Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2018 Contributors:
StarDiero75, curts56, DannyG, B RON CO, wsa111, Captainslow42, falconcritter
Econoline, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, 95FordFleetside, turbo6, Max_Effort, WorldChampGramp
cr_bobcat, C.S.Designs, pmuller9, gus91326, rwbrooks50, rocklord, drag-200stang, Big64my79Effie, CNC-Dude, gb500

2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry

Unknown->> M.Ketterer, T.Smith, J.Myers, P.McIntire - Please PM me (1966Mustang) and lemme know who you are!

Possible boosting, need guidance

Moderator: Mod Squad

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #1 by StarDiero75 » Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:27 am

Howdy guys,

I'm looking into maybe lightly boosting my 200 in my 65 Ranchero. Heres what I have:

66 200 block (dual bolt pattern) stock internals currently including cam. Engine is healthy. Holding hot static 200psi average. (Plan on fixing how high compression is when new head goes on).
1980 2V converted head, 1.5 exhaust, upgraded springs and retainers. Valve work (not yet on)
256-256 Schneider cam, .420 lift and 112 lobe sep (not yet bought)
1968 Autolite 2100 1.08
1968 exhaust manifold
1985 Turbo SVO T5 WC, 4.03 1st and .81 5th
1966 8" with 2.8 gears
AFR gauge

I have a set of dual out VI headers and i was going to keep it NA but now I'm thinking of boosting it. I was originally thinking supercharging with a paxton style but they be expensive and i was reading they're high end power not low end. I want low end. I cruise at 2000 doing 70mph. So i read about turbocharging....

I'm looking at keeping it 6psi or less. I want something simple to run plumbing wise, make most of its torque from 1500-4000, and no intercooler. How attainable is this and can this be done cheaply? Am i better off just doing NA and keeping my cam i have picked out, or should i turbo it and pick a different cam? Are my stock 66 internals good enough for low boost? This is my DD and I want something fun, yet reliable.

Thanks,
Ryan
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200, dual friction diaphram 9" Modern Driveline clutch and billet flywheel all balanced, 1985 SVO WC T5 with front shift, 1966 2.8 Ford 8", Weber 32/26 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
powerband
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1957
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #2 by powerband » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:10 am

The small block six is a stout platform to begin with, so (IMHO) mild boost is possible as long as the engine is 'fresh' ,the AFR's stay in the knee and Ignition timing and boost levels are tightly monitored.

I've been running a 250 with carb and Vortech SC for @ 2 yrs for a few thousand miles with significant power capability. Boost is bled off to @ 5-8 PSI and AFR's and ign. timing kept conservative.

Current 250 is simply a stock block/cam with freshened cyl head but not milled for a SCR @ 8.7:1 with 'new' composite gasket and ARP bolts.

Image

Image

Previous attempt was a Turbo'd 250 , but after allowing increasing boost levels (@ 15PSI) , the piston ring lands broke off and engine spewed oil mist across windshield.

Image

I look forward to more discussion on low boosting for moderate power gains.

haqve fun
"Take time to stop and smell... The roadkill..."

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #3 by StarDiero75 » Sun Aug 11, 2019 2:00 pm

I was originally considering SC b/c i don't have to run the plumbing and i get to use my headers. But the SC eats power to make power, while the turbo just kinda makes power.

How hard is it to plumb for the turbo? And how large of one am i looking at for just about 6psi?
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200, dual friction diaphram 9" Modern Driveline clutch and billet flywheel all balanced, 1985 SVO WC T5 with front shift, 1966 2.8 Ford 8", Weber 32/26 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #4 by xctasy » Sun Aug 11, 2019 3:06 pm

Really bad advice predomintes.

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... ost1910126


[QUOTE=xctasy;1910094]Simplification of the tragically complicated EGR, AIR, Carb and AC kicker and twin cat exhaust wont make a jot of difference to a 200 acceleration rate, nor will slotting 3.23s or 3.73s. The problem is the carb and cam combination. Change those two, and your 3.3 comes alive.

Turboing with the stock 256 degree 370 lift cam is totally usefull untill the stock 1bbl fails to deliver gas to all six cylinders evenly. Then it breaks ring lands, leans out, and doesn't like 13 to 18 pounds of boost and 13.5, 102 mph quarter miles.

The little six just needs somthing like a 350 cfm Ford Carpenter truck carb, a TO4 turbo, a 264 Howards or Clay Smith cam, a T5 or AOD and then it can use 2.73s, 3.73s or anything if you dont rev it past 6200 rpm.

4.62s or 4.11s are what one 65 year old in Arizonaian uses to make his 500 Holley 2bbl 200 direct mount Falcon hit high 14s. Forged rods are best, but that engine can cope with its stock cast iron rods as long as the timing chain prevents cam to con rod contact.

BRWSaver and Lincs200 and Will and Kelly have experience with various versions of this latent old threasing and wood chipper engine..its stout, but its gotta have a great fuel supply to all six cylinders and a twin row timing gear without too many revs.

Its an interferance engine if the timing chain allows the rods and cam to touch.

Anything over 5800 rpm without getting in side the engine and making sure ring gaps, rods and rod bolts are great is gonna incite a National Parts Depot Clampdown.[/QUOTE]


Turboing to 7 to 9 pounds boost and Nitous oxide each require an Excess Fuel Factor to each cylinder before boost.

pmuller9 gave ring gap requirments, and for both Turbos and Nitrous, the rig gap requirments are the same.

They are both 1.47 scale factor boosts.

With extra air flow, or in the case of N20, by liberating 47% extra oxygen.

That is the limit for un-intercooled turbos and also Nitrous. Gasoline has to be in the cylinder at the same time more air is, or it will lean out.

My personal advice for anyone on this forum fater being here for G""d knows how many years.

Do not ever get caught up in 1-bbl or 2-bbl small carb Politics.

People who preach small carb nonsense have no idea what they are talking about.

The Grand Proforma for good induction is IMHO Crosely's 205 hp unboosted 500 cfm 1.38" carbed D7 log head car that did flat 15's in a C4 auto Futuratwo door.

FalconSedan Delivery (Faron Roads) and his triple carb 14 second Mustang prove how little extra carb you need to have in order to get past 220 flywheel hp with an automatic. But extra carb he most certainly needed.

Add boost only when you are sure each six cylinders have there fair share of gasoline.

Copy Will and Kelly's Does10s log head build. I'd never run a 350 cfm 2-bbl 1.18" Holley, but Will did...right up to 11 second quarter miles. But don't down grade a carb on a turbo car. Bort62 had some great info too.

Any of the 1-bbl carb guys, for whatever reason, they always have had engine problems. You have to decide why.

There is a Feedback Carb 2150 Motorcraft 1.08 that Ford Used in the 2.8 and 5.0 1983 to 1988 ish era with a mixture control soleniod. That allows you to control air fuel right through the boost curve, electronically by pulse width modulation. If you have a wide band, you can program an Auduino to alter the PWM duty cylce, and control air fuel via the O2 sensor. The stock 138 hp 5.0 jets and K cluster, well tubes and power valve do everything else. The MCS just trims the air fuel ratio to avoid problems. You should focus on that.
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: 3217
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #5 by pmuller9 » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:31 pm

Ryan
If you turbocharge without an intercooler plan on running 6 to 8 lbs of boost max.
Most turbochargers do not run efficiently below 6 lbs of boost.

Turbo size has to do with engine size, engine volumetric efficiency and engine rpm range. It has very little to do with the amount of boost.
For a 200 six with a cam for a 1500 to 4000 rpm power band with a 4500 rpm limit you are looking at a turbocharger that has a maximum compressor inducer diameter of 47mm.
Since you are looking for low end torque the turbine housing can have a smaller A/R around .64

Since you would be pushing about 50% more air through the carb (by weight not volume) at full boost there is a big difference between the fuel needed for off boost cruising and full boost WOT.
That means the carburetor has to have a higher capacity enrichment circuit for WOT.
In most cases if the carb has a power valve circuit it can be drilled out for the extra fuel.
If you simply go up in the main jet size then the carb will run way too rich during non boosted, low throttle periods.
As xctasy pointed out, it is important to find the right carburetor for this application.
The Autolite 2100 has a power valve circuit and you should be able to make it work

The Schneider 256/256 cam would be an OK choice but since you are looking more towards the low end torque and will probably be using the stock log exhaust manifold for the turbo, it would be better if the cam had less exhaust duration than intake duration and it wouldn't hurt to have a wider 114 degree LSA.

Without intercooling it would be much better if the static compression ratio was in the low 8s and the cranking compression in the 160s.

You will also need an ignition system that retards the timing as boost increases.

Mdixon300f100
Registered User
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 6:43 am

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #6 by Mdixon300f100 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:59 am

And a way to increase fuel pressure to the carb as boost increases. Without increasing the fuel pressure the effective fuel pressure from the pump becomes 0 when the fuel bowl pressurizes. For low boost you could try a boost referenced mechanical pump, by supplying pressure to the fuel pump behind the diaphragm. Or an electric pump with a boost referenced fuel pressure regulator, just make sure there’s some kind of shutoff easily accessible from the drivers seat with an electric pump.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #7 by xctasy » Mon Aug 12, 2019 6:44 am

Ak Miller kept boost below 9 pounds, and avoided Hobs Switches or major boost referencing. Under 9 psi of boost, you dont really need it, but you can get a disphram fuel pump to make 10.5 psi, and use a Malplasi to drop pressure to the carb.

In actual detail, the later 2bbl 2150E Motorcraft has a boost reference via the air flap on the air horn...Ford was working towards simple electronic carbs with Carter in the YFA Feedback 1bbl; Issue is, when port EFi came in, and Ford bailed on the Mixture Control Solenoid carb because Pulse Width Modulation made port EFi so much simpler.

Back to pulse width MCS's....they are very simple to do. The Aussie ELB 265Hemi and 318s had them, copied from the US 5.2 2bbl (Carter 2bbl BDB's) and about that time(1978 to 1982), the last of the Thermoquad 360s and maybee the 1978 400s with ELB.All the ELBs had a idle to main jet mixture trim valve that brought the part throttle cruise under low load to almost 16:1 parts Air: Fuel. The Big Four each had Carter based MCS fuel trim Rochesters, Motorcrafts and Carter carbs.The easy part was using a dwell meter to set them up for on time duty cycle. That is dead simple.

The hard part was figuring out how GM, Ford, Chrysler and AMC Jeep integrated them into carbd that were never well understood in the first place.

The execution of the Chrysler Corp ECM's was poor, but the MCS duty cycle idle to main jet system was very simple, and the feedback 2150 2bbl is s more reliable BBD 2bbl Carter.

Lotus Esprit Turbo had 100% boost referenced fuel air enrichment WITHOUT fuel pressure increases in the early 1980 to 1985 non intercooled twin Dellorto DHLA 40's, then the High Compression 45s...just a standpipe over the float bowl that slammed up the float level...the well tube profiles then went rich as heck with reprofiled emulsion holes. It was a stroked 2173 cc version an engine with just 210 to 215 hp, hampered by its not very strong alloy block. Its power boost was only 50 hp over the little 1973 cc engines, but its 140 lb-ft of torque grew to 221 lb-ft. The boost was only reponsible for about 66 lb-ft, the capacity just 15 lb-ft. Very much like what a Nitrous Oxide system does. The key to its wounderfull tractablity was that the fuel delivery system was competition car level from the get go. None of this Small carb, High velocity crud.

People forget that it was the race Chrysler had to find cheaper injectors that drove turbos to EFi. When Mopar found Carter was unable to continue with the MCS valved Thermoquads, BB's and YFA's and were gonna have to buy carbs of Rochester or Ford like Jeep was doing, they when right to the 2.3 and 2.5 and import 2.6 Turbo EFi engines ASAP. Lee Iococca just skipped the electronic carb totally and went TBi or ECi Twin point. The Imperial was a special case, badly concieved from birth, and it was never any good. Other feedback carbs worked okay if the basics were still working.

The 2150 Feedback has enough abilty to run a good direct mount 200 2bbl.
Last edited by xctasy on Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:54 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

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #8 by xctasy » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:47 am

If you'd like to run a header exhaust, then run a 2300 Turbo Carb Mustang cross over and put the turbo on a bracket of the rocker cover on the driver side with a reconditioned T03 60 Garret off a carb turbo 79 to 80 Mustang. It is abke to make 230 hp at 12 psi boost on EFi engines; its effectively the Lotus Esprit Turbo which Garrett Air Research supplied to Austin and Lotus for many years. The Paxton or Innovi 4bbl Holley air cleaner bonnet flows well, lookes like a stock 2bbl air cleaner surround....and the whole Duraspark II ignition thing has a bunch of adjustability. The turbos had three kinds of boost retard control to the ignition. 5 crank degrees of Start up dwell by microsecond delay, and two other kinds of boost reduction of 5 crank degrees.

FirstFox and Deranged90 are the guys you need to copy. But keep the hot side well away from the passenger side, and copy a proper direct mount Crosley or CrBobcat style direct mount 2bbl. Dont starve a turbo of fuel, and dont be afraid of a long branch to a remote mount turbo.
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

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #9 by StarDiero75 » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:53 pm

I'm thinking its maybe a bit too much for me to do to turbo my 200. I don't have a welder to do my own pipes, and it sounds like theres a little more to this than just getting larger jets, even for just 6psi.

Thank you guys for all your input, but i think NA is the way to go for now. But when i get some money in the future, I'll definitely think again about doing this.
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200, dual friction diaphram 9" Modern Driveline clutch and billet flywheel all balanced, 1985 SVO WC T5 with front shift, 1966 2.8 Ford 8", Weber 32/26 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #10 by xctasy » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:05 pm

StarDiero75 wrote:I'm thinking its maybe a bit too much for me to do to turbo my 200. I don't have a welder to do my own pipes, and it sounds like theres a little more to this than just getting larger jets, even for just 6psi.

Thank you guys for all your input, but i think NA is the way to go for now. But when i get some money in the future, I'll definitely think again about doing this.



I've seen your work. This you can do easily. Time span and money, you control.

What people frequently mess up on is 100% feedback mixture control like you have in a light air craft. You can NEVER RUN A TURBO OUT OF FUEL ON THE LEAN SIDE.

Turbo boost is wonderfully easy to do, and the exhaust tubing, Ford Carb 2300 Turbo or old 4.9 Pontiac or 231 Buick style, was so easy.

The easy solution to control fuel air is taking a leaf out of Fords advice from our resident ex Schwitzer turbo technician. turbo2256b

turbo2256b wrote:I was a designer for Schwitzer. Ford had us boost several engines. 200, 250, Boss 302, a 460 Tbird. Boost was 10 LBS we told Ford to build the engines with 7.5 compression. We had to change cams. Think I remember while designing turbos on the Indy engines Dan Gurneys engines the compression was down to 4.5 or such.

The drop in compression allowed for use of stockish materials parts lower octaine also were set up for lower RPMs. Say 5200 or so to help with longevity. The single turbo 460 in 69 tbird had 800 lbs of torq turned 10.1 in the quarter


turbo2256b wrote:I used to design turbos for Schwitzer Corp. We turboed several test engines for Ford including a 200 and 250 6s they were all blow through. Ford wanted us to do them in a draw through style we told them to shove it as we would not want to be involved in the warranty issues that would be involved.




i have to be carefull to answer your questions.....Oh, and there's a reason Ford USA never went blow through aside from the first Paxton supercharged T-birds and 57 Fords and the 67 Shelby's....

if a blow through carb ruptures a power valve or collapses a float or has a in service fuel delivery problem, in the words of Assistant Chief Engineer for the 1979 Mustang 2.3 Turbo Project:-

Image

Same with the blow through 1985 4-bbl Saleen PaxtonMustang conversion;

should have been a shoe in for CARB emissions certification,

but even the most excellent car sorters in the world had so many problems making a blow through carb work and be legal and safe, they avoided blow through carb instillations for years.


Gale Banks,
Austin Rover's MG Metro 1275/ MG Maestro2000 and
Ford of Europes 2.8 Capri Turbo and
Alfa Romeo's TurboDelta and
the Lous Esprit Turbo were the best blow through conversions.

The R5/R18/Feugo Renault Solex 1-bbl blow through carb instillations weren't very reliable because of in service fuel dlivery problems.


My summary?

Norm General from Ford was right,

but if your carbs are in good shape and you have a good, robust and well sorted fuel air distribution and linkage, Holley Weber 5200's will be a great blow thru carb.


This all goes back to what I said a while ago. If you use Webers carb to get an inital jump on horsepower before turbo charging is added, then a low pressre, less than 12 pound boost turbo with a mechanical fuel pump and Malpasi rising rate fuel regulator will allow a Weber carb to run easily and simply underboost.

The Italians, Germans (Zakspeed 2.8 Turbo Capri) and English made blow through turbos work by simply understanding what a carb does, and by using moderate boost increase, not huge ones.

Getting reliable 40 to 65% power boosts with just 9 pounds of boost was because they understood how to make the basic carbs work properly.



The solution is an Areonautical carb mixture device sold by Northwest Aero Products. It removes the power valve, and allows you to run a 2300 series Holley 7448 350 or 4412 500, with early or late float bowls.

Image

Image

Air horn can be cut off, choke removed, because it allows the full removal of any need for cold start enrichment by strangling the air supply like a choke does. On a good old 2-bbl 4412 500cfm Holley, the air horn often gets machined off like what was done on the factory Six Pack Mopar carbs.

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

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #11 by xctasy » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:42 pm

StarDiero75, don't dishonner the Ford with a Cheep attitude. Understand the engineering compromises, and fix them.

Don't be the diC|< head who says he wants 400 but only gets 200 rwhp because his injectors are in the wrong spot, the air box doesn't have enough air flow. Ak Miller said it best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6pSzbvwi4M

If you listen to nothing else, watch this

Ak Miller - Pt 6 ( AHRF Pioneer interview series )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztujox8fly0



I've been involved in turbo sixes since 2000. I turboed my Cortina 2300 V6 with a Mazda/Probe IH1 turbo like Ford used on the last Automatic Thunderbird Turbo Coupes. I used a blow through Propane Impco CA 300 A5 carb, and it was great

I been around a bunch of Toyota and Nissan in line sixes.

I've learned more from those G""d forsaken pieces of junk than any other. These engine have a reputation for durablity, but they are in fact very flawed, and have a bunch of service issues which are masked by excellent air fuel control from the EFi systems. Ignition, cam drives and the things Ford did so well on the 1991 to 2016 Ford in line OHC engines....Toyota and Nissan did very poorly, and Ford ignition systems and proper US computer systems are used instead of the tragic mess up the JayZees and RB's had. Everyone spins there own swing on 650 ato 950 hp just using stock parts on turbo versions of those, and to an extent, there is truth in that, but Overhead Cam Turbo sixes with those engines are utter swine that have very basic design issues.

I just got rid of my Stagea and its 186 hp DOHC VTECH engine, and won't personally ever have another POS in line Japper ever again.

chad wrote:.....
Still like the Kingwood
(bring back the 70s?)

Surprised U don't like the toyota or nissian in ur pic......



Nissans, outstandingly good BMW on the cheap Engine and suspension design

Image



, but often ugly execution,

Image

and even uglier, Mopar Volare style rust.Any so called Rustang 1978 to 1993 Fox, doesn't rust like my Nissan does...

I gotta hand it to Nissan

Image[/quote]


The wax lyrical is this

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/article/nissan-rb26dett/

The reality of total failure of backyard North American engineering is Dillon Merkl 1962 Futura.

Don't get me wrong, I love this guys work.

But when a 1961 Falcon tudor can make 280 hp with a stock 170 with triple carbs

gb500 wrote:and this 1960/61 falcon (XK) racer in Australia :
cut off log , some hose and clamps to the orig circular inlet stubs left and triple webers .

no trouble with hitting the suspension tower ...

this guy is in the Victorian early falcon club and races successfully .after buying the car off paul Knott

Image
and earlier photo with different inlet trumpets
Image


Before Adding a Turbo,

all his creative genius is utter gutter trash.

https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2016/07/1 ... of-inline/

Don't be the guy who gets bambozzled by half truths and small carb lies and electronic luddite bull buckey and nonsense about cultivating high air speeds through using little carbs.

Image

Image

Image


I posted this to


Dillon Merkl,

Nice work. I've had about 100 000 miles behind your engine in my Nissan Stagea RS4.

I got to hand it to Nissan. Your Ford might look like a rust bucket, but my 20 year old Nissan was a patchwork quilt of Iron Oxide. Putting the RB25DE into a Futura was a choice made easy!

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

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #12 by StarDiero75 » Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:40 pm

I know the benefits of it, and thats why I've thought a lot about it. I know i can do it but its the lack of money, equipment, and time.

Here's what might convince me. I'd need a list of things that I'll need to put the turbo in. Like what kind of regulator to get and or fuel pump, what turbo i should look for, where do i get the stuff to plumb for the oil for it, what I'd need to do to my autolite 2100. I know my head will be ready for it, and I can adjust how much i shave off the head to keep compression where it needs to be. I don't want to rig an intercooler, and I'd like to have 8psi max, no more but less is fine.

I just don't want to get in over my head on this, y'know? Thats why I'd like to have it mapped out. B/c just thinking about it is starting to scare me off, but i think thats b/c its out of my normal realm

Thanks,
Ryan
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200, dual friction diaphram 9" Modern Driveline clutch and billet flywheel all balanced, 1985 SVO WC T5 with front shift, 1966 2.8 Ford 8", Weber 32/26 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #13 by StarDiero75 » Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:58 pm

pmuller9 wrote:Ryan
If you turbocharge without an intercooler plan on running 6 to 8 lbs of boost max.
Most turbochargers do not run efficiently below 6 lbs of boost.

Turbo size has to do with engine size, engine volumetric efficiency and engine rpm range. It has very little to do with the amount of boost.
For a 200 six with a cam for a 1500 to 4000 rpm power band with a 4500 rpm limit you are looking at a turbocharger that has a maximum compressor inducer diameter of 47mm.
Since you are looking for low end torque the turbine housing can have a smaller A/R around .64

Since you would be pushing about 50% more air through the carb (by weight not volume) at full boost there is a big difference between the fuel needed for off boost cruising and full boost WOT.
That means the carburetor has to have a higher capacity enrichment circuit for WOT.
In most cases if the carb has a power valve circuit it can be drilled out for the extra fuel.
If you simply go up in the main jet size then the carb will run way too rich during non boosted, low throttle periods.
As xctasy pointed out, it is important to find the right carburetor for this application.
The Autolite 2100 has a power valve circuit and you should be able to make it work

The Schneider 256/256 cam would be an OK choice but since you are looking more towards the low end torque and will probably be using the stock log exhaust manifold for the turbo, it would be better if the cam had less exhaust duration than intake duration and it wouldn't hurt to have a wider 114 degree LSA.

Without intercooling it would be much better if the static compression ratio was in the low 8s and the cranking compression in the 160s.

You will also need an ignition system that retards the timing as boost increases.

Ok so what is the A/R you're talking about. And how does that change what the inducer and what the out diameters are?

How do i know what to change or modify the 2100 power circuit?

Why does a wider LSA help for boost and why the shorter cam duration? What would be a better cam to use for my setup?

How do i make the distributor do that? Doesn't hooking it up to manifold vacuum kinda do that? Or does something special need to be done?
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200, dual friction diaphram 9" Modern Driveline clutch and billet flywheel all balanced, 1985 SVO WC T5 with front shift, 1966 2.8 Ford 8", Weber 32/26 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #14 by xctasy » Fri Aug 16, 2019 6:51 pm

IMHO, School boy Bort62 asked the most intelligent questions.


I've done customer Quality Assurance here for 17 years and other places for 34 years. Routine complaints.


In 2001, I said a naturally aspirated 200 could make 250hp net with three stock Ford 1-bbl carbs. I was wrong. A little Aussie 1961 Falcon 170 made 280 hp.

The Jack Collins inspired MegaSquirt Room was way ahead of its time, No one but Mike1157 took the advice, and a few select, elect bunch of 300 EFi guys.

The North American Ford Sixers are thankfully, universally the most conservative, anti modification, noise complaning, anti money spenders ever, and always anti overseas Ford and Pro Not Invented Here to any accepted standard process. It's about not understanding the restrictions of one jet feeding six cylinders, or the noise that comes off solid lifter engine, and the solutions to valve train problems were fixed overseas before the US aftermarket fixed them. So when the work Does10's and Mike1157 and Fast64Ranchero have done is in fact copied overseas practice it is then looked at as being unobtainable.

What I have on my log headed turbos in my signature isn't what any American would do.

That's why there is no XEC Turbo Build list, because everytime I suggest seven very important US supplied parts to fix fuel delivery problems to a turbo, a Seven Fingered Grudge Hand comes up.

Image

So here is my list, verses everyone elses. Gimme Fuel. Gimmie Fire Ignition That which I desire (air)


I use Three 2-bbl carbs with a Port EFi facility to fit the log head. It's EEC5 driven via an upstream MAF sensor. In 1978-1985, Fords EECII drove the Feedback Variable Venturi 7200 carb on the 4.2 and 5.0 engines in the dark ages using a DC stepper motor for idle feedback and it had a TPS sensor. Ford had an almost 100% open loop control of the air fuel ratio on the 4.9/2.3 YFA Carter pickups and some Fox Mustang/Capri/Fox LTD 2.3s.

Since you are not going to use three 2-bbl carbs or six port on port injectors with the right size to make the target horsepower, then use



No power valves, no leaks, and you can feedback drive the air fuel ratio off a transitored PulseWidth Modulation stepper motor that NYC CNC uses on "Control a DC Motor with Arduino and a Relay! How-To Tutorial from NYC CNC". "6 Ways to control Motors! Including with Arduino & Raspberry Pi! How To Tutorial from NYC CNC" shows how the basic parts work.

I use Fords EEC5, not MegaSquirt or Auduino, because I know how the stock Ford control systems work.

The second choice is no where near as good. Its Feedback 2150 Motorcraft carb has a 1.08 venturi, and controls air fuel via the EECIV and TFi interface. That is prefect with MS2E, and there is a project part to operate the air fuel ratio feed back off a wide band.


1st Choice carb. 4412 2-bbl 500 cfm Holley carb, and
put the carb mixture device sold by Northwest Aero Products on it.

2. Air Bonnet Paxton single inlet

3. Carter Strip Dominator 350 Chev Fuel pump

4. Hand made cross over pipe to turbo on drivers side (280ZX, 300ZX, 2.3 Mustang Carb Turbo position to avoid heat soak, copy Fords OHC 2.3 return line)
Image
Image

5. Malplassi fuel regulator ( There are many regulators off the shelf that will work with carby fuel pressures, Malpassi is a typical example)
Image
the sides are fuel inlet and carb feed, the fitting on the bottom is the return line to the tank (you have to create one using the old inlet line, and a make a new line from the tank.
the small hose fitting is your boost source

6. T03 60 series 300ZX Nissan, 280ZX best yet, 1979-1980 2.3T oil supply and return line

Image
Image
Copy the Ford turbo clocking. Cold Air intake via a stock Fuel injected Dastun/Nissan/Holden 304 EFi Ryco A340 Cold Air intake

7. Valve gear and timing gear condition must be free from interference with the conrods. The 200 is an interferance engine, and the valve springs have to be able to resist over reving.

Ignition isnt an issue. The Duraspark II on the 2.3 Carb turbo Mustang had no pressure boost retard...it was controlled by the Controll Box which had a Yellow Strain relief, and three advance adjustments via three or five solenoid controls. TFi is my personal preference. On sub 8 pound boosts, your all good.

Read Bort62's questions snd follow the links.

https://www.fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?f ... bo#p380247
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: 3217
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #15 by pmuller9 » Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:51 pm

StarDiero75 wrote:Ok so what is the A/R you're talking about. And how does that change what the inducer and what the out diameters are?

We are talking about the exhaust side or the turbine housing where the A/R is defined as the inlet cross-sectional area divided by the radius from the center of the inlet area to the turbo centerline.
Using a smaller A/R will increase the exhaust gas velocity into the turbine wheel causing the wheel to spin faster at lower engine rpms giving a quicker boost rise.
The smaller A/R will also create more back pressure at higher rpm and reduce the max power at higher rpm.
Conversely a larger A/R will lower exhaust gas velocity on to the turbine wheel which will delay boost but the lower backpressure will allow better high rpm power.
In your case where you want low rpm response and power band, the smaller A/R (.64) will give you the better low rpm response.

StarDiero75 wrote:How do i know what to change or modify the 2100 power circuit?

The 2100 controls fuel flow at mid throttle higher engine vacuum conditions (cruising) through the main jets.
At larger throttle openings when the engine vacuum drops low, the power valve opens and adds more fuel along with the main jets.
If you just go to a larger main jet to richen WOT then the part throttle cruising mode will run too rich.
If you drill the passages behind the power valve to a larger diameter then the main jets can be adjusted for mid throttle engine vacuum while the larger power valve circuit can provide the additional fuel need for boost conditions.
Also the power valve passages can be drilled and tapped for replaceable jets like those used on the Quick Fuel carburetors.
Here is a link to a very good example.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=79853&hilit=drill
You will need an Air fuel ratio meter to tune the carburetor.

StarDiero75 wrote:[
Why does a wider LSA help for boost and why the shorter cam duration? What would be a better cam to use for my setup?

When a log exhaust manifold is used there are six cylinders pumping exhaust pressure into the log every 120 degrees of crank rotation.
When an intake valve opens while the exhaust valve is still open during the valve overlap period there is high exhaust pressure present that causes intake port reversion with exhaust gas which delays the intake cycle and adds exhaust gas to the fresh intake charge.
Using a wider LSA and decreasing the exhaust duration decreases valve overlap time.
Secondly the "Free" exhaust energy than runs the turbo is from the blow-down portion of the exhaust cycle which is from the time the exhaust valve opens to somewhere just after BDC. Any gas pressure in the cylinder after BDC as the piston begins the trip to TDC is a pumping loss and there is no advantage to have a long duration exhaust cycle with a log exhaust manifold since there is little to no scavenging.
Here is a turbo cam designed for the 300 six using an HD log exhaust manifold.
The .050 exhaust duration is 10* less than the .050" intake duration and the LSA is 114 degrees.
Image
The 204* intake duration on the Schneider cam is ok just drop the exhaust duration 8 to 10 degrees and increase the LSA.

StarDiero75 wrote:How do i make the distributor do that? Doesn't hooking it up to manifold vacuum kinda do that? Or does something special need to be done?

The single port vacuum advance canister will only advance ignition timing with intake manifold vacuum.
There are some two port canisters that may have the ability to retard timing with manifold pressure or boost but I don't know much about them or how adjustable they are.
Typically you retard the timing one degree for each PSI of manifold pressure or boost.
A common method is to use an ignition system like the MSD Programmable 6AL-2, Part# 6530 where you lock out the distributor and you program the mechanical advance and the boost retard curve on two separate graphs or maps.
I have used this system before. Easy to work with.

These are actually short answers so if you have more questions or need clarification on the above, feel free to ask.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #16 by xctasy » Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:10 am

I use no power valve, no managed boost retard, and nothing but a stock Bosch Ford Duraspark( 1980 to 1985 German Cologne, Aussie Ford/Holden/Chrysler 60 series Bosch disributor with the Dodge six cylinder truck rotor).

Holdens 198y-87 RB 3.0ET, Nissans 280Zx-T, the 300ZX Turbo, the Datsun Bluebird Turbo ( JDM 810 with 1770 cc EFi version if your Naps Z 24 pickup truck engine) the 79-80 Carb Turbo 2.3 Mustang, the Lotus Esprit Turbo, the Mini Metro Turbo, all used a similar hot and cold side turbo which was supplied exclusively by AirResearch Garret and it still has a 24 buck aftermarket rebuild kit to suit application. The rated difference from 94 hp to 210 hp comes from the exhaust and intake restrictions...power was controlled as well by thr boost canistor which set the integrated waste gate to about 6 to 8 psi depending. The early non EFi 2.3 liter turbos were more aggressivd than the SVO Mustangs A/R ratios. Fords Norman General restricted the heck out if everything else to bring the rated power back to 132 hp. Those early T03 turbos are abke to make 230 hp, or 360 just before they explode...a stock 200 with a 500 cfm Holley can make 160 hp with the 1980 256 degree cam. With 8 pounds of boost, any To3 will hit the 210 hp mark safely...about what Crosley makes on his Futura with his 274 cam and 500 carb.

This is what the Rest of the World would call a Low Pressure Turbo in Saab speak. On a High Output Turbo, you'd certainly want that boost retard stratergy, but not on a 8 psi engine. Does10s and Lincs200 had locked in advance. The fuel economy comes from matching air fuel to boost, so your wide band becomes the target that is always being 100% means tested. On my exhaust, I copied the Argentinian 221 custom exhaust header system with six narrow band HEGO2 sensors so all six cylinders could be means or Morse tested for air fuel. The air fuel under power/ load is targeted to very rich, when the manholr cover of lean air fuel just disapears. Under cruise stoich, under idle, you can have stoich. For a turbo, the carb won't be able to respond to the power/load, cruise/ idle transitions unless you profile the well tube holes and jets and air bleeds and everything else on an engine dyno. To avoid that, cut that SH!+ out by having no PVCRs, no power valve, and just a 100 % variable from idle to 30 gallons per hour barrel valve.The ported or manifold or spark advance curve will simarly be all over the place, and so will disributor advance. You can change the air fuel to suit with the Audino to do what a well tuned carb should do.

I use the MAF sensor from a Nissan, and MegaSquirts resultant pulsewidths to trim sir fuel.

Once youve gotten Air Fuel under Statutory management and a non gradational simple mechanical advance with a little bit of carb advance, the growing boost will then slam/ kill vac advance anyway. You can stay at stock 9 or 10 base timing at idle. Under no load cruise, you can stay at 32 to 36 degrees. Under boost, the stock ported vac collapses, making a boost redard exist just like pmuller9 says.

Ford used a common standard diode/ check valve in 79 and 80 Carb Turbos to stop the boost pressuring the vac advance canistor and modulator valve in auto turbos.
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

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #17 by StarDiero75 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:33 am

Alright so my search continues for parts.

Heres a T3 turbo for sale, it should this work?
Screenshot_20190816-231721_OfferUp.jpg


I can't really see the oil line for the L4 turbo, but don't I just drop the pan, and weld in 2 fittings for oil to go in and out?

My timing will be completely gone through. I will be installing a new double roller setup from VI.

You think the 500cfm won't be overkill for this? I'm only talking max 8psi. I got a 1.23 2100 off a 360 if you think that'd be better than the 1.08 I planned on using.

What if I went to an electric pump and ditched the mechanical? Would you recommend that? I was thinking it might be better to keep the gas cooler rather letting it get hot in the mechanical pump.

Would i still use the same melpassi regulator you're recommending with the electric pump?

So my current dizzy setup should be alright for 8psi? I was planning on having Bill recurve it, or should i look into just getting a different one? I'm using an HEI from CRT Performance. Which Bill has already said has a crap curve, hence why I'm sending it to him.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
--1965 Ranchero w/1966 200, dual friction diaphram 9" Modern Driveline clutch and billet flywheel all balanced, 1985 SVO WC T5 with front shift, 1966 2.8 Ford 8", Weber 32/26 with VI adapter, CRT Performance HEI.
--1961 Studebaker Lark VI, OHV 170 l6 in the process of being resurrected. But it lives
--Creator of the only Weber 32/36 conversion video.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6829
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #18 by xctasy » Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:04 am

Don't ever use an HEI.

Use a rebuilt Duraspark II with a spare P/N D5TZ-12A112B, Motorcraft DU-5-A stator asy.
Also known as dist pickup coil. Has 3 wire connector.

For operation of the Duraspark II in a turbo, follow this CoupBoy link.
viewtopic.php?f=34&t=78616&p=606558&hilit=duraspark+II#p606558


He also makes a stock iron header cross over pipe.


Your best options are finding an earlier TO3 60 from the era well bore EFi, and well before the Thunderbird and Probe IHI RB5.

The TBO302 turbo is an oddball version of a T03. You can use the newer bearing and the problematic carbon seal has a replacement.

Image

It has the right parts to avoid extra fabrication

Image


1979 to 1985-1/2 Turbo Ford 2.3, the carb ones are best. It has the right down pipe and attachments. Don't spend a dime on an ebay turbo.


Image
Image


Put an All Points Bulleten out for it, get it cheep. Then Rebuild it, have the parts crack tested.

http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/e ... rbo-repair

gregpro50, gr79 and M81 Mclaren from Four Eyed Pride have found all the parts

G-Pop Shop
22349 W War Eagle Rd
Springdale, AR 72764
Phone: 479-751-7966
Fax: 479-717-2211
Email: Please use the form below.

*** Our online store is currently under construction. To place an order, please give us a call. ***


Now, the 2.3 carb Mustang was said to be one of the worst turbo conversion ever. It wasn't, it was just complicated.

It has a flat flange to mount to an alloy 2300 Carb turbo intake, a draw through carb system. Its rooted in granite in terms of how its bolted to the engine.


Image

Your oil return and air intake parts are best copied off a used 2.3 carb turbo bought whole off the internet.

Then set up a cold air duct to the turbo. I used the Z18ET Nissan Bluebird turbo air duct, which GM Holden in Australia used in the EFI 5 Liter V8'S

Bosch AH051 with Match-Fit Fitment Guarantee. Engine Air Filter Cleaner Alternate to Ryco A360 Air Filter ZPN-33469 A360 FA3454 AF0360 VA3. Nissan and Holden used the same part for years.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests