An R32 is NOT a 1.8t, it is a narrow angle 3.2l six (VR6) Normally aspirated. They are also more like 240hp with all wheel drive.
All the 1.8t people dump these things when they get serious about HP. (which is I guess why someone gave you 10 of them) They are just to small to be worth the trouble on a V-8. Also, IIRC, they have some pretty crazy cast in inlets and outlets.
I just checked out completed eBay auctions and it appears they don't go for much, even in good shape (less than 10K miles)... I'd guess rebuildable core would go for less than $100.
first of all, the idea of using 8 turbos for each cylinder is completely inefficient. there would be too much loss in heat due to the fact that there is so much gap between exhaust pulses.
if you do run turbos on the 289, run two. one is not very efficient for a v8, since there are two sides that the exhaust comes out. the 4-banger has only one head so the turbo is put real close to the single head. a v8 needs one tubo for each side of the engine. also, the turbo is powered by the expanding gas from the exhaust, so the turbos should be right up against the head, or really close. when you run a single turbo one side and a cross-over pipe from the far head, the heat from that far away head disapates on the way over to the turbo, so there is a lot of potential boost that you lose.
in my opinion, sell the turbos to someone with an audi and use that money to buy a turbo better suited to your application.
The T4 is a much more common setup, but its becoming an old school design.
Garret Turbochargers is working on a few new turbos:
one that has two different sized impellers conected to the same spool
another that has flaps all along the housing that can adjust the amount of flow
Dont give up the idea of turbo-charging, just find out how to do it best. If someone gave me a fuel-injection system for a v12 Ferrari, Id like to use it, but it would not be an efficient setup for my v8. I do wish there were more turbo v8s than supercharged ones, but that has a lot to do with marketing and copying what others do
I had the impression that underhood heat has a lot to do with it. Isn't a turbo just a lot more demanding on materials and technology than a supercharger? In other words, isn't supercharging easier - especially if you want to sit in rush hour traffic, running the air on a 100 degree day?
I have to admit that I like the concept of "free" horsepower from a turbo. The problem is that the extra efficiency comes from running hotter.
well a turbo is laod dependant whereas the s/c is rpm dependant. running down the freeway without overdrive will be torture with a s/c, but a turbo wont be making much boost since hwy driving is a light load. turbos increase exponentially as the engine revs up, but the s/c has a constant, linear increase in load. tubos are more money and will take more planning, but both can make a fast car. turbos are more practical since they only respond when you want it. the s/c is always making boost
if you want a street machine that launches from stoplight to stoplight (or good 1/8 mile drag) get a s/c. if you want decent milage with low 1/4 times, get a turbo.
turbos lag, but haul a** later on
s/cs make good bottom end but have a less steep increase in boost
either way, go fuel injection for sure. the idea of using a carb and a centrifical s/c is ineffiecient. carbs prefer roots blowers, but stock hoods dont prefer them (no clearace with roots)