Intro – cutting through the hype to the invoice
When Malikijah Duvall announced his Turbo X hit the four-digit wheel-horsepower mark, the inevitable question followed: how much did that cost? He answered with a parts-only tally, deliberately excluding labor and non-essential items, and posted the evidence on video.
The parts total he reported – $20,326 – is not a marketing number; it’s a ledger of the major components he deemed required to make 1,000 reliable wheel horsepower on an LY7 conversion. That distinction matters: parts-only numbers give you a repeatable starting point. The real build cost for most people will be higher once you factor in shop hours, driveline reinforcement, safety systems and routine teething repairs.
The parts truth in plain language
Malikijah’s parts bill centers on a handful of categories: engine internals and headwork, forced-induction hardware, fueling, ECU and the driveline. He started with a low-cost LY7 core (roughly $200) and spent where it counts – forged pistons and rods, upgraded head studs and a Hi-Ram inlet to support big airflow. The turbo and the ECU are the other big anchors: a Precision NextGen 7285 turbo (~$4,300) and a FuelTech FT550 with the necessary harness and wideband pushed the package into controllable four-digit territory.

Fueling – high-flow injectors and twin pumps – was non-negotiable and expensive, because running safe timing at extreme boost requires reliable fuelling. All together, Malikijah’s parts list was deliberately focused: buy strength where failure would be catastrophic, buy control where precision matters, and accept simpler, cheaper options where the payoff is small.
Where the money actually goes – how to read the key line items
It helps to think of the budget in three buckets: make power, control power, and transmit power. “Make power” covers the block internals, cams, and the intake/exhaust plumbing needed to get airflow and compression to match the turbo. Malikijah spent on forged pistons and rods and heavy-duty head studs because cheap internals lead to catastrophic losses at these power levels.
“Control power” is the ECU, wideband and tuning hardware – the parts that let you manage ignition and fueling safely; these are expensive because they replace guesswork with data and safety margins. “Transmit power” is the transmission gears, clutch and attention to the transfer-case/axles; ignoring this bucket is the fastest way to see money burned in repairs. The lesson: skimping on any of these three buckets is a false economy – the build’s longevity depends on balance, not just peak numbers.
Lessons learned – practical takeaways for anyone planning this path
Malikijah’s video is candid about tradeoffs.
First: parts-only = repeatable baseline; labour will vary. If you plan to pay a shop for everything, add thousands more for competent labor.
Second: fueling is not optional – under-sized injectors or pumps will limit power or force dangerous conditions; he learned that the hard way and corrected it.
Third: traction and driveline upgrades are mandatory at this level; the car broke traction repeatedly on street rubber and required specific launch and shift strategies to avoid spinning the wheels or damaging the gearbox.
Fourth: you can find cheaper turbos and used cores, and that will reduce cost, but it may change spool behavior and drivability – the build becomes a different car.
Finally: expect revisions. Malikijah candidly acknowledged many prior failed components and iterations; the final $20k reflects the parts that survived the full program, not every earlier experiment.
Dyno proof and the reality of translating parts to performance
Numbers on the rollers confirmed the work: a conservative pass produced ~742 whp at lower boost, while the high-boost dyno runs climbed into the 990–1,000 whp range with torque peaking near 787 lb-ft. Those figures are meaningful because they came after careful stepping up of boost, fueling validation and traction mitigation on the dyno. But the dyno also exposed non-technical realities: the car “walking” on the rollers from torque, wheelspin during street pulls and the practical need to adjust tire pressure and put crew on the bonnet to get a clean high-power pass. In short, making 1,000 whp on the dyno is a validation step – making it usable on the street is a separate engineering problem.
How to approach a similar build without burning cash or parts
If you’re planning an LY7 conversion or a high-power Turbo X, follow a staged path: start with a robust bottom end and basic fueling, then secure a reliable ECU and logging, then address the turbo and driveline. Budget conservatively: use Malikijah’s $20,326 as a parts baseline, and add labor, dyno time and driveline/safety work that will likely push a practical total into a higher bracket for most builders. Shop for used cores and seek trusted fabricators for headers/cross-tubes – those are places to save without compromising safety. And finally, plan for iterations: spare funds for unexpected repairs or tuning changes will keep you moving forward instead of stopping the project mid-stream.
Money, passion and a repeatable blueprint
What Malikijah delivered is valuable beyond the headline number: a transparent, repeatable parts blueprint, coupled with the pragmatic mistakes and fixes that matter to anyone doing this work. $20,326 buys you a believable parts package for a 1,000-hp LY7 Turbo X, but the real cost to complete a safe, daily-usable or reliably trackable car will be higher once labor, chassis work and safety items are added.
For Saab enthusiasts the wider implication is encouraging: with discipline, the right parts and honest testing, extreme performance is attainable from the Turbo X platform. The build is both an exemplar and a caution – you can reach four digits, but you should know exactly where the cash goes and why.











Maybe I’m wrong, but I kind of feel that this power can be made also on the 2.8
To Bryan Murray
it can no problem. But you will need more boost. Smaller displacement and smaller valves, thus requires more boost.
Yes, that I know I’m just curious how the car is going to react with all this new torque the torque from the 2.8 it’s nice already so that 3.6  is going to hit different for sure
To Bryan Murray
my TurboX 2.8 is stroked to 3.2
Have been running this setup for 6 years. First 3.2 motor had high compression running 31psi on e85
The instant toque of the EFR turbo was amazing. Going WOT at 2,000rpm and by 3,000rpm I had 31psi.
While on my way to the dyno in 2022 the banjo bolt thread cracked behind the starter. I tried sealing it and welding it up but the welding expanded the crack into the block and now coolant and oil was mixing. It still drove before the welding but you’d see drops of coolant on the floor. Honestly, I should have packed it with JB weld and ran it. 😂
So I bought a brand new SRX dual VVT 2.8 and built it. It’s still a 3.2 stroker but has dual VVT. I decompressed it to add more boost and I regret doing that. WOT is fine but response down low RPMs is slower than before. Only ideal for highway pulls.
I’ve thought about building a 3.6 since I built the last motor but didn’t get around to it until Malik told me the valves were bigger. That’s a game changer so I have a 3.6 now that I’m building and will keep it high compression with boost and E85.
To answer your question, keeping the 2.8 factory compression (9.5:1) will give you a good amount of torque, also depends on how much aggressive timing you’re running. But a 2.8 is capable of spinning all 4 wheels from the torque. I’ve seen it. 3.6 does it more efficiently because of the bigger valves with less boost.
2.8➡️3.2➡️3.6
^torque chart 😅
To Bryan Murray
100% can be done as soon as the community figures out how to not lift the head in high boost. No one has a solution to that yet
To Malikijah Duvall
what do you mean? What breaks in the head?
To Kalle Uhr
the head lifts and pushes water. The 2.8 community has tried 625 head studs they are now on to testing fire ring head gaskets.
But I also fell victim to this and cracked my 2.8 block. This is why I went with a 3.6
To Malikijah Duvall
I see. What about stainless cylinder sleeves with pyramid gasket cutting into the head together with arp studs?
To Kalle Uhr
no one has gone that far yet. Kamil Polniak and 2 others are the only people at the point of being able to test that currently
To Malikijah Duvall
I never lifted my head after I o-ringed my heads on the 3.2. High compression, aggressive timing, and 31psi and I never had an issue.
Before o-ringing the heads, I started to see leakage into the cylinder at around 25psi with the stroker and aggressive timing.
Gabe started to see it at around 34psi with no aggressive timing.
I port and polished his heads and o-ring them for him. Not sure if he ever installed them.
The 3.2L started doing it within a few months in 2019, then I took the heads off and o-ringed them the same year. Never had an issue after that.
Correction, I o-ringed them August 2020
To Kamil Polniak
nice. I guess its pretty futile to go that far if you can “just” put that bigger v6 into the car.
To Kalle Uhr
yes, I prefer o-ring over fire ring anyways.
It’s better for street use which goes though a lot of heat cycles.
Only thing that’s missing is the turbo oil drain hole in the block and 3.6 has dual VVT where Saab 9-3 only has one (intake).
For me doesn’t matter because I’m already setup for dual VVT so it should be just install other than the turbo oil drain which Malik just welded a bung to the oil pan. That’s a pretty good solution.
To Kalle Uhr
this was my exact thought process especially since GM used the motor in so many cars for years you can find them anywhere
doesn’t seem like there’s any downsides to using them other than the VVT and oil drain. As long as you don’t use their PCV system. Look at the difference on my 3.6 one side is sparkly clean while the other is slugged up (left in the picture has the smaller PCV vent)