Turbo 240 or 300

Moderator: Mod Squad

Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #51 by Ramian17 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:41 pm

Yeeeee haaaaaa I like those numbers!!! Don't worry I totally understand that results may vary. I won't get mad at you if those aren't the exact numbers lol. Is there anyway to make sure the head flows 80℅? So you think I should go with the 179282? I honestly don't think I will need to turn it up to 15psi but once in a blue moon especially if your 430ft/lbs prediction is accurate!!!!!!! Why is there such a large margin between torque and horsepower at only 200?



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #52 by Ramian17 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:56 pm

So I read the first 50 pages of that instruction manual. It said that twin scroll housings are better for spooling faster for low RPM. To get that you have to go the B housing Which is the .84? You still confident on the single scroll .64 housing?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #53 by pmuller9 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:40 pm

Ramian17 wrote: Is there anyway to make sure the head flows 80℅?

The port work needs to focus mainly in the bowl area around the valve guides.
The ports walls only need a cleanup without making the ports larger. this will keep velocity high at low rpm.
Here is a good example presently being done by golfmiser
viewtopic.php?p=588394#p588394
You may hit 80% could be a little more with the header and long runner intake.
What size valves will be used?

Ramian17 wrote: Why is there such a large margin between torque and horsepower at only 200?

Horsepower = RPM x Torque/5252
Ramian17 wrote:So I read the first 50 pages of that instruction manual. It said that twin scroll housings are better for spooling faster for low RPM. To get that you have to go the B housing Which is the .84? You still confident on the single scroll .64 housing?

The twin scroll housing for the 6258 is a .80 A/R just to be picky.

I know the single .64 will work. It has a small T25 flange which is restriction to high flow. I wish it was at least a T3 flange.
I don't know if the .80 B housing will give you the same low rpm result because I don't have any experience from me or others to draw a positive conclusion.
It may work just as well at low rpm while providing more upper rpm power at the same time. It uses the much larger T4 twin scroll flange.
You will get boost at low rpm just don't know how much.

I personally would go with the twin scroll housing and plumb header tubes 1,2,3 to one side of the scroll and 4,5,6 to the other side.
I would bank on the fact that under the load of 3rd and 4th tranny gear, the 300 six will produce enough exhaust volume to get plenty of low rpm boost.
(I don't like giving away horsepower)
Also need to remember that if you try get too much boost at too low of an rpm, the turbo can be driven into the surge zone.
You are in uncharted territory because most of the time the person is looking to make horsepower and not worried about off idle torque.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #54 by Ramian17 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:35 pm

The intake is 1.6 and the exhaust is 1.94. I honestly dont know which housing to go with. I'm going to keep reading and asking questions lol. I like the B housing. I personally have no idea if the motor would be pushing enough volume at 2500-3000 with the B housing. I'm sure there is a chart? I only have a three speed so when she is is screaming it's usually second and third. I would say your right I probably honestly don't need much improvement in power at the super low rpm. The van had a 240 and in first and second gear she had way more power obviously. I wouldn't think much more is required to tow what I want in first gear....Around town. It's the upper second and mostly the upper third gear where I need some more go juice when she is loaded down super heavy up hills aka interstate on ramps those....fun things.



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #55 by pmuller9 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:45 pm

The 300 will certainly have enough exhaust volume above 2000 rpm to get full boost with the B2 housing.
The only question was how much boost between 1000 and 2000 rpm.
If any amount of boost below 2000 rpm will work for you then go with twin scroll housing.
It may also help to keep the turbo out of the surge zone at low rpm.

You will want the low boost canister for that housing also.
I can show you how to make an adjustable spill valve so you can vary the boost.

It looks like you know a lot more about turbos then you did a few days ago. LOL



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #56 by pmuller9 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:44 pm

So I just looked on the Jegs site and they are showing a B1 body size .80 twin scroll turbine housing.
I would say that this one should be good to go.
http://www.jegs.com/i/BorgWarner/156/11 ... 6/10002/-1



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #57 by Ramian17 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:13 pm

Oh yeah I like it. Cheap too lol just with in the budget. I still hope it will make a little boost below 2000. Correct me if I'm wrong but I read that these motors are still mean machines with only 5-8psi. Also isn't this one still sized for a motor smaller than mine? So hopefully she will spool up fast. Yeah I'm learning slowly but surely. I can't thank you enough for your help I would of been screwed without all of your advice. What is a spill valve another valve on the wastegate?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #58 by pmuller9 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:45 pm

I checked the Dollar Store but didn't see one there. Oh Well

The 300 six does indeed makes a lot of torque at low boost levels so any boost at low rpm will make the van roll along very well.

The line from the internal wastegate canister connects directly to the intake manifold. The spring in the canister holds the wastegate closed.
As boost increases, at some point the pressure in the top of the canister will overcome the spring and opens the wastegate to dump exhaust.
There is some adjustment in the linkage between the wastegate valve and the canister to adjust the spring pressure but as you shorten the link to increase spring pressure the travel is decreased so the wastegate valve cannot be opened the full amount.

A spill valve goes in the line between the canister and the intake manifold.
Its job is to bleed off some of the pressure going to the canister so it will take more manifold pressure to open the wastegate valve.

It can be as simple as a "T" with an adjustable needle and seat. When the needle is closed no air is spilled and you get normal boost.
As the needle is opened air is spilled reducing the pressure to the canister and the boost level is increased.
The only other addition is a one way valve in the line so when there is a vacuum in the intake manifold there will not be a vacuum leak which will mess with the idle rpm.
Last edited by pmuller9 on Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #59 by Ramian17 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:12 pm

Gotcha sounds like it is going to be some fun piping work. If by some miracle we pull his thing off and she is making 12psi at 2500 and a mean machine at that rpm. Then most likely will she be making 5psi at 1500, giving here considerable more power than stock? Obviously they are made up numbers and a huge hypothetical. But do turbos work that way or do they just basically need a certain amount coming in and once they get that they go from basically nada to whatever you have your boost set to? So the spill valve allows you to boost higher than the internal wastegate is set? I need this because my wastegate is going to be set at to low of a boost level?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #60 by pmuller9 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:22 pm

The reason for spending the money on a ceramic ball bearing, low inertia, twin scroll turbo is to have full boost buy 2000 rpm or even before.
I can tell you from experience that the EFR turbo will begin to spin as soon as you hit the engine starter. Our twin 88mm turbos did.
Combine that with a cam that makes peak torque around 2000 rpm and there should be more than 5 lbs available at 1500 rpm.

It takes a certain amount of energy to compress the air to the target boost level and also overcome bearing friction.
The time to get there (accelerate the turbo wheel) is based on the amount of inertia the wheel has along with bearing friction.
If the engine is producing enough exhaust energy to meet those needs then target boost level can be achieved.

When you are in high gear the engine speed doesn't change very quickly and the load on the engine allows exhaust pressure to build to a high level to drive the turbo and also give the turbo time to catch up to engine flow requirement at target boost level.
In low gear at WOT the turbo is chasing the rapid change in engine speed and may never reach target boost.
Here is where the low inertia and low friction pays off again by allowing the turbo to track the engine more closely resulting in higher low gear acceleration.
Hope this answers your question.

Yes, the purpose of the spill valve is to allow you to adjust the boost level above the baseline set by the wastegate canister so it is important to have the baseline below the boost range that you want to use.

If I remember correctly The Holley HP EFI has a safety boost limit that can be set in case the wastegate control has a problem like the control line from the intake manifold is off or damaged or some other mishap.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #61 by Ramian17 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:07 am

Yeah it totally makes sense I'm building this motor that will have all the power I would ever need in the top end. I just hope the new 300 has enough umph to get the 7000 pound van and the 2000 pound Suzuki samurai or trailer behind me going in first gear lol? I'm trying to shop around and find that EFR 6852 for a little less.
http://edgeautosport.com/borgwarner-efr ... rbocharger
What do you think of this website and price?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #62 by pmuller9 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:36 am

The price looks good.
There is another 4% off once you get it to the shopping cart for $1661 and there doesn't appear to be tax or shipping charges.

Their customers on facebook seem to be happy with them.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #63 by Ramian17 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:25 pm

So get this I just talked to my header guy and he didn't even bat a eye when I asked if he could make a true twin scroll header so that's good. I also talked to Mike at Southeast power sports a huge dealer for BW. I gave him all the info and he is going to run some matches on some different​ turbos. He thinks that with the 300 displacement and the twin scroll header that the turbo will have no problem making boost by 1500. He said the major problem will be the waste gate won't bleed enough volume off at high rpm and the turbo will over spool which I think is really bad!!!! Lol He said that with there's you have the already installed speed sensor so you can sat it up with the computer to never over spool and run everything. He is going to send me some matches of different sized turbos . What do ya think?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #64 by pmuller9 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:00 pm

I'm glad that you have a header guy that is up to the task.

The lower the boost level that you want to operate at, the larger the wastegate needs to be because more exhaust needs to be dumped to keep the boost level low.
Most people trying to use an internal wastegate turbo at low boost end up adding an external wastgate.
However BW spent a lot of testing internal wastegate sizes and have install larger wastegate than their competitors.
The B1 frame comes with a 31 mm port wastegate which is a good size compared to others.

Problem 2 is that even with the BW wastegate if a person is trying to adjust the boost higher by making the linkage shorter to compress the canister spring, the travel is decreased and the wastegate door opening decreases.
That is why we talked about using a spill valve for boost control instead of linkage adjustments.

You also have boost limit control in the Holley HP EFI software.

Installing an external wastegate is a pain in the butt, takes up too much room, extra expense and should be avoided at all cost.
Last edited by pmuller9 on Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #65 by Ramian17 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:29 pm

This is the email back.
As to the turbocharger match we discussed, I’ve done a simple match using the BorgWarner MatchBot, and below is the link to the first match:
image002.jpg

http://www.turbos.borgwarner.com/go/FOPKVI

When you view this match, there are a few things to consider, and keep in mind that this is just a first-shot match, so I’ll point out a few things with some simple screen snips:

First, the most basic engine and requirement information, including your RPM range:



I also set indicated turbo boost pressure between 5 and 10psi with a ramp-up from 1500-2000RPM, which, given your engine displacement, I think is very possible.

Just these simple inputs spat out a compressor match for the EFR6258:

image009.jpg


Frankly, it doesn’t get much better than this; all six plot points are within the map envelope, and, at your peak boost, you’re not only well into very efficient map islands, you’re also well within the peak flow of the compressor, and also, and most importantly, you’re well below the peak speed lines. This is a VERY safe compressor match.

Next is the turbine map, and that did require some manipulation of the wastegate flow percentages, which we’ll discuss further below:


image007.png


Again, this is a very good match, with the manipulation to the wastegate percentages being surprisingly not as bad as I expected, and, again, this still all falls within the safe operating speed of the turbocharger.

A bit about the calculated outputs here:

image010.png


I’m not completely sure where you needed to be for total HP, but I know torque was important, and, assuming you can match those fuel delivery requirements and the engine can handle that relatively low boost, you’ll have plenty of usable torque from 1500rpm onward; that’s diesel-level torque right there. It would seem that 200lb/hr fuel injectors would be a good match, and the good news is that those are cheap and easy to locate.

Okay, so far, so good. But we’re not done, because we still have to work on that wastegate percentage change:



Above is the good news; the EFR B1 family, which includes the EFR6258, uses a 31mm WG port, split into two actual passages, so you have the physical materials to handle the flow. The key is going to be to program or set your boost control curve to match the duty cycle of the BCSV (the wastegate solenoid) to the operation of the valve, so that you can maintain fairly high percentages of wastegating to keep that turbine speed down, and to reduce backpressure to make the power you need.

Here’s what I found with regard to that required percentage:

image008.png

image012.png


This is the tricky part; the EFR B1 “G” housing (the twin-scroll) has wastegate flow capability of around 40-45% maximum, which is quite high, but it’s right there at the limit of what we’ll be asking for, with that 3000RPM line asking for just over 45%. Can it do it? Yes, I believe it can, but this is where the turbine speed sensor, and, of course, careful control of the wastegate, will ensure that you don’t overspeed the unit.

For what it’s worth, “If” we raise the boost pressure to 12psi at 3000RPM, the wastegate percentage drops immediately to 37.76%. This may be an easy way to not only overcome that possible issue, but, as well, to drive up power, as that also pumps peak HP to 336. Something to consider, for sure.

So, this tells us that you had already done a pretty good job of matching the unit. Good for you.

That takes us to the bad news; the pricing. Below, I’ve quoted the unit, along with companion items you may find useful or necessary:

Complete turbocharger, with “Low Pressure” wastegate canister, and iron bearing housing: $1683.40. As I mentioned, due to the configuration of this unit, we would need to assemble it here, but I just checked, and every component is in stock, so lead time would be very short; 1-2 days maximum.

Turbine outlet v-flange: $34.96 (machined stainless; designed for a 3” downpipe design)
Turbine outlet v-clamp: $55.20 (for the above)
Oil drain flange for your choice of -10 (5/8” i.d.) push-on oil cooler hose, or -10AN hose assembly: $27.70.
Water-port connection fittings for -6AN hose assemblies: $3.01 each (2 required).

All of these materials are in stock.

The oil supply connection fitting is included with the turbo, as a -4AN line. You would need a corresponding oil supply line from a full-flow, filtered oil supply. If you can supply a total length for that line, we can also supply that complete line, and we can also do the same for the oil drain hose, whether you require push-on hose or an AN-style assembly. Ditto for the water lines. All of that said, this is material that I’m sure you can source locally if you have a good hose-and-fitting store nearby.

The remaining connection points for the turbo are fairly simple; the turbine inlet is the T4, twin-scroll (we can supply a flange if your manifold builder has any trouble finding one), and the compressor inlet is a simple 3” hose connection, and the outlet is a 2” connection. When you select an air filter, just use the information above for an airflow requirement, and I would suggest adding about 33% additional flow.

Well what do you ya think pmuller?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #66 by pmuller9 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:57 pm

I'm glad to see that you are going through the calculations.

Now change the volumetric efficiency down to 80%
and change the intercooler effectiveness down to 50%
With the ported head the engine VE will be somewhere around 80%.
An air to air intercooler can be up to 60% efficient but I like to use 50% just to be conservative.

You will find a difference in the new results.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #67 by Ramian17 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:21 pm

That does this which does not look very good.
Screenshot_20170317-190430.png
Screenshot_20170317-190450.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #68 by pmuller9 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:55 pm

That looks about right and close to real world results.

The points are actually sitting on a good place on the map with a little room for extended rpm range way beyond 3000 rpm.

What did you mean by "This doesn't look very good"?
Did you want more power @ only 10 lbs of boost with an intercooler effectiveness of 50%?

Stock power for a late model 4.9 EFI engine was 150 hp @ 3400 rpm and 260 ft lbs of torque @ 2000 rpm.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #69 by Ramian17 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:23 pm

Haha no no I think that will be over the top power I'm worried about the motor shredding my unibody!!!!! Lol. I thought that all the red dots on the second graph needed to be on a line? That's what I was thinking was not good?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #70 by pmuller9 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:39 pm

Ramian17 wrote:I thought that all the red dots on the second graph needed to be on a line? That's what I was thinking was not good?


Those dots are moved by manually adjusting the turbine expansion ratio values at the bottom of the first page.

Yep I can see it now. The van twisted with the drivers side front wheel about a foot in the air, busted out windshield, doors stuck closed..ect but What a ride!!!



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #71 by pmuller9 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:27 pm

From the email It looks like these guys have everything needed to assemble a complete EFR 6258 turbo with the correct housing, canister and fittings.
The oil lines and water lines will probably need to be measured after the turbo is mounted so they may need to purchased later.
The price is also right for that particular turbo.

Nice work!!



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #72 by Ramian17 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:47 pm

Awesome so you're telling me the turbine expansion value is totally adjustable? That's good. I'll talk to him on Monday and hopefully make it work in which case I'll be making a purchase. You think it's the right call?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #73 by pmuller9 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:55 pm

As far as I can tell it is one of the few places that will put the turbo together with all the right components you want including oil and water connections.
Also double check the reviews. I looked on facebook and all I saw was happy costumers.
I would say it is the right call.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #74 by Ramian17 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm

Awesome yeah I'll call them tomorrow. So I'm putting a new larger gas tank in the van right now. I am trying to hook up the fuel line and the return line to the tank. What kind of psi are we talking about on this return line. Can I just have a bung/nipple on the top of the tank that a little rubber hose with some hose clamps goes to or does it need to be all metal fuel lines into and out of the tank? Also what king of fuel pumps do you recommend for this project? I have no idea what turbo fuel injected motors need?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #75 by pmuller9 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:59 pm

In tank fuel pump stays cooled from the gas and seems to be the most reliable.
I have never had a problem with Aeromotive pumps and regulators.

I would size the pump for minimum 400 hp forced induction which is 160 lph.
The in tank Aeromotive 200 would get the job done.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/aei-18689/overview/

The return line has very little pressure in it but for protection I would use stainless steel for both the fuel pressure and return line.

You will also need a boost referenced return pressure regulator and fuel filter.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/aei-13129/overview/
Last edited by pmuller9 on Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #76 by Ramian17 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:47 am

I like the idea of stainless steel line all the at to the tank. I don't know what kind of fitting I would put on the tank for that?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #77 by pmuller9 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 9:22 am

Ramian17 wrote:I like the idea of stainless steel line all the at to the tank. I don't know what kind of fitting I would put on the tank for that?

If you use the in tank pump I suggested or similar, the inlet and outlets are outside the tank as part of the pump assembly
The pump inlet and outlet are set up for 6 AN fittings.
You would use 6 AN to 3/8" hard line adapters



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #78 by Ramian17 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 5:56 pm

I like that fuel pump but none the less it sounds kinda scary to cut a huge hole in the bottom of the tank and try to seal it with a huge o ring lol. Have you ever used it? I'm sure it works great it just looks a little scary!?!?!? Any one ever used one of these for that matter?



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #79 by Ramian17 » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:43 pm

Do you our know of any OE preferably external fuel pumps that supply that much? That way I can still pick it up at NAPA.



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #80 by pmuller9 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:19 am

Ramian17 wrote:I like that fuel pump but none the less it sounds kinda scary to cut a huge hole in the bottom of the tank and try to seal it with a huge o ring lol. Have you ever used it? I'm sure it works great it just looks a little scary!?!?!? Any one ever used one of these for that matter?

The pump is installed through a hole in the top of the tank which should already be in the top of the new tank that you purchase, the same as all OEM in-tank fuel pump installations.
In-tank fuel pumps have very few failures because they are cooled by the gas.
Millions are running around on the streets every day.

The problem with looking for an external inline pump at Napa or any other parts store is it is tough to find specs on replacement fuel pumps.

Second problem is because your fuel pressure is boost referenced your pump will need a lot higher max pressure rating than the standard pumps found at the auto parts stores.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #81 by Ramian17 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:36 pm

Ok cool I like the top of the tank a lot better. I guess im not that against in tank pumps but either way they are ten fold more difficult to replace. Yeah I understand those problems I was just hoping someone or you might of already know of a high psi and high flow OE pump. Maybe off a 2017 Corvette or something like that lol?Unfortunately my new tank is made for a 1969 mustang. It has a sending unit that looks like this.
IMG_20170322_102927509.jpg

IMG_20170322_102927509.jpg


And is mounted in the side. I wanted to use this sending unit with an external pump. The outlet from the tank on that sending unit is 1/4 inch. Is that big enough to flow what I need? I know they make adaptors that go from that to AN so I could go to steal braided right off the tank and then right to an external inline pump? What you think? Also with an AN fitting welded into the top of the tank for my return line.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #82 by Ramian17 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:22 pm

So I just talked to Mike at Southeast power systems. He said that once some boost is produced that the head should flow over %100? Not sure if that is true? He also said that if you turn the VE down that low (%80) that the matchbot will tell you that we do need to go to a smaller turbo lol. But he said that there is no way that would be a good idea. What do ya think?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #83 by pmuller9 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 4:39 pm

Most external inline pumps have a larger inlet size than the outlet size.
Because the pump can now be some distance from the tank they want to insure that it can draw oK.
The external pumps around 50 gph have either an 3/8" or 1/2" inlet size with an 3/8 outlet.

So No on the 1/4" tank outlet.
Last edited by pmuller9 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #84 by pmuller9 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:23 pm

Ramian17 wrote:So I just talked to Mike at Southeast power systems. He said that once some boost is produced that the head should flow over %100? Not sure if that is true? He also said that if you turn the VE down that low (%80) that the matchbot will tell you that we do need to go to a smaller turbo lol. But he said that there is no way that would be a good idea. What do ya think?

Engine VE is the ratio of air density in the cylinder at the end of the intake cycle versus the air density in the intake manifold.
Airflow by volume in the intake ports does not change just because the air density is greater.
In fact if the exhaust pressure in the exhaust manifold is a lot greater than the intake manifold pressure the VE can be less than the non-boosted VE.

However airflow by weight does change and this is where the confusion is centered around.

Anyway My VE and intercooler numbers are conservative and can be adjusted up.
After the port work and larger valves the engine can certainly make 300 ft lbs of torque at low rpm without boost, using the small 202 duration cam.
If you put those numbers in the MatchBot at zero boost the VE shows 85%.
The intercooler effectiveness can be raised to 60% which is also reasonable.
The points fall within a good range on the compressor map from 1500 rpm to 3500 rpm.

A good double check as to reality is the boosted torque and hp numbers will be less than the non-boosted (Base line) numbers multiplied by the pressure ratio. The "How much less" is mainly based on the intercooler effectiveness.
We used ice water intercoolers for slightly better that 100% effectiveness so we expected baseline times pressure ratio power results and that is what we saw with our turbo engines.

Example: if you know that a particular 300 is making 325 ft lbs of torque without boost and someone says it can make 600 with 10 lbs of boost (1.68 pressure ratio) without an intercooler, you can safely figure that it is not going to happen.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #85 by Ramian17 » Fri Mar 24, 2017 11:22 pm

Thanks so much for all of your help Pmuller. You truly have schooled me into being able to somewhat understand all of this lol. That's going to be fun putting a bigger outlet in my tank but I'll make it happen. Will I need high psi for this application or will standard 40-60 psi do it? I emailed Mike Southeast power systems middle of this week and he still hasn't got back to me but I am probably just going to pull the trigger on the BW 6852. How can you make intercoolers more effective for an everyday driver? Just size?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #86 by pmuller9 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:10 am

You are quite welcome.

Pump Pressure: The injector flow ratings are usually based on a fuel pressure of 43.5 psi. You can use a higher pressure to increase flow if needed.
Lets say that you set the base pressure at 45 psi. For every lb of boost the pressure regulator adds a lb of fuel pressure.
If the max boost that will be used is 15 psi then the fuel pressure can be as high as 60 psi. It is good to have margin so it would be good if the max pump pressure was at least 70 psi.

The intercooler efficiency is size and the amount of air flow through it.
It should sit in front of the radiator. If you are using electric fans for the radiator, they will be controlled by the EFI system.
Normally the fans won't come on till the water temp reaches a certain temp but you can add the second condition where the fans come on anytime the intercooler air temp goes above a certain point.

I really wish you would consider installing the in-tank pump assembly I recommended.
For the sake of a second opinion I checked with my neighbor who has been doing restorations for many years. He is presently switching out an engine in a 56 Chevy to an EFI crate engine and is installing an in-tank pump. I asked him about his experience with pumps.
Long story made short, He has had too many bad experiences with external pumps and will only use in-tank pumps.



Ramian17
Registered User
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:39 am

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #87 by Ramian17 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:05 pm

Huh really that's crazy about the pumps thanks for asking around. I am totally considering the in tank option I just hate the idea of having to drop the tank in the middle of the woods somewhere to put a new on in lol. Did he say what the problems with the external pumps were?



pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1016
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Olympia, WA

Re: Turbo 240 or 300

Post #88 by pmuller9 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 2:21 pm

The failures my neighbor has seen is the external pumps just quit running.
His personal experience was during a long trip where the pump left him stranded in Reno.
The failures I have seen with inline external pumps are also with performance street cars.

The best we can figure is the failures are caused by the heat generated during operation.
The in-tank pumps that stay cool from being submerged in the gas definitely have a better life span.
The hopes would be that you wouldn't have to worry about pump failure for a long time with a submerged pump.

Just make a removable panel in the truck bed to access the pump. LOL



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest