turbo 200 build

Moderator: Mod Squad

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #101 by pmuller9 » Sun May 13, 2018 3:22 pm

I understand about the no further need for speculation but you should go to the dyno with certain expectations.
Here is the compressor map for your turbo. It is more aggressive than the GT2860R turbo that was originally discussed
Image

The red load line represents 15 lbs of boost from 3000 to 5500 rpm. 380 HP @ 5500
The orange line represents 10 lbs of boost from 3000 to 5500 rpm. 330 HP @ 5500

This is assuming a very high VE at 5500 rpm due to the long duration cam you presently have along with an air to air intercooler with at least a 50% effiency.

What is important and expected from looking at the load line is that full target boost can be aquired by 3000 engine rpm. (Or close to it)
If you have to wait past 3000 rpm to get full boost then the cam profile is a mismatch.
You are looking for the widest power band possible and should use as much of the dynamic range of the turbocharger as possible

Also note that running the engine rpm much past 6000 will drive the turbo close to the choke zone.

We all will be anxiously waiting for dyno results.
You are doing an Outstanding Job!

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6433
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #102 by xctasy » Mon May 14, 2018 6:50 am

I'm on the same page and with you all. On big turbos, the critical surge zone is where the cam and the engines exhaust fails to give enough excitation to the turbo off idle to 2500rpm, and the turbo 200 becomes a dangerous combination if the cam is too large as well. Sixes don't do that like OHC Fours do, so you'll have to try real hard to mess up the lower part of the abdiactic curve with what puller9 has in the graph above. But at wideh open throttle, it might be a risk. I'm pretty sure you'll have more than 155 cfm at 520 lift.



The turbo size waranings I've gotten are from David Vizard's SOHC Pinto engine book.



Going back to a known good idling 250 turbo EFI engine build.

With 44 to 48 pound per hour injectors, an intake of 552thou lift and 221degrees at 50 thou, Exhaust 578 thou and 231 degrees at 50 thou on a 112 lobe center line. About 220 cfm at the ports, and 250 cubes with a 4 stage auto and you use a big butt turbo.

Borg Warner SX 300 60 mm twin scroll turbocharger, with T4 0.88 A/R ratio.


it makes insane boost from less than 3000 rpm


Image


This all goes back to what works being a lot more radical than you'd expect.


Knocking off 50 cubes, reducing the over scavaging but adding some intake lift, putting in a manual, and going back to a Stone Age Iron head means you can use some extra duration.

I see nothing to worry about here. The 1.68 and 2.02:1 boost ratios (what 10 and 15 psi are without the heat factor)....they are kind of right at the low end even with a tame 60mm T4 0.88 A/R ratio.

I keep comming back to how big a 3.3 liter engine with short rods and some serious fuel and ignition ramps can be. Its goes back to the ancient 1972-1973 9 port Holden Torana engine getting a shot in the arm development in 1985...., becoming a 12 port EFi engine, making 142 hp and 198 lb-ft. Which is what 190 hp Gross and something like 200 lb-ft gross is in SAE net with the very basic 260 degee, 185 degree at 50 thou early cam. The EFI Commodore used ALMOST the same cam as the base model XU1 Torana

Image

This is a 1972 triple carb 3.3 liter engine with a small 260 degree cam. The additional power of the 312 degree cam was unreported, but it was 216 hp net on an open iron header race car, and the best seen with Strombergs or SU's and the stock kind of iron twin outlet header was 238 hp net. With beeter carbs, 250 to 300 hp easy.


So the right cam and induction system makes the 200 or 202 six an excpetional device. A cam with 240 thou duration at 50 thou over a 185 to 195 degree cam is worth, literally, 40 hp, with no major loss of torque down low. The torque curve is just fattened out and moved upwards. Its worth a huge amouht of boost in a turbo car.

That base could make It REALLY produce the goods on a little 3.3 liter six that normally is restricted to about 300 hp at 7000 rpm without an aluminum cylinder head. With the best cylinder head around (zjello's remastered knock off of the Phil Irving 12 port Heron head), they go up to 370 hp at 7000rpm.


With 30 pounds of boost, a moderate XU1 312 degree cam 215 hp solid lifter 3.3 with this kind of EFi intake then makes 403 rwhp and 600 hp at the flywheel on 30 pounds of boost and 20 degrees of total spark lead. The cast alloy solid skirt Mahale XU1 pistons that Repco and ACL made for the 1972-1973 Bathurst race cars can survive regular 7500 rpm use, and as long as the fuel delivery and spark advance is kept in check, a 30 pound boost engine with forged rods and those pistons can carry well over 6000 rpm thrashes. Like, 7500 rpm.


The best example was the January 2003 Australian Street Machine preview of the Western Australian Mick Munro's OVA BOOST. Just a two stage factory Powerglide auto with a high stall converter.


It was put together while he was still working for FORMAZ. On the strength of this 9.92@135 mph Power Glide and 28 x 11.5 wheeled 2400 pounder, Mick started OVA BOOST Engineering. Sadly, it became 2JZ after he eventually threw a rod in this Holden 202 in line six, but it took about 5 years of thrashing to do it.


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Image

Image


Image
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #103 by pmuller9 » Mon May 14, 2018 7:18 pm

xctasy wrote:So the right cam and induction system makes the 200 or 202 six an excpetional device. A cam with 240 thou duration at 50 thou over a 185 to 195 degree cam is worth, literally, 40 hp, with no major loss of torque down low. The torque curve is just fattened out and moved upwards. Its worth a huge amouht of boost in a turbo car.

We see this phenonema on the big six and is mainly due to the port flow and volume being so small with respect to the 50 cu inch cylinder volume.

The last 300 I assembled had a big valve ported head that flowed 212 cfm at .600 lift and a cam with an .050" duration of 232*, adv 288*.
It still idled at 650 rpm and pulled 17 inches of vacuum at 750 rpm which is a good indicator of the low end response.
It made more torque just above 2000 rpm than the .050" 192* stock cam stock engine.

However this is not the case here.
As you pointed out, the modified head probably flows in the 175 cfm range and no longer has a small port flow with respect to the 34 cu inch cylinder volume.
This is indicated by the rough idle and low rpm responce of the engine.

Anyway I will wait to see what the actual results are and will not speculate any further.

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #104 by 67Straightsix » Tue May 15, 2018 12:19 am

I've enjoyed reading and rereading all the posts after the cam info was posted. It's obvious that you guys are much more knowledgeable about all this than I am, so I'm digesting all the information and will try to make the best decisions I can. I've learned a lot from all your posts and appreciate all the enthusiasm.
Some posts really made me question my cam choice with the turbo I have. However, after reading all the posts and going over the turbo maps, I'm really curious on where the torque and hp curves are going to be - I have several ideas if I need to change something - there's a lot of tuning that still needs to be done. But the car IS running and for the time being I'm very happy :D

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6433
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #105 by xctasy » Tue May 15, 2018 1:57 pm

As Sam Blumstein from Chevy Offroad and Marine said "There are no wrong cams...only wrong engine combinations."


The key part is making sure your air speed is high, your port and runner area and volumes are the minium to get the job done. What pmuller9 says about idle vacuum and low end torque growth with no loss is spot on. :thumbup:



Specific to the 300.

pmuller9 wrote:We see this phenonema on the big six and is mainly due to the port flow and volume being so small with respect to the 50 cu inch cylinder volume.


Its actually the same with the 200 and 250 if port and intake ruuner volume are taken down a notch...even with a big cam. OVA BOOST uses the stock 2 liter intake runner 1985 Commodore Electronic Injection intake, and it uses what US guys would call a pretty exteme cam....the stock XU1 Bathurst cam, 312 degrees, with a big ball bearing turbo. That should be enough to convince you to look at a lower intake runner volume.


OVA BOOST was one example. I'll give you another great example.

The stock Ford 250 X flow intake runner to the head is 2.3 liters, not including the heads intake port CC's.


Most aftermarket ones are 50 to 155% of the engine volume, 6 to 6.2 liters in a common size. Like mike1157''s old intake runner.

They create huge off boost lag compared to the stock 2.3 liter intaske runner, but even so....On a drag car with a high stall Powerglide or 4 or six stage auto, they tear up the tarmac. Offbost, they are Lame-er, but excatly Lame.


With a big total runner volume, After cooming on boost, they then make simply epic horsepower.


Even with a 6 liter intake volume, the old Glia Monster still had sublime off turbo response because the cam was so small for its cylinder capacity, and the cylinder heads ports were small, with very high gas speeds.



Que your intake.....

Image

I guess it is a sectioned down 3 by 5 RHS section, 24 long. By my estimates, it is less than 5715 cc's. It looks like 20% has been cut off. So its gotta be 4572 cc's or so perhaps.

with six 1-3/8 by 2-1/2" runners 4" deap = 1386 cc's

Total has to be about 6 liters (6000 cc's or 366 cubic inches or less). That's 188% of the engine volume if its a 3.3 liter engine.

The key thing is the short side radius has been tidied up, and the effective runner volume is really only 1386 cc's. The 3 by 5 log at the top is really just a stagnant flow supplier to six very short ruuners which feed pockets in the head that are less than 110 ccs at the runner.



If it cammy, you can fill in the top runner with an alloy plate to reduce the total volume back. You only need 2690 cc's at the top, for a total runner volume of 2690 cc plus 1386, or about 4076, or 123% of your engine size.You can go down to about 3315 cc's if you make an effective throat size of 63.5 mm in the top of the T that feeds the six leg ins. Thats 100% of the engine capacity as it stands.

You open up the top of the 3 by 5, and put in an alloy or Poly Ethelyne spacer to approimate the internal throad of the throttle body you are using.

As you get down to 2.3 liters, the off boost performance improves a whole heap. Due to the stroke differences between a 250 and 200, there is only a 9% difference in peak power rpm, and the off boost idle and transition to boost is fixed up.


Just cut a 3 by 5 by 24 slot in the top of the runner, and replace it with a nice piee of alloy plate allen bolted or cap screwed in, (and maybee put "Power by Ford 200 " on it!).

Start with a plate that necks down the top one US gallon, 3785 cc's. That will fix any off boost camminess your worried about.


The other bits of kit are then putting tied in tongues to the lower port floor going into the six 1.65" effective diameter ports. The runners can be necked down about 12 cc for the depth of each approx 4 inch runner, taking 72 cc's off the total 1386 cc the six runners might be sized at right now. Low speed flow will go up, and air speed will go up, and camminess reduced. The bottom 1/8" of each port needs to be filled in like a 4V Boss 302 head or a 4V 351 head "back in the day". That can be done by alloy spacers or fillers that ey can be bolted in by cap screw. Then you can fiddle with the cam retard or advance, lifter clearances, and dial the engine combination to suit the cam.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #106 by pmuller9 » Tue May 15, 2018 9:37 pm

67Straightsix

What rocker arm ratio are you using?

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #107 by 67Straightsix » Wed May 16, 2018 12:32 am

pmuller The rocker arms are adjustable 1.6 ratio.

x you are close on the plenum dimensions. 3.5 x 3 3.5x4.5 22 long

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6433
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #108 by xctasy » Wed May 16, 2018 3:11 pm

67Straightsix wrote:pmuller The rocker arms are adjustable 1.6 ratio.

x you are close on the plenum dimensions. 3.5 x 3 3.5x4.5 22 long




Oh yeah, transition from top 3 x 3.5 to bottom 3.5 by 4.5.

I guess about 500 cc's off those totals might be bang on.


I'm sorry if the comparisons seam pure speculation.

But it goes like this.


The X-flows run 1.73, or 1.7-1.75 if you use the aftermarket rockers.

So the little 200 can take and needs more intensive cam that needs to make up for the lack of lift.

The so called 202 Holden has 1.5:1 lifters, and a lot less lift, as well as having a smaller 845 thou GM lifter.

The Ford 144-250 lifter is the SBF lifter diameter, and like all of them compared to Chevy lifters, it can make take and make a lot more intense lift, but its still less than what I've used. Most cams are sadly ground off Chevy profile masters, and don't allways take advantage of the lifter diameter.


A real factor in reducing "camminess" is the lousy 1.5:1 rod length to stroke ratio. 4.715 over 3.126. It hurts the peak power rpm level. Fords Aussie in line six development engineer found in 1969 that as you cam up the engine, the rev range didn't increase the way a normal 1.7 to 2:1 rod ratio engine did. This is not particular to the Ford six; all engines that have reduced rod ratios do the same thing. You would pour more duration and lift, but even with big ports, the power peak wouln't go up much past 4800 rpm. But it can rev to 7500 rpm.

The idealised engine analyser calculations correct for it when the cam durations and lifts are put in, I've had a 15 year long quest for understanding how engines like this have to be tuned. The asnwer is more cam lift on intake and changing the overscavenging of the exhaust profile to suit the engine cobination. Clay Smit has done that with your cam, and the other cam SynchromeshWines got recommned to him by Jerry does it too.

I'm pretty sure all cam suppliers do a limitmus test.... does this client really need a bigger cam. If he is a normal conservative Ford sixer, probaly not. But if its a real hard core performance guy with a light car and some real modifications, then, YES YES YES.



On the the over square nature of the engine...it doesn't really do a thing to stop the 200 still being a tractor engine.



Based on the calculations, you engine is still air flow limited, and could possibly take even more 50 thou figures than what you have. Most of the EFI guys are still using bnak fire, not fully sequential injection like the old Cal Pack GM injection, where as the HP Holley is fully sequential, like the first 5.0 Ford port EFI. Modern EFI systems have a lot more tricks than the old style Second generation Tuned Port systems. Holley's HP module has facilty for 12 sequentially driven 8:2 peak and hold injector drivers....you could even dual layer the injectors with some tiny ones for low speed, and some killer big ones for higher speed. Meantime, it's just a case of getting it running, adjusting the fuel and sequential pulse widths, and if its raggard, reduce the plenumb volume or rephase the cam on the crank. 109 to 112, there is normally 3 degrees in it. You have a whole range of good options to tie off any low end "raggardness".


Even alternating fire on an I6 (like bank fire in a Cal Pack or EECIV 5.0/5.8/7.5 truck engine), a little in line six in the 200 to 265 sizes with little compression a big cam and a big turbo....its got a great idle if your exhaust is muffled and the pipe sizes aren't to big.

Porsche 911 Turbos in the first 3 liter rendition had 6.5:1 compression Later cams can be subbed into these, 964 series (that is the C2 and C4, '1989-'1994) camshaft duration figures 280 I. 262 E .470 .430. Porsche figured out how to tame big cams was less exhasut duration on turbo engines as well.


These turbo cars were stated as hating extra cam lift. That's not strictly true.


So on a engine that doesn't breath as well, your safe
Last edited by xctasy on Wed May 16, 2018 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #109 by pmuller9 » Wed May 16, 2018 3:40 pm

Xctasy
If the engine is limited to 5500 rpm because of the Turbocharger's compressor size and a person really wants torque from and idle (which is the case here) then why not use a short duration, high lift cam and take advantage of a higher Dynamic Compression Ratio which will produce much better low rpm torque.

With the present 300 degree cam the DCR is between 5.7 and 5.9 depending on where the intake lobe center was set at.
It was intended to be around 7 for this project.

This engine was designed with a low 8:1 static compression ratio with a short duration cam profile in mind.
The turbocharger was also chosen with the same low rpm power band as part of the criteria.

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #110 by 67Straightsix » Fri May 18, 2018 11:33 am

I'm curious:
The reason I went with 8-1 compression is because the fuel octane available is 93 - I didn't want to have to buy race gas. I always thought with a turbo you want a low compression engine, but after reading these last posts, could I have gone with a higher compression ratio and been ok? (especially with the cam that's currently in the car) Just trying to be more knowledgeable about how all the components in an engine relate to each other. Thanks :)

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 1932
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #111 by pmuller9 » Fri May 18, 2018 4:52 pm

The previous conversation was about Volumtric Efficiency at low rpm rather than compression ratio.

Xctasy was pointing out that if the intake port is undersized for the cylinder volume then there is high enough intake charge velocity to continue cylinder fill way after BDC and a late closing intake valve has less effect on low rpm torque because there is less intake port reversion at low rpm than one would normally expect with a long duration cam.
Also the long duration cam will naturally maintain a high VE at high rpm and the engine will rev beyond peak power.

What I pointed out is that your engine is rev limited by the turbocharger which was chosen for a low rpm power band.
Looking at the compressor map shows a recommended engine rpm limit at 5500 rpm which gives margin before running into the choke zone where the turbo can be damaged.
So if I have to limit the engine rpm to 5500 rpm then why would I want a cam that maintains a high VE above that point.
Wouldn't it be better if I used a short duration cam and closed the intake valve before port reversion to maximize low rpm torque while allowing the VE to drop off after 5500 rpm.

To answer your question, Yes
The engine as it stands now with the long duration cam could be run with a higher compression ratio but what we find is the tune-up becomes more critical and for the little amount of torque gained with a higher compression ratio can easily be made up for with a little more boost.

We ran NHRA Top Sportsman class with a 300 degree advertised duration cam but .900" valve lift.
At 2000 HP, 430 cid SBF our compression ratio was 9:1 with VP C16 race gas, 25 lbs of boost and an ice water intercooler.

drag-200stang
Registered User
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #112 by drag-200stang » Fri May 18, 2018 11:22 pm

You are planing on supplementing that 93 with a water meth kit?
66 Mustang Coupe
200 turbo w/lenco 4-spd
stock adj. rockers, stock timing set, ARP studs
best 1/4 mile ET 9.85/best mph 139 on 8 lbs progressing to 15 lbs boost
Went 9's when 10's was fast.

67Straightsix
Registered User
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:46 pm

Re: turbo 200 build

Post #113 by 67Straightsix » Sun May 20, 2018 1:54 am

drag-200stang wrote:You are planing on supplementing that 93 with a water meth kit?


Most likely yes. It's one of the things that will be installed if needed after the car has been run on the road.Been going between controlling it with the Holley or a stand alone system. I'm also trying to decide where to place the oil catch can. Considering I have a small six there is not going to be much empty space in the engine compartment when it's finished.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests