about the same time Ford Europe turned the Pinto in to the YB Cosworth, by creating a twin cam 16V Turbo version. While prototypes were fitted to a few testbed cars, inc a Mk1 Sierra chassis (the B+W pic below), it never saw full production, which is a shame, as potentially it was a Cossie beater when tuned, considering how good the 8V head version is...

Anyhow, after Ford themselves stopped racing it, the tuning scene and indeed the racing scene using these engines went from strength to strength, especially with US Ford 4cyl tuning gods Esslinger Engineering producing countless parts for them, from stroker kits to lightweight, high flow, and strong as hell, alloy heads and blocks.

It's not like these 8 valve engines are only good with a ton of boost shoved down them either, as they're hugely popular in naturally aspirated form in midget racing (crazy single seat dirt track go-kart things, not small people with large heads), and often push out 375bhp from 2.6ltr versions revving to around 10,000rpm!
In fact Esslinger are so confident in these things, they sell a sealed crate race motor, 2.6ltr, 340bhp, and 9400rpm, that is capable of over 30 races before needing a rebuild- Try that with a Pinto!

So yeah, in my eyes at least, as much as the YB Cosworth is one of my, if not my favourite engine ever, it's a real shame Ford USA and Ford Europe didn't work together on engines, as if the Lima existed over here in place of our Pintos (woo, alternate future theories...), our tuning scene, especially the Ford tuning scene, probably would've been even more full of big power cars, and even earlier than it was...

A good few years ago I built a RB20 (2ltr 24V inline 6 with a stroke shorter than most 1ltr 4cyls) powered R32 Skyline with a Comp-R RS341 turbo from Compressor Racing, which was basically a slightly modified Holset HY35- A 600bhp turbo, but a fucking good one.
I built the R32 purely as everyone liked to say RB20s are shit, don't make power, etc etc, plus the fact everyone thinks a 600bhp turbo won't spool well at all on a 2ltr; especially not on a super short stroke engine like a RB20.
I did it to prove a point really, and I did, making a dyno proven 470bhp on a standard head and cams, making some boost below 3k, full boost by 4k, and making big power to 8k+. The mapper said with mild cams and more boost, 550bhp was highly likely even on pump fuel. The thing was a fucking weapon and reliable too, in fact it's still running the same engine and turbo to this day, about 4 years later. There's a couple of pics below, and a fair few vids on my YouTube channel...

Anyhow, a big kickstart to the R32 project was the fact that Chris who owns Compressor Racing offered me the RS341 as a test/development turbo, for next to nothing (in turbo terms anyhow, a couple hundred quid), to prove what the turbo could do, and it's fair to say I jumped at the chance and proved it nicely.

Fast forward to now, and one of my current projects is a Renault 5 GT Turbo Raider.
I fucking love them, they were my 1st n 2nd cars when I passed my driving test, and despite all the mental cars I've owned, they're still one of my fave cars as they're mad fun.
For the last year or so I've been helping a mate spec/build his one, and the result is fucking awesome. 230bhp, revving to 7.5k, totally reliable on standard internals, and as it weighs nothing it's plenty faster than stuff like E46 M3s etc etc.
But the main thing I like about them is the driving experience- Being a tiny light thing it feels 10 times faster and more fun than similar performance in a 'normal' car, and that's why I do cars- TO BE FUN TO DRIVE.

Anyhow, despite shit tuners and retarded owners over the years giving them a bad rep for being unreliable, in reality the GTT C1J engines are strong as fuck when done right. Honestly. I promise! So the other week, despite having a totally different plan until then, I decided it's time to fit a man size turbo to one.
I happened to have a pretty big spec GTT engine sitting in the shed waiting to be used, and like history repeating itself, Compressor Racing just brought out another new turbo, a Holset HX32 based turbo, which ticked the box as ideal for the big turbo I wanted (it's about Garrett GT30 size- 500bhp max).
This time it was me making him an offer, and we agreed, considering all the good exposure my RS341 exploits got him, that I'd buy a turbo off him for a good price in exchange for a no-bullshit writeup on what I'm doing, plus some fitting/tuning info on Holset stuff in general (I get asked on an almost daily basis stuff on Holsets on tuned cars, I seem to have ended up with some kind of 'Holset guru' rep), so here it is...

​The turbo in question is THIS thing, their version of one of the 'Holy Grail' (ie fucking impossible to get) Holsets, a HX32. A HX32 is, basically, a HX35 sized compressor mated to a HX30 turbine wheel, which makes for a 400-500bhp capable turbo that spools like fuck, and is very highly rated by all of the lucky few that have got to use them.
They come in a variety of specs, but what got me deciding I was gonna use one on my GTT is the fact this one has a 7cm (about A/R 0.50) T2 (T25, T28, whatever) turbine housing, which, in my experienced guestimation, I think won't spool up much/any worse than the 0.63 A/R GT28R on my friends GTT, but a whole shitload more power potential.

Yesterday, the first thing I did once I had it, was do a mock up on my original/standard engine to see what needed doing, and once it's all laid out I'll take this engine out, put the fancy one in, and make some serious boost...

 So far so good, fits very nicely, looks fucking mega, and even my elbow/downpipe (from a Cummins engine, and I found it in my shed at home) fits perfectly, despite being 3.5in ID at the far end! Not sure where I'll route the wastegate pipe, but that's no issue.
I'm gonna make a 3in (probably) custom side exit for the thing, but it's a shame it's not a drag car (and we live in a country that rains a lot), or I'd fit this straight out the bonnet, as it fits perfectly, and is fucking mega- An Inconel exhaust from a Cosworth engine Indy Car!

Anyhow, back to the turbo setup- Here it is off the car. Basically I'm gonna be using the standard exhaust manifold (which is very good, 320bhp+ proven), a spacer/adapter to run a Turbosmart external wastegate, then the HX32 turbo, then finally a 2.5-3.5in cast elbow/downpipe which is a straight fit and makes my life easier as I don't have to fab one up from scratch now...

The original plan (until I found the downpipe in the shed!) was to make my own downpipe, as a normal 2.5in V-band setup like you can find on eBay fits just fine. Barely 1mm out all round, but the wonders of v-bands means that's no stopping a seal- I've been about 5mm all round before and no issue sealing. Here's some pics with the 2.5in v-band clamp...

Another thing that I needed to do, and something most people need to do when fitting turbos, but SO many people don't seem to realise they can, is to clock (ie rotate) the housings to suit the application. Almost all turbos you can rotate the housings 360deg to suit the application, and that's exactly what I had to do for the GTT, so to bits it came, a simple v-band type clamp for the turbine, and the typical Holset circlip for the compressor.

Here's the first "Stav's Holset Tech Tip" for you actually- Compressor housing circlips! They are pretty fucking beefy as circlips go, so can be a struggle to remove, and some people find IMPOSSIBLE to refit, with the grips slipping off over and over again, but I've done SO many over the years I can usually do them first time, and here's how...

First up, Molegrips are the tool to use, bigger the better, and ideally with a curved 'mouth' part, lessening the odds of them slipping off. Removal with them is usually pretty easy- Do up the molegrips to as tight as you can possibly fit them, then use the strength of He-Man to squeeze 'em shut, and that's usually enough to remove the circlip. 
Refitting it is a bit of a bastard though, but here's how...

Yep, TWO sets of molegrips! Again, get the grips around the circlip as tight as you possibly can, but unless you're Superman there's no way that's enough that when you close them the circlip is compressed enough- Not even close.
Instead, attach a 2nd molegrip tightly to the adjuster, and use that to (carefully!) wind the circlips closed with that (you've got no hope by hand unless you've a massive adjuster knob on yours), and THEN when you close them up, the circlip is fully compressed, and hey presto, job done.

Oh, here's a mini-tip for you too- Keep the bloody plastic dust covers that come on the turbo, don't just bin them- They're fucking mega handy to stop shit getting in your turbo when you're mocking stuff up etc...

The next issue is this turbo is INTERNAL WASTEGATE, and I wanted to run an EXTERNAL WASTEGATE. That's a big problem, right? Well, people seem to think it is, see loads of people go "I want to run that turbo, but I can't as it's internal gate) but it's not, at all, it's sorted in 5min by welding the fucker shut.
Just like pretty much every Holset I've ever seen, the internal wastegate isn't that big, even Compressor Racing state they'd highly recommend external gate if using on a spark ignition engine, and considering the amount of people running Garrett GT2871s and GT30s with internal gates and serious boost creep issues, I wasn't taking the risk of trying it, and an external gate is a better design from a performance point of view anyhow.
So, how do you do it? Well I've seen some people run a solid bar instead of the actuator, locking the wastegate arm shut, but I don't really see the point of that, so I do what 99% of people seem to do- Turn the MIG welder up to full blast, and BZZZZZZZZZZT.

Yep, just make sure the wastegate flap is fully CLOSED (yep, seen some weld it without it being fully shut, then wonder why their turbo's laggy!), and weld the fucker in place.
You could cut/grind the arm down too to make it look prettier, but I've left it for now as might use it as part of a turbo hanger to support the weight of the turbo when fitted.

FINALLY, and another question I'm always asked about HX35s, HY35s, HX32s, HX40s, and everything else (think even HX55s are the same? I forget now), the bloody compressor outlet flange!
Rather than a normal slip-on, it's a fancy v-band on most Holsets, so your options are, find what the fuck fits to it, or the most common solutions of grinding it down a little and using a normal hose on it, or TIG welding your own chosen fitting to it instead.
Both of those solutions are easy enough, but you could make something fit, or indeed fit the proper thing. While the ID of the flange is 2in, it's bigger than a typical 2in v-band, and you need a 2.25in v-band and clamp to fit to it, but they do, nicely.
BUT the ideal thing to do is just buy the right thing like they had from the factory, and that's this...

That's the normal Cummins compressor outlet pipe, same thing fits 99% of Holsets with that v-band outlet. And is a 90deg bend ending in a 3in slip-on hose fitting. Ideal. Part number is as you see on it- 3918685. I think it's about £70 from Cummins mind, so prob cheaper just to mod it as above...!

Oh yeah, here's another thing I'm always asked- Holset oil feed and returns.
Feed is 12x1.5 thread, don't need a restrictor unless you got mental high oil pressure, but use a -3 line rather than bigger.
Return is IMPORTANT! Almost anyone who cries about their Holset smoking has usually fitted some pissy small return. It needs to be like 19mm ID bare MINIMUM, ie huge. Even most so called 'huge -12 fittings' on eBay have ID of about 12mm, so nowhere near enough. Fuck the fancy fittings, a plain, but large bore pipe is all you need.
​

"Oh Emm Gee, my car does 0-60 in less than 4.5sec, it's almost a supercar, your car is way slower, it's 0-60 is 6sec" says all kinds of clowns with pretty standard 4wd turbo cars, usually to people with cars with far more power; almost like they've never raced a car in their lives.

In fact 0-60mph sells cars- A whole lot of people seem to choose their car by its 0-60, which frankly, is retarded.

The fact is though, when the fuck is the official manufacturer 0-60mph figures relevant in the real world? Pretty much never, that's when.

Even if the situation arose, how many owners are able to hit the factory 0-60 figures? Not many, that's for sure, and for lots of reasons too.

First up, the majority of factory figures are done by GOOD drivers (and truth be told, most people can't drive for shit), after countless attempts, so a typical owner can't usually get within about a second of it. And I mean REAL times too, not a speedo and a stopwatch.

Secondly, how many owners do full on, and I mean REALLY full on, max revs, clutch dumping, launches, especially in transmission destroying 4wd cars? Again, next to none.
I've had hundreds, maybe thousands, of impromptu races off the lights over the years, and the amount of cars I've came up against who's actually done a full-on launch I can probably count on my hands- Most just fanny off the lights gently and then nail the throttle a second later; even highly tuned cars racing to big speeds.
People might like to think they're straight out of Street Outlaws, but more are more like Driving Miss Daisy.

Thirdly, and maybe most importantly in the UK at least- This ain't Fast And The Furious or Street Outlaws, so a VERY small % of races happen from a standing start; it's almost all roll racing, so your 0-60mph time means cock all.

I think some of it, the bit that's not total blinkers/pride in their own shit, is that some people really think 0-60 acceleration corresponds to acceleration at other speeds too, but it doesn't, at all. 0-60mph is ALL about the launch.

I've timed tons of cars over the years due to my work, and it's fair to say, aside from really, truly, fucking ballistic things that also have great startline traction, and that's rare, 0-60mph does not tally up with rolling start acceleration at all.

The old Dragon Performance FD RX7 drag car was a great example of this. Fuck yeah it launched well compared to most cars, but it still was often hampered by it's first 60ft or so, hence doing 160mph by the quarter mile, but still running low 9s, despite some 'slower' cars in the 8s despite only hitting about 150mph, due to being able to launch off the line like a bullet out of a gun.

In fact, I had some timing data from a run where due to wheelspin the 0-60 time was 3.5seconds, which is still ridiculously fast, but 1 whole second slower than the legendary Bugatti Veyron.
But DESPITE being 1sec slower to 60mph, it still got to 150mph two seconds FASTER than a Veyron- That means it did 60-150mph THREE FUCKING SECONDS faster than the 1000bhp 4wd mega bucks Bugatti hypercar.

So in the real world, ie a typical rolling start race, despite the 0-60 time being way way slower, the RX7 would absolutely fucking annihilate the Veyron, which illustrates my point nicely.

It's just as relevant with standard production cars, especially now with so many hot hatches having 4wd and twin clutch DSG boxes; both MASSIVE advantages on the 0-60mph sprint.
Lately all I see is people wanking off about the new Golf R and A45 AMG with their 4wd and twin clutch boxes, and saying they're sooooooo much faster than, say, the new Civic Type-R for example, purely going from the 0-60 times and various "Race" videos on the internet from the likes of TopGear etc.
Fuck yeah they're much faster to 60 from a standing start, as the Civic just wheelspins when launching hard, and like most manual cars, it loses about 0.5sec on the 1st-2nd gearchange, compared to almost no time for a DSG box. BUT...

BUT... Look at the times at the end of the video, the 0-60 and 0-100mph figures they achieved, and then subtract the 0-60 time from the 0-100mph time, to calculate the real world, and relevant, 60-100mph time...
The Civic is actually 0.1sec FASTER from a rolling start, and that's despite the advantage of the DSG box in the Golf.

So there you go, unless you REALLY do standing start racing, and REALLY do zero mechanical sympathy hardcore transmission destroying launches, 0-60mph means fuck all, so if you're gonna do anything with it, use it to subtract from your cars 0-100mph time to see a real world acceleration figure.

Overall... STOP FUCKING QUOTING 0-60 TIMES! YOU SOUND LIKE A MORON!

I love Ford Cosworths, I really do, and a BIG part of the reason they're so good is they were designed from the outset to be Group A homologation specials. Group A rules at the time (ie mid 80s) dictated the standard block, head casting, crank, rods, exhaust manifold, inlet manifold, intercooler, and general turbo size, all have to be standard. And because of that, if you want to be successful in Group A, the parts fitted to the standard production car needed to be capable of pushing some serious power for full race and rally distances without issue, so Cosworth designed the engine for Ford to be VERY strong and tunable.
​
ANYHOW, while I don't think it's ever been officially documented/admitted, being in this industry for so long means I've got to speak to quite a few people 'off the record', and there's one odd thing about the 2wd/RS500 Cosworth engine, that would've been a lot better if Ford would've let Cosworth have their own way, and here's the story...

Basically, Cosworth designed probably the best standard turbo manifold any production car has ever had- A strong, long runner, and fully twin scroll (2+3, 1+4) T3 flange exhaust manifold, proven capable of 600bhp+
But, bizarrely, the turbos fitted to it, the Garrett T3 on the Sierras and 2wd Saffs, and the Garrett T3/4 the RS500 had, are all single scroll, making the fact it's twin scroll, and the huge turbo spooling advantage that brings, totally and utterly pointless.

I'd always wondered why this was the case, it's bizarre. Twin scroll was pretty much unheard of on production cars back then, and would never deliberately had a single scroll turbo fitted, as the entire operation would be a huge waste of time and money.
While it's no issue with the little T3, the RS500 turbo, while good for 550bhp+, isn't exactly a responsive turbo, with good power starting from around 4500rpm upwards, and a twin scroll setup would've been a HUGE advantage- Even a much larger and more powerful turbo would've spooled up faster in twin scroll, making the RS500 even more dominant in motorsport than it was.

So why was a laggy single scroll turbo fitted then, despite a beautifully designed twin scroll manifold being on the engine? Well, company politics, that's why...

Basically, Cosworth had a VERY successful partnership with UK turbo legends Holset, who produced the turbochargers for the other turbocharged race engines Cosworth ran at the time- The 2.6ltr Indy Car lumps used by most the top Indy cars of the 1980s and 1990s- Including the 1987 Indy 500 winning car actually sponsored by Cummins and Holset (Cummins own Holset)...

The story goes that Cosworth fully intended, indeed full developed, as per their other race engines, to use top-spec Holset turbos. Unfortunately, Ford Europe had an agreement with Garrett to use their turbos on all the production cars, so overruled Cosworth and chucked on something 'suitable' from Garrett- The powerful, but unresponsive, single scroll 'RS500 T4'. This, below, is what it could/should have been...

The RS500 Garrett T4 is legendarily "Laggy", in fact you won't see a single article or film that doesn't mention it; even the racers all talk about anticipating the lag and planting their foot down early so the engine over-comes the lag just at the right moment, but thanks to people tuning Cosworth engines in the many years since, it's now well proven going from the twin scroll Holset plan to a single scroll Garrett was a MASSIVE MISTAKE...

Russia- They don't fuck about when it comes to tuned cars; in fact they're flippin' incredible! First up, if you've not seen part ONE and TWO, they're HERE and HERE, and now, the third and final part of this feature.

First up, the MR-S (MR2, whatever) in the opening picture pulling a wheelie. BIG power turbo engine, right? Wrong! It's got the naturally aspirated 2ZZ engine in it, just like they have when standard! This car however is heavily lightened, and the 2ZZ is massively tuned, and the thing runs 10.1seconds in the quarter mile! Here's the engine...

Next up, another small Toyota engine, albeit much older- THE most powerful 4AGE I've ever seen! These engines are best known from the AE86, and push out 125bhp as standard from their revvy 1.6ltr engine, and in full-on crazy Formula Atlantic race spec, they make nearly double that, and still 1.6ltr and non turbo.
But this one, fitted to a 1990s Toyota Levin, is pushing out a claimed 1000bhp!

How true the 1000bhp claim is, I've no idea, but the thing runs 10.5sec quarter miles, so it's sure as shit got a LOT of power!

Next up, some REALLY fast LADAS! It is Russia afterall! Most interestingly, these run Lada engines too, the small 4cyl 16valve Lada engines, and are REALLY fast, so they're clearly damn good engines.

​First up, a front wheel drive, 1.5ltr 16V Lada, that runs 9s!

I think it's a pretty badass looking car, but the engine is a beast, with a little 1.5ltr fitted with a big Holset HX52 turbo! HX52s are well proven to spool amazingly for their size, often fitted even to 2ltr engines, but a 1.5 is deffo the smallest I've ever seen one fitted to!

Cool engine setup too, proper twin scroll turbo setup with twin wastegates, 8 injectors with 2x fuel rails, nitrous just after the compressor outlet, and a chargecooler built in to the inlet manifold by the looks of it. The end result? 9.8sec quarter mile.

Next up, a RWD Lada, but again, a turbocharged version of the Lada 1.5 16V lump...

Would never imagine that would run low 10s unless you saw under the bonnet, but it does, and you deffo wouldn't imagine the next one is just as fast...

This one I have a little more info on the engine spec, and it's amazing how standard it is!
It's a 1.5 16V, turbo converted of course, but running standard rods still, and the pistons, while not standard, are just ones from a Lada Niva! Regardless of this, it runs 10.5s!

The final Lada is again, the 1.5ltr 16V lump, but front drive again, but non-turbo! And despite this still runs 10s! Making big power with a turbo just proves the engine is strong, but this N/A performance shows they're pretty damn good for tuning too...

I like how the engine is tilted forward to maximise weight on the front end, and therefore maximise traction...

Last, but certainly not least, a car that not only doesn't look at all like a drag car, in fact it's a fully road legal car with a full interior, but it doesn't even look like the sort of thing the Russians usually tune- An E30 BMW touring!

The front mount intercooler is the only thing that hints that it could be fast, but this is REALLY fast for a full interior road car- It runs 10.5sec quarter miles! But how? Well...

Not only is it packing a 700bhp turbocharged M50B25 engine, but it's a 325iX, ie the 4wd model! A 700bhp 4wd E30, now THAT sounds a whole lot of fun!
​

First up, if you've not seen Part One of this feature on some of the maddest tuned cars you're likely to clap your eyes on this year, you better click HERE to check it out...

Now that's sorted, no need for an intro, lets get right on with showing you the rest of these flippin' bonkers cars. 

First up, a car you may have seen a video of on the Stav-Tech Facebook page, a 9second, front wheel drive, turbo, rotary engine, LADA. Yes, a flippin' Lada. This is Russia afterall...

This is what we'd call a Lada 110, though in Russia it's a VAZ 2110, a front drive car produced from the mid 90s until late 00s in Russia, and actually has some performance history, having the aerodynamics jointly designed by Porsche, and competed in the World Touring Car Championship (WTCC) in 2008 and 2009.

Anyhow, while 99% of the world don't realise it, Mazda aren't the only rotary engine makers of modern times, VAZ do. In fact these days VAZ do it a whole lot more than Mazda, for a wide variety of vehicles too, albeit in VERY limited numbers; and the above VAZ/Lada is one of them.
The VAZ rotaries aren't the same as a Mazda 13B, but they are the same capacity, but work very well, and have been adapted for lots more applications, inc front wheel drive...

There you have it, a 1308cc twin rotor engine, transversely mounted and front drive, running 2x Tial wastegates, a Garrett GTX42 with a Tial v-band manifold, and dry sump by the looks of it. Mental. 

While the 9.9sec quarters were done on the old engine it seems, and now it's got a new engine, though no new times yet...

A bloody Lada THREE ROTOR! It's running a Garrett GTX55 too, so likely to be, well, lots! 1500odd, as they're good for over 1600bhp. 
Going by the pic, the engine is dry sump and almost deffo running on methanol as no intercooler, but most interestingly, look at the different design compared to a Mazda rotary- Peripheral exhaust ports on top, one per cylinder, but the inlet ports are below, and seems to be 6 of them, so they're either conventional side ports, or twin peripheral ones? Who knows. I also wonder if this engine is mounted upside down? It's dry sump so it's possible on a rotary.

Anyhow, let's look at something else. Or is it? Might be the same car in an earlier form...?

10.4sec, front drive, 3 rotor Lada, but NON-TURBO this time!

Right, on to something slightly more normal...

An Impreza, that runs low 8s, and has a GT42 turbo hanging out the front of the car!

How about everyone's fave FWD drag car, a Honda Civic...

Nothing to unconventional, but it's VERY fast, 9.7 1/4, which considering the barely prepped surfaces of Russian drag strips, that's properly moving.
And how does it go that quick? Well...

A Honda B18 lump and most importantly. a big fuckoff Holset HX55! For massive turbos they really do spool well, and obv' no issue on this one, despite that being a 25cm housing by the looks of it, ie one of the bigger ones. A true 1000bhp capable turbo.

You know what's even faster though? A fucking massive Jeep Cherokee! 

Fuck knows why it's even a 'thing', but there's a good few mental Jeeps in Russia running 9sec quarters! This particular one runs 9.5 and is powered by a 7ltr turbo V8.

You know what's even faster than both of these things? Another fucking Lada!

Probably the most badass looking Lada you'll ever likely see, this runs 9.1sec quarters despite being FWD, and has a rather unusual engine and box combo...

You might recognise the engine as it's the good old Vauxhall C20XE lump, running a massive GT4202 turbo, and nitrous as well.
Most interesting, the gearbox is a modified Mitsubishi Evo4 box, running FWD only.

You know what's even faster than a C20XE Lada? A Mitsubishi Lancer Evo3, but oddly, it has an engine swap!

Looks like a normal Evo3, and indeed the standard 4G63 engine can produce some ridiculous power, well over 1000bhp, but this car is doing something a little different to get it's 8.9sec quarter miles...

It's the 3ltr V6 normally found in Mitsubishi GTOs and 3000GTs, but running a BIG single turbo and nitrous too. Nice.

Last but DEFFO not least, what's faster than an 8sec Evo3? Well an 8sec Audi S2!

Looks pretty normal from the back, though clearly means business, but the front view is a little less subtle...

Looks like the body is all carbon, and runs 8.8sec quarter miles thanks to, well, check it out...

That's the legendary 5cyl 20V Audi Lump, packing a flippin huge turbo, at least GT55 size by looks of it, maybe GT60 in fact, and likely running the amazingly strong Audi 4wd system too, maybe even a stock S4 box as so many crazy power ones do. Here's another angle of the engine...

The internet is a wonderful thing, it's made this world WAY smaller, and has shown us things, just by searching for them with Google, that we'd either never see otherwise, or at best only see if we were lucky enough to find that a magazine had hunted these things down.

It's not PERFECT though, as while it's not hard to search for stuff from English speaking countries, it's fucking tricky if the country doesn't speak English, and it's nigh on impossible if the alphabet they use isn't even close to what our is- You can't easily Google words that use letters your keyboard don't even have!

Granted, Japan is well covered despite the language and alphabet barrier, partly as they use a lot of English words in their tuning, and partly as the Japanese car scene is world famous, but even from Japan there's a whole lot we don't see unless someone who can speak the language tracks it down and share it.

But other places, less famous places? Well, there's very little to be found, if anything.

I mean, Russia, do you know much about the tuning scene in Russia? I've seen a few things, but nothing much; mostly drift cars. Due to the lack of press it gets you'd think the scene is pretty small and the cars are mostly quite tame, but no, fuck no, their drag cars for example, front, rear, and 4wd, are fucking MENTAL, and that's what this feature is all about.

I can't speak Russian, or read Russian, or anything close, so I don't know all the info, but prepare to mutter "What the fuuuuck" to yourself a great many times, as we take a look at some Russian drag cars...

Well, it's a Mitsubishi Eclipse, the car made famous by Fast And The Furious, and a pretty badass looking one too, and the air filter sticking out the headlamp kinda indicates it means business, but what's under the bonnet? 
Well, some of these have Evo 4G63 turbo engines and 4wd as standard, so you'd imagine this has a big power one of these, right? Well... "What. The. FUCK" moment coming up...

It's a muthafuckin' 2JZ! Fitted transversely and powering the front wheels! I dunno about you, but I've never seen a transversely mounted 2JZ in my life. It fits amazingly well, and shit, it's a properly mental spec one too...

Badass long runner tubular manifold, huge custom inlet, big coils, huge turbo, dry sump by the looks of it too, and so far it's ran a 9.1sec quarter, and, well, it's got 1127bhp!

Next up, an MR2 Turbo. No engine swap this time, the original 3S-GTE heavily tuned this time, but it runs 9.7sec quarters and pulls some fucking massive wheelies...

They love Japanese cars in Russia, but Russia is the home of Lada, so there's a lot of them too, but nothing like what we're used to here...

This Lada runs 9.1sec quarters thanks to a big power 1.5JZ engine under the bonnet!

It's not the only JZ Lada either, this one runs 9.3s...

Maybe it's a stereotype, but it's easy to imagine Russian tuned cars as awful looking DIY jobs, and indeed some are, but even these are bloody fast. This old Prelude looks ridiculous, serious DIY fibreglass bodywork going on, but it's powered by a naturally aspirated Honda B-series engine and STILL runs 11.1sec quarters!

While we're on the awful looking DIY lightweight bodywork theme, check this out. A FWD Lada, still running a Lada engine, albeit turbocharged, but runs 10.7s!

Anyone who's been in to the Japanese car scene for a long time will remember in the early 2000s the Skyline GT-R drag racing scene was HUGE in Japan, with tons of dedicated and ridiculously fast R32 and R33 GT-Rs, but most seem to have disappeared, not seen for many, many years.
Ever wondered where they all are? Well from what I've seen, they're all in Russia! There's countless 8sec Skyline GT-Rs in Russia, not to mention absolutely tons of them in the 9s- Soo many I'm not going to show them in this feature. But they've got them in the 7s too...

This R32 is the fastest of them all, running 7.4sec quarters via a Powerglide gearbox, but while the others are RB powered, this one isn't...

Yep, that's a Nissan GT-R VR38DETT lump, but running two BIG turbos, and well over 2000bhp if my shonky Russian translation is accurate.

The second fastest R32 GT-R is only 0.1 of a second slower mind, and IS RB powered...

7.5sec quarter mile from a flippin' badass looking R32 GT-R with a mega RB30 lump...

Another red RB30 engine'd one is only slightly slower, at a still crazy 8.1sec, and while it just looks like a red R32, it's got 1200bhp, the exhaust manifold is pretty funky and puts the turbo by the headlamp, and it's got early RB20 cam covers, which always look good...

Last of the Skylines I'm going to mention is this R33 GT-R, again running a ridiculous 8.2second quarter mile, with a similar exhaust manifold to the one above...

Skylines aren't the only 4wd straight six turbo Japanese cars running low 8s in Russia. This 1500bhp 2JZ Soarer runs 8.2s. "Hang on 4wd Soarer?!" Yep, fucking 4wd!

They seem to have a thing in Russia about converted normally RWD Toyotas to 4WD with GREAT effect, as well, here's a Supra road car that runs mid 9s and is also 4WD...

Perhaps the most unexpected 4wd Toyota is this one, a big 4 door JZX90 that runs 8.3s...

It actually runs a modified Toyota A340E gearbox, and a BIG power 2JZ with nitrous too.

I knew JZXs were popular in Russia, but the amount of them, even normal road cars, that run 10sec quarters is mental, but I'm gonna show you this one as not only as it runs high 9s thanks to the obligatory big turbo JZ lump, but also looks cool as fuck...

In the UK we're used to JZXs being drift cars, and are usually 550bhp tops, but in Russia they laugh at a mere 550bhp. The JZX100 below (RWD and 2JZ powered) runs 8.6sec quarters! That will be WELL over 1000bhp then...

Who originally said this shit anyhow? I've seen it attributed to Carrol Shelby, Enzo Ferrari, and Carrol Smith, but did any of them really say it? And if they did, it must have been taken massively out of contact, as frankly, it's a load of rubbish.
Fuck it, as there seems to be no proof who said it, I'm starting a new rumour of who made it up, maybe that'd stop people quoting this shit...

You know though, I'm sure it's a mis-quote, and I think I know where it comes from...

Imagine you had a car with BIG bhp, but a tiny peaky powerband, and a gearbox without close ratios. So every time you changed up a gear, you dropped out the powerband, killing your acceleration. So despite the big peak power number, a lesser tuned car, which was less peaky so didn't drop out the powerband, and no doubt had more low/mid torque, would actually be faster; especially on tighter tracks.
In the old days, where this quote seems to originate from, this would be even more of an issue, especially with heavy "muscle" cars running 4, 3, or even 2 speed gearboxes, which means powerful but peaky cars would easily drop out the powerband and be shit slow compared to torquey but low power cars.
But these days, where you tend to have to either totally fuck up the spec to make it mega peaky, and even peaky engines have closely spaced 5/6/7/8 speed gearboxes, the likelyhood of even a road car being driven properly falling out the powerband is slim, and literally no chance on a well built race car.
That's my theory anyhow- This quote is out-dated and taken out of context.

Anyhow, this quote, almost always used by butthurt turbo diesel owners, low power V6 and V8 owners, and anyone arguing with a Honda owners, just makes people who are trying to be clever just sound clueless, like they've never had a proper race or even driven a performance car in their lives. I mean seriously? One tear up with a lower torque but higher power car would tell them their argument is pretty retarded.

When most people talk about torque, what they really mean is low/midrange grunt, and while it's great (I LOVE torque, it makes cars much more fun to drive, in fact it's why I love big boost turbo engines), and it's certainly something any performance engine, road or race, should aim for the maximum of, providing they've got the traction to make use of it, it's not what wins races, power is.

BHP is just Torque and Revs combined. It's a tricky one to explain in words, it's far easier to experience in reality by driving various cars, but torque is the "Strength" of your engine at a set rpm, but the faster your engine is spinning the bigger effect torque has on performance, so torque+rpm = POWER, which is key to how fast your engine can accelerate (providing it can stay in the powerband though the gears, that is!).

First up on the explanation list, a BMW F1 engine dyno graph (allegedly) from the a 2007 2.4ltr F1 engine...

So, what do we have here? Well, it's about 740bhp, and a pretty tiny 230lb/ft of torque.
So 6lb/ft less than a Golf TDI. And with about 150lb/ft at 6500rpm, it's got about the same torque at that RPM as an EP Civic Type-R, which frankly, isn't a whole lot- People make fun of Type-Rs for being torqueless, but F1 engines are no better.
Next up, a standard BMW 335D, 3ltr twin turbo diesel engine...

The above dyno is at the wheels, so I'm going to add about 30bhp/30lbft to these numbers, which about tallies up with the official 282bhp and 428lb/ft figures.
Either way, say peak torque is 428lb/ft, that's 200lb/ft more than a Formula Fucking One engine. And a remapped one is something upwards of 500lb/ft if I remember right, over DOUBLE what one of the modern V8 era F1 engines were.

Does that mean Formula 1 teams are stupid and they should've just used a 335D engine with a £150 plug in remap and be shitloads faster? Fuck no, as only retards think that.

Fuck, even comparing like for like cars, 335i vs 335d, and the 335i is plenty faster, despite "Only" having 20bhp more than the diesel, and about 130lb/ft LESS. Basically, it's not true.

The above picture is about the predictable thing every "Torque wins races" person says next... "But, but, but, WRC cars only have 300bhp but like 700lbt/ft, and they're mega fast, they win races" YES, but they've not got '300bhp' by choice- That's all they can manage because the rules dictated an inlet restrictor to prevent power going higher.
With no option of more power, no issues with traction due to 4wd and sticky tyres, AND a style of motorsport that involves a lot of very slow corners where instant momentary punch of acceleration is a big advantage, you'd be out of your mind not to go for maximum torque to go with the limited bhp you're stuck with.
But for next year the rules in WRC are changing once again, inlet restrictors bigger than ever, allowing more than 400bhp if I remember right. So will they still go for maximum possible power, if it's "Torque that wins races"? Fuck yes they will, as it's power that's the no1 performance enhancer.

Another argument by these people are "So, if torque isn't important, why do drag cars run big V8s?". Err, mostly as they're the easiest to get POWER from you clowns. The above car is Larry Larson's S10 10ltr twin turbo V8 pickup truck. Yeah it's got fucking shitloads of torque, but the reason it runs 5sec quarters at over 240mph is because the bloody thing has upwards of 3000bhp!
Torque is a BAD thing for him, and because of this he deliberately launches at just 8psi of boost, as at full boost it'd make so much torque it'd just smoke the tyres. In fact it's only ramped up to full boost (50psi!) by most the way down the track and he's already doing over 180mph! "Low RPM V8 Grunt" is literally no issue on fast drag cars either- Larry's car never sees under 8000rpm for the whole run after 1st gear!
So once again, power wins races, and in fact, torque can slow you down if you've got more than your tyres can handle...

Why do so many really, really, fast drag cars run centrifugal superchargers, despite turbos giving far more power, and positive displacement superchargers give far more torque? Because turbos and positive displacement superchargers give TOO MUCH torque for the grip, meaning too much wheelspin for any given power level, making them slower overall. Centrifugal chargers increase boost linearly with rpm, giving LOTS of power, almost as much as turbos, but adding only a little extra torque, especially at low and midrange rpm, so they are FAST due to the big power, but still don't wheelspin due to the lower torque.

It's the same reason a lot of the fastest FWD track cars run centrifugal chargers too- FWD is grip limited, and they need big power to "win races", but don't want too much torque or it overpowers the tyres, and thanks to the power delivery of the centrifugal charger they can use more throttle more of the time without it being wasted in wheelspin.

It's the same reason many production turbo cars, and most the fastest turbo race cars, run lower boost in lower gears and lower rpm, compared to in higher revs and rpm- To limit torque so they've got more traction, making them far faster overall.

It's also why naturally aspirated 2wd rally cars are often as fast, or faster, than the 4wd turbo rally cars, on grippy dry tarmac surfaces (where 4wd was no advantage), despite having the same power and often well over 400lb/ft LESS torque- Because its POWER that's the number one performance enhancer, not torque. This happened a lot in the late 90s, with the 4wd turbo WRC cars vs the N/A FWD F2 Maxi Kit cars...

Fuck no! Torque is awesome! Generally, I fucking hate cars with no torque! Surely, if you've any experience of driving at all, you know torque is great, but despite all this, it's not the key need for pure performance.
Low/midrange torque makes for a nicer, easier, car to drive, especially in slow/fast/slow/fast/slow driving, saving you constantly rowing the gearbox to stay at high rpm where the power is. It's why things like Type-R Hondas need driving hard and dropping gears constantly to be fast, and a Golf TDI just needs the throttle planting in almost any gear to go fast- But ultimately, the Honda, with more power, despite loads less torque, is the fastest if both are driven on the limit.
I drive like a dick and love drifting, so LOTS of torque to smoke the tyres is great for me too. I actually find a lot of drift car setups bizarre, as they ideally want torque but the engine isn't tuned/specced for it.
And regardless of drifting, I like BIG boost, as boost = torque, and torque = fun to drive, BUT if I wanted to go as fast as possible, while I'd want the MOST torque my tyres could handle- I'd not want more than that, as it'd be pointless.

So overall...
TORQUE = GOOD.
TORQUE IF YOU GOT THE GRIP FOR IT = FAST
BUT FAST? = POWERRRRRRRR

After the huge popularity of the feature I did on the awesome but barely heard of Ferrari twin turbo V6 HERE, I decided to do one about an even more obscure F1 Turbo engine...
​
​Alfa Romeo are famous for making oddball stuff, and this engine is no exception, having a turbo setup I've honestly never seen on any other engine before or since, but this engine was never raced, info and pics are scarcer than any other...

Alfa already had a F1 Turbo engine in the 80s, a twin turbo 1.5ltr V8 that's very fucking cool and I'll probably do a feature on in the future, but allegedly due to the plans to change the capacity rules down to 1.2ltr in 1988, they designed a new four cylinder engine, which was to be used by Legier (in current spec 1.5ltr form) for the 1987 season.

As the pics show, while the engine was a normal inline 4, twin cam, 16 valve engine, using two fuel injectors per cylinder, it was also twin turbo, but in a VERY unique way, which to be fair, I'm still struggling to understand the reasoning for.

Twin scroll single turbo setups on 4cyl are very common and VERY effective (25psi+ typically by 3500rpm on a 2ltr with a 600bhp capable turbo), which split the exhaust gas flow from cyls 1+4 in to one scroll of the turbine housing, and 2+3 in to the other.
Using twin turbos in a similar way, using cyls 1+4 to one turbo, 2+3 to the other, works in the same way, though rarer as there's little/no real advantage over a single.
Look at the piping on this one though, it's not twin scroll or twin turbo as we know it, in fact I'm not 100% what it is to be honest.

There's 8 exhaust ports, one per valve, which is rare, but not unheard of even on some production engines (Pug 405 Mi16 for example), but if you look, the ones from cyl 1+4 don't go to one turbo, and the ones from cyl 2+3 don't go to the other, in fact it looks like the front exhaust port runner from each cylinder goes to the front turbo, and the rear exhaust port runner from each cylinder goes to the rear turbo!
Exactly what good that would do I can't figure out, in my mind it would do no good at all, as it'd be no different to a single scroll single turbo setup.

The engine produced 850bhp at 4bar boost in early testing/development, but was massively slated by the test driver for terrible drivability and reliability, and was canned before ever being raced, so maybe this bizarre turbo setup really was as cool looking but pointless as it seems. Here's a few more pics, about the only ones out there, showing how the intercooler and external wastegate pipework was laid out...

There's rumours initial testing used a single turbo and 4 exhaust ports, then twin turbo but still 4 exhaust ports rather than the final version which had eight, but I've never seen proof of this via pics or anything else; it's really about the least documented engine there is, which is a shame, as I'd love to know more...

To finish this off, here's a couple of pics of the test car running the engine, showing the fucking enormous Behr intercoolers these badass F1 Turbo engines of the 80s ran...