Neat turbo maverick I saw on youtube

the MAverick turbo blows - where ?, work in progress?...

Interested to see Turbo flange and position from different camera angle.

Turbo's, flanges and "complete kits" are sold everywhere and inexpensive. ... considering my '61 - it has a 250 with higher deck exhaust exit height, no heater motor, low mount starter and batty' in trunk. Plenty of room for a turbo, downpipe, intercooler kit for blowthru setup .

Then I think all '250 needs is low compression bullt-strong block/pistons , ARP throughout, turbo spec cam, head with large chambers for low CR and intake modified for big blow-thru carb turbo built, custom Exh/wastegate/turbo flange, Oil system with pan return, cooling upgrade, modified ignition/distrib/elec'box, fuel system with boost reference, guages and a cool whoooosh sounding chrome blow off valve... , did I miss anything ? :roll:


8) have (boosted) fun
 
Real boring, a Maverick that runs high tens in the 1/4 mile with a turbocharged 300 in it. :roll: And the 300 has a stock bottom end.

I could see where that would be boring compared to a 250 with a turbo that isn't even hooked up to the carb. :unsure: Something tells me that 250 set up the way it is won't lift the front wheels off the ground like the turbo 300 does. ;)
 
Yes, the work is awesome in that 300. I'm not knocking it, but the little six is relevant for my interests. (I'm trying to build one myself, haven't started quite yet) while the 300 mav (While very, very, fast) is everywhere. hot rod did a thing about it, it's the first thing that comes up when you type in ford straight six turbo, and I figure everyone's seen it. Everybody's always talking about the big six, and I don't own a straight six truck. If I'm gonna put 560lbs of engine in the car I own, I'd rather not cut everything to make it fit and put a v-8 in.
But, I'm not doing either. I want to build the small six. (And while the info on this site is staggering, and very very useful, some of the picture links for builds are broken, and that sometimes makes things hard.)
It's easy to see 10 second cars. You go to the drag strip.
I enjoy seeing build videos, because it's like walking over to your friends car in his garage, you can learn something.
 
Interesting how the guy bolted a plate to the bottom of the exhaust manifold and then bolted turbo to the plate.

I have a similar manifold and a steel plate. Would let me mount turbo til I can get the tubular turbo header built.
 
Hmm, interseting!

The 250 copies the Ak Miller turbo arrangement. General rule is that increased deck height and bore spacing always yield extra hp, which is why a Big Block 396 Chev shuts down a lighter Small Block 400 every time.

The 300 has the displacement, a square bore to stroke ratio, better L/R rod ratio, technically superior bore spacing allowing better porting, better valve sizes, and all the advantages of its displacement, but tends to loose out on extreme off idle low end torque even to the 250 six, and is close to a shoe horn fit in a compact or intermediate.

Here's the 1968 details from the Standard Catalog of Ford By John Gunnell, on the code V, B and E Torino and Fairlanes 240 verses the inaugural passanger car Code 5 250 in the same X shell cars. ( The 250 was first made as a pickup truck option in late 67 on the Fairlane pick-up.)

1968200240and250IntermediateFordEngines_zpscee3ca4c.jpg



A 20 to 25% capacity gain from 240 to 300 or the 250 verses 300 is interesting in that the longer stroke more than offsets its paltry 490 pound verses 450 pound weight difference. The Big Six runs a 268 degree cam, not the itty bitty 256 i6 cam. With turbo, its probably a lot less of an issue as to what engine is better, even a 20% capacity deficit could be over-come by a well matched turbo and torque converter in a Mav.
 
When I decided Ak Miller, drag200stang, does10's and Lincs200 had it right because they used low mount starter engines, and everything became simple as a result.

Its even simpler if you use a Code 5(67), L (68-79) or C code (80 to 81) 250 six from 67 to 81, and even better than heaven on a stick when you have a 4.25" foot ball converter cast iron header. Turbo installations aren't any more simple than these.

Lincs 200 didn't use this exhast because he's a competeant welder, and in his experience, the 2.125" standard exhast was easy enough to hook a J tube to. I'd say the 4.25 four bolter is even easier.

For me, this is the only combination to use, low mout or high, the late 1980 onwards exhast was a specifc change for the i6. And Ford wouldn't have changed it for no reason.

With room to move, room for an alternator, starter and big ass Tecumseh/York/Motorcraft a/c pump, look how simple the C code exhast turbo adaptor is!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top