Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry
rzcrisis, DoctorC, jamyers, Motorboy, fastpat, Silverback280, chad


<<< New Site Update >>>

Possible boosting, need guidance

Moderator: Mod Squad

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 864
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: 1971
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: 864
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: 6886
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: 3360
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: 158
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: 6886
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: 6886
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: 864
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: 6886
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: 6886
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: 864
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: 864
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: 6886
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: 3360
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: 6886
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: 864
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: 6886
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 CoupeBoy 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

Garret has been making turbos bullet proof for years...due to a conservative need to protect US Ford plant capacity, a turbo in line six was thought of being a bad step, so Ford Dearborn almost innoculated the customer from ever wanting a turbo 4, and GM, a turbo 6.

Nissan world wide was assisted by ex Ford Australia man Howard Marsden, he dfected from Ford when Holden put a 308 into a Vega sized car, and took it racing. The dominanace of the in line 1981-1984 Nissan Bluebirds, 1986-1992 Skylines were TOTALLY due to his technical help in Datsuns first market invasion...Australia! The parts that made those cars go well, were the American ones, with all the things the US Ford engineers initally rejected...TRW steering racks, 5 speed gearboxes, and the death kneal, Nissan TBi, Independent Throttle Bodies, Four wheel drive, Viscous couplings and Godzilla Skyline Dominance in every area.
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: 6886
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 #19 by xctasy » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:33 am

Item No 2. Novi/ Paxton Power hat for the Item No 1 2-bbl Holley 500 cfm

You can have it cromed so the Alien Motorship knows where to land...


Image


Image

Image


Image

3. Carter Strip Dominator 350 Chev Fuel pump as per hasa68mustang and kirkallen143


Image
The best bet , the Rolls Royce mechanical fuel pump for a Ford I6, is the 120 gph Carter M4891 Super Strip pump for 350 Chevs It's a little X'y regards dollar purchase but it works.

Image


Then you boost refrence it. For sub 9 psi boost, thats about it

Image
https://www.theturboforums.com/images/imported/2007/02/engine8-1.jpg[

Image
https://www.theturboforums.com/attachments/pump-jpg.459271/


General sub 9 psi boost level rules are:-

Dave Emanuel--Super Tuning and Modifying Holley Carburetors:

In blow-through systems using a mechanical fuel pump, the upper chamber must be referenced to boost so that the pump will develop sufficient pressure to deliver fuel to the carb float bowls. A sealed operating rod is also required so boost pressure does not escape into the crankcase.

The area above the pump diaphragm must be sealed off from the crankcase. By connecting this chamber to boost pressure with an external line, the pump will always be supplying fuel at its normal pressure above boost pressure.

.... you can see the modifications necessary to the mechanical fuel pump. Basically a fitting is threaded or epoxied in this case to the atmospheric vent on the side of the pump. I added two in this case to ensure adequate pump operation at high RPM. The other end of the hose is connected to the bonnet, BEFORE THE CARB, this is required. With this modification fuel pressure to the carb is increased 1 psi for each psi of boost to maintain fuel flow into the carb under boost. This can also be done with a high pressure electric fuel pump and a boost referenced regulator. Also seen here are the turbo oil supplys from the oil sending unit location in the engine block.



Long time turbo 200 Ford Sixers

hasa68mustang
&
kirkallen143

are two guys who have found the mechanical pump idea wanting...like everyone who tries to run over 9 pounds finds...they weighed in on the thread above. They towed the Ak Miller Ford party line, that above 9 psi boost is a bad idea with any mechanical pump.

I don't, tt350 chevelle's system really works, For Fords, we don't have the C**** pocketed fuel pump arrangment. You can use the same scheme if you use a shortened C**** pushrod, and hold it to the cam with a honed intermediate plate.

Here's tt350 chevelle's decription of his SBC carb turbo with Carter Super Strip fuel pump. It allows the pump to be mounted with the diaphram downwards, although if you want to, you can run the pumps either way.

tt350 chevelle wrote:This mod closes off the the drain area and allows proper boost pressure to be seen at the diaphram, the "leaking" boost from the pump seal has no place to go.This worked as I expected but the fuel pressure would rise at a greater rate than 1:1, it was easy to get 20+ psi of fuel pressure (running about 8psi boost)


The solution to boosting well past the 12 psi level safely is to seal and pressurise the fuel pump with a SB Chevy method.

The in tank EFi fuel pump, well I can't afford to be Found On/off the Road with a Dead engine, and already its happened with my Nissan, my 98 Ford Explorer XLT,

yet my carb 1981 Stang scavanged down to 11.4 gallons of gas with prewarning, my EFi gasoline and Diesel cars are down right dangerous in a one in 5 shoulder just idling.

How can modern fuel injection units be so bad at stranding people on gradients and in terms of year to year reliabity, I just don't know...Well I do...its the lack of stillage pots, long life non aerating return lines, and understanding that in an automatic 4 x 4 car on a gradient, running out of gas due to sub-par tank design is just not an option for me, and shouldn't be for anyone else.
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: 6886
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 #20 by xctasy » Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:47 pm

How people do a turbo is up to them. Kirkaleen143's


Image

Image

Image

One of the big advantages of the driver side turbo is you can map all six cylinders oxygen sensor.

I copied the Argentinian header on my 200.


Image.


The Crosley style 2-bbl direct #4412 carb mount on D7's to E0 heads is so good

Image

You have a huge amount of space, and a reduced amount of intake heat.

There is enough space to link six narrow band O2 sensors on this kind of header.

The turbo really only needs a custom pipe to and from, and can sit like it did in the 2.3 carb turbo


Image

CoupeBoy made one
viewtopic.php?f=75&t=73236&p=583057#p583057
Image

the front air inlet is held by two bolts and an O ring

the bottom oil line is held by two bolts and an O ring

the air to the engine is unsealed, and an interferance fit

the cross over pipes go to an existing cast iron gooseneck with a fully integrated wastegate

Image

Image

Image
Last edited by xctasy on Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:09 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: 6886
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 #21 by xctasy » Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:48 pm

For the turbo, all parts are in service. Firewwod feels like it heats twice as much if you fetch it yourself.....I'm doing a 3.3 2-bbl Carb turbo kit!


http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread. ... rs!/page10
m81mclaren wrote:FWIW if anyone is searching for these turbocharger o-rings (NLA FORD D9ZZ-9G487C or more recently Fel-Pro ES72816) here is what I came up with Gargling and measuring with my digital calipers:

This turbo manifold inlet O-ring Ford#81141-S96 measures 2 ¼” ID , 3/32” width
Image

This turbo compressor housing to manifold o-ring Ford# 87103-S96 measures 1 3/8” ID, 13/64” width

Image


This turbo Oil drain o-ring: Ford # 87203-S96 measures 15/16” ID , 1/16” width
Image

Turns out I have the housing and the big manifold o-ring new still from my FelPro master gasket kit and just need to source the oil drain one. Hopefully it's readily available @ the hardware or auto parts store.


Oil drain part is special...everything is special on Carb Turbos, but the are a great design, just wasn't any information on them that wasn't decried by the Toyota and Datsun import loving press.

The turbo can be updated to a better T04 shaft, and you can mix and match parts, but as a basic part, they are great.

And info abounds on them.
1. At 1:27, that is the compressor housing, not turbine housing. Also, it is the impeller, not turbine. 2. Your wrench is spreading because it is a cheap brand, buy something a little better next time. 3. Gator Grip, really? See comment #2. I'm not saying buy Snap-On but at least get the proper tools.


see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iNZK4jeRSI
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: 3360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #22 by pmuller9 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:56 pm

Ryan
I will try to answer your questions with specific information that is relevant to your application in a later post.
Last edited by pmuller9 on Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6886
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 #23 by xctasy » Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:23 pm

Ford had access to a lot more technology than people realised. In our modern control systems area, people raise a bunch of "nice to haves".

Primary importance is to have a boosted engine run with the correct air fuel ratio, and without too little advance to cause fuel economy loss, and not too much advance to hole a piston.


Mass produced parts are more relaible than low volume ebay aluminum showers.

Seven major reasons for using a 40 year old turbo... and 40 year old Duraspark II. In a 54 year old car.....Its about knowing what attributes bring to the supply of reliable parts. Not grey slurry stuff that looks like a Gold watch untill the Copper Kote wears off......

During the 70's, Ford MotorCompany in the USA had seen that people like Ak Miller and Jim Flynn doing exceptional carb and Mechanical fuel injection turbo Pintos and Mavericks with varying kinds of control systems. These were a mixture of Skunk Works and non factory Experimental.

Ford had to walk the FINE line between mainaining the existing Cleveland, Windsor and Lima foundary work, and incorporating some seriously Disputive Technolgy. Like getting rid of 8 and 9" axles, out sourcing all its manual gearboxes from Germany, Mexico or BorgWarner, and importing engines from Cologne, Brazil or Mexico. The success of the wrong engines created a MASSIVE supply issue for Ford, so Ford did some really strange Engineering stuff to protect its people and plant utilization. Like the 1972 Ford Courier which was a US built Jap Mazda B1800.

For example, Ford USA's 25% part purchase of Mazda (Toyo Kogo) in 1973, and its involvement with Datsun/ Toyo Kogyo's Jatco Transmission exactly while General Motors was contracted to supply Mazda Australian Holden Premiers with Mazda Rotary engines under an NSU/Audi patent while GM wannted out of Rotaries kind of shows everyone how Ford put there money where there mouth was, and Ment Business.

The Carb 2300 Turbo was kind of on the outer limits of acceptablity, but it was a pragmatic move to respond to Americas growinf desire for performance without an economy compromise. Ford actually aced a number of very important things:-

The Carb Turbo 2.3 got:-

1. Single Advance Duraspark II with external advance control via the Yellow Strain relief DSII box. MSD 6A and 6L like in a factory wrapper. Ford employed a vast array of pre EEC "one" tricks also shared with 1980-1988 Jeep 4.2's and all the early non EECIV 2.3 and 4.9 Carter 1 bbl MCU and non MCU pickup trucks. Total control existed over the advance and air fuel ratios by the use of these Solenoid's. Five facets of control were potentially able to occur; three pricipal parts, with 2 extra "nice to haves", the turbo light, and the boost warning.

2. The crank case had a flapper valve to control blow by, (copied from the 2000 OHC) and a very good PCV system on top of the rocker and air cleaner.

3. The fuel pump was strike protected to stop it being a flaming inferno in a crah or under extreme heat

4. The turbo had six points of securing. It didn't float off the engine on flimsy brackets. That had both advantages and disadvatages because secondary vibration in a 2.3 four is extreme, and certan kinds are amplified which under certain loads can injure the main shaft of the turbo. The extended pipes from the cast iron header (and light off cat on 1980 to 1982 Canadian and US modles) exhaust to the turbo, and from the turbo to catalyst were big vibration points.

5. The oil supply and return were plumbed into existing bosses.

6. Forged pistons and rods of very good quality were used with high compression and good metalurgy

7. The worst gearing was used. Wide ratio 4 speeds and the rare C3 autos and some very quirky U shift 5 speeds with exceptionally low intermdiates were the nadir of Fords engineering, designed to cope with the planned extensive use in planned weighty Fox Fairmonts.


Image

The 2.3 Carb turbo system was complicated; but for Ford, it eliminated boost referencing. Sadly, its draw through systemand its gearing made the engine a very poor responder to small speed variances. You had to ring its neck. Its carb was too small, mechanical secondary, and actually only 227 cfm at 1.5" Hg, or 320 cfm as rated as a 2-bbl. Holley quoted 278 cfm at 2.0" Hg.

The whole philosphy Eng Norman General and the team at Ford was to just set up an alternative to 129 to 140 hp 5 liter gas V8, with an improvement in EPA ratings. And get it on the market reliable. So that's all they did. It wasn't anywhere near as good as the

The seriously smakcked up gearing, and the vibration and heat of low octane motoring with 9:1 compression, and the delicay and complication of targeted plumbing put these engines into oil down mode, with conrods through blocks, cold start forged piston problems, and frustated drivers selecting low gears and putting the engines through the rpm ceiling. All these issues didn't happen with the blow through

the approx 230 hp 1972 BroadSpeed Capri Bullet,

Image
Image


the approx 230 hp 1976-1980 TVR 3000M Turbo,

Image

and the 188 hp net 1981 2800 Capri Turbo (Zakspeed via SVO's later West German guru, Mike Kranfuss),

Image

These shared the same ET 78 gearbox on some US 2.3 versions, but with very close 65-73 Mustang T10/ TopLoader type ratios.

The Zakspeed engineered Capri III even had the American market 2.8 Mustang block. Ford USA purposely turbocharged the wrong engine in the USA, and forbade the factory turbocharging of the 3.3 and 4.1 in line sixes.

The parts of the factory 2.3 Carb turbo are great to use.

Although Motorcraft TFi is a better option for a turbo ignition system than anything aftermarkt, a stock DSII with boost referenced fuel pump and a solid, reliable, easy to get turbo with a proper, large enough 2-bbl carb.


40 year old turbo
40 year old Duraspark II
Old 500 cfm Holley

and buy some pipe bends, and have then made up to suit.

The air fuel ratio thing is cutting edge, and the air craft guys have been doing that for years. You need to focus on whats important. One thing AT A TIME.

Nothing here is gonna bankrupt you if you decide on Yes or No's to whats important.

Nice to haves, well, they don't fix reliabity issues at 6 to 8 pounds boost.


Ford made about, what, 32000 turbo cars from 1979 to 1980, with the Carb turbo continuing in Canada and Europe till 1982 before it became the EFi 2.3 in 1983. I'd be very supprised if you couldn't get parts nearby.

So there are lots about, and the parts supply is reliable, and the parts are good. The carbon seal and black death were related to how difficult the 2.3 Carb turbo was to service. The same parts as a blow through on a gasoline six will work fine. Ford should have done this, but AK Millers turbo in line sixes were emissions legal, propane blow throughs or draw through gasoline, and 5.0 V8's got a huge shot in the arm when people forgot how much gas price hurt them if they were around in 1973 and 1979.
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
powerband
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1971
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #24 by powerband » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:50 pm

The 2.3 Carb turbo system was complicated; but for Ford, it eliminated boost referencing. Sadly, its draw through system and its gearing made the engine a very poor responder to small speed variances. You had to ring its neck. Its carb was too small, mechanical secondary, and actually only 227 cfm at 1.5" Hg, or 320 cfm as rated as a 2-bbl. Holley quoted 278 cfm at 2.0" Hg.

The carbureted' late 70's early 80's USA - "BOP" Draw-Thru forced induction 231 CID V6's (later Grand Nat'l) used a specially built Thermo-Quadrajet with External Power Valve boost reference and a WOT rating of 850 CFM. Unlike typical carb'd Blow-Thru, with Draw-Thru turbo, the transition from no-boost cruise to full boost requires huge CFM differences, also the carb has no pressurization of carb bowl so a steady fuel volume at low pressure is all that is needed.

hav e fun

Imagehttps://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Powerband/TURBO%20-%20DRAW%20THRU/100_2838_zpsjaj9cez1.jpg

Image

Image
"Take time to stop and smell... The roadkill..."

chero1369
Registered User
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:49 am
Location: slowdeatha,Tx

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #25 by chero1369 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:02 pm

I'm learning too much.My head is going to desplode.I'll come back after I finish my FE.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #26 by pmuller9 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:52 pm

Ryan.
You stated that you wanted to have a turbo build with easy plumbing, torque from 1500 to 4000 rpm and to keep it inexpensive as possible and to use what you have if possible.

You are doing something opposite of what racers are doing so we don't compare with any of it.
The racers are looking at making horsepower so the turbochargers can be large for the engine size to prevent over revving the turbo and to operate closer to the efficiency island on the compressor map.
They usually don't have to worry about the turbo compressors surge zone because the engines rpm never drops low enough to get there.

In the case of the street application where you want to focus on boost at low rpm the turbo should be small for the engine size so you can have full boost at low rpm without going into the surge zone so in this case it is very important that the turbocharger is not too large.

Let's look at some numbers.
A 200 six with a volumetric efficiency of 80% dropping off to 75% at 4000 rpm, no intercooler and 8 lbs of boost.
The calculations show an airflow of 7 lbs/min at 1500 rpm and 17 lbs /min at 4000 rpm.
If you look at the different compressor maps that range of airflow falls nicely in the center of 42 to 44 mm compressor inducer maps at a pressure ratio of 1.57 (8 lbs of boost)
So you are looking at GT25 and the smaller GT28 turbochargers from 42 to 44mm compressor inducer size.
The T3 turbo you were looking at is too big.
A GT2554R is a great little turbo but it is a dual ball bearing model that cost a little more than the journal bearing models.
A Borg Warner 313297 is a very high quality unit also but has journal bearing instead of roller.

At 4000 rpm with 8 lbs of boost the airflow through the turbo is about 245 cfm.
However after compression the flow through the carb is about 156 cfm using the 1.57 pressure ratio.
Your Autolite 2100 1.08 is rated at 287 cfm using a pressure drop of 3 inches and 200 cfm using a 1.5 pressure drop (Same as a 4bbl carb) so it will work with the turbocharger.
The other test is if it runs well on the engine without boost it will work with boost.
Here is the link showing you what you will need to do to modify the 2100. The link is a different carb but the procedure is the same.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=79853&hilit=drill

The oil for the turbo comes from the engine oil gallery under pressure and returns to the oil pan above the oil level using a larger line that is downhill the entire way to the pan.
There can be no restriction on the return line.

Yes, the best way to regulate fuel pressure is with an in-tank electric pump (to keep it cool) and a boost referenced regulator with a return line to the tank so the fuel is always circulating to stay cool.

Because your car is a DD you need to have mechanical advance, vacuum advance and boost retard for optimum driving performance and gas mileage.
Racers don't need all three parameters in play so it is easy to modify a distributor to focus on just one or two of them.
That is why I recommended the MSD Programmable 6AL-2, Part# 6530 where you can have control of all three plus have rev limits to protect the engine.
This way you can use the distributor's magnetic pickup to trigger the MSD system and use the vacuum advance plate to phase the rotor to the distributor cap points.
You can't take care of all those considerations any other way.
Last edited by pmuller9 on Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #27 by StarDiero75 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:04 am

pmuller9 wrote:Ryan
I will try to answer your questions with specific information that is relevant to your application in a later post.

I don't mean to negate X here, but this is exactly what I was looking for. Don't get me wrong I love the history and hearing how it all came to be and what was done at the time, but this is what I need.

I'll look into the G25 and G28. They're pretty expensive new, $850+. What cars have these on them so I can hit the yards around me to try and nab one?

That flow stuff was great, thank you for calculating all that, what equations and how did you know how to calculate that? I'm a mechanical engineering major in school, so that'd really be sick to know. Especially since I'm taking an engine class this year.

Ok so how do I get an electronic fuel pump for my Ranchero? I've seen them for sale for 65 mustangs, but the gas tank is weirdly done for the Ranch, plus its a 20 gallon tank vs the 14 or 16. I was thinking of an inline one but I've heard they're not reliable and they're kinda loud.

That MSD box is expensive woah! $430 and its on sale lol. I'm looking into getting a DSII from Bill, would I use this box with it? Will the stock box never work well enough with the turbo?

Now the cam you recommend, would something like that work fine without the turbo? Lets say I decide to say screw the turbo and take the head off and have it shaved to restore my compression, would that cam with 114 lobe sep and the less overlap be good without the turbo? I'm just worried that if I get it all, put it all together, and I get a headache trying to figure it all out and just say screw it, that I'll be stuck now having to buy another cam and installing it. I've yet to do that and I don't think I want to do it more than once lol.

Thanks a lot man, you're a lot of help.
Last edited by StarDiero75 on Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
--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: 864
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #28 by StarDiero75 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:18 am

xctasy wrote:Ford had access to a lot more technology than people realised. In our modern control systems area, people raise a bunch of "nice to haves".

Primary importance is to have a boosted engine run with the correct air fuel ratio, and without too little advance to cause fuel economy loss, and not too much advance to hole a piston.


Mass produced parts are more relaible than low volume ebay aluminum showers.

Seven major reasons for using a 40 year old turbo... and 40 year old Duraspark II. In a 54 year old car.....Its about knowing what attributes bring to the supply of reliable parts. Not grey slurry stuff that looks like a Gold watch untill the Copper Kote wears off......

During the 70's, Ford MotorCompany in the USA had seen that people like Ak Miller and Jim Flynn doing exceptional carb and Mechanical fuel injection turbo Pintos and Mavericks with varying kinds of control systems. These were a mixture of Skunk Works and non factory Experimental.

Ford had to walk the FINE line between mainaining the existing Cleveland, Windsor and Lima foundary work, and incorporating some seriously Disputive Technolgy. Like getting rid of 8 and 9" axles, out sourcing all its manual gearboxes from Germany, Mexico or BorgWarner, and importing engines from Cologne, Brazil or Mexico. The success of the wrong engines created a MASSIVE supply issue for Ford, so Ford did some really strange Engineering stuff to protect its people and plant utilization. Like the 1972 Ford Courier which was a US built Jap Mazda B1800.

For example, Ford USA's 25% part purchase of Mazda (Toyo Kogo) in 1973, and its involvement with Datsun/ Toyo Kogyo's Jatco Transmission exactly while General Motors was contracted to supply Mazda Australian Holden Premiers with Mazda Rotary engines under an NSU/Audi patent while GM wannted out of Rotaries kind of shows everyone how Ford put there money where there mouth was, and Ment Business.

The Carb 2300 Turbo was kind of on the outer limits of acceptablity, but it was a pragmatic move to respond to Americas growinf desire for performance without an economy compromise. Ford actually aced a number of very important things:-

The Carb Turbo 2.3 got:-

1. Single Advance Duraspark II with external advance control via the Yellow Strain relief DSII box. MSD 6A and 6L like in a factory wrapper. Ford employed a vast array of pre EEC "one" tricks also shared with 1980-1988 Jeep 4.2's and all the early non EECIV 2.3 and 4.9 Carter 1 bbl MCU and non MCU pickup trucks. Total control existed over the advance and air fuel ratios by the use of these Solenoid's. Five facets of control were potentially able to occur; three pricipal parts, with 2 extra "nice to haves", the turbo light, and the boost warning.

2. The crank case had a flapper valve to control blow by, (copied from the 2000 OHC) and a very good PCV system on top of the rocker and air cleaner.

3. The fuel pump was strike protected to stop it being a flaming inferno in a crah or under extreme heat

4. The turbo had six points of securing. It didn't float off the engine on flimsy brackets. That had both advantages and disadvatages because secondary vibration in a 2.3 four is extreme, and certan kinds are amplified which under certain loads can injure the main shaft of the turbo. The extended pipes from the cast iron header (and light off cat on 1980 to 1982 Canadian and US modles) exhaust to the turbo, and from the turbo to catalyst were big vibration points.

5. The oil supply and return were plumbed into existing bosses.

6. Forged pistons and rods of very good quality were used with high compression and good metalurgy

7. The worst gearing was used. Wide ratio 4 speeds and the rare C3 autos and some very quirky U shift 5 speeds with exceptionally low intermdiates were the nadir of Fords engineering, designed to cope with the planned extensive use in planned weighty Fox Fairmonts.


Image

The 2.3 Carb turbo system was complicated; but for Ford, it eliminated boost referencing. Sadly, its draw through systemand its gearing made the engine a very poor responder to small speed variances. You had to ring its neck. Its carb was too small, mechanical secondary, and actually only 227 cfm at 1.5" Hg, or 320 cfm as rated as a 2-bbl. Holley quoted 278 cfm at 2.0" Hg.

The whole philosphy Eng Norman General and the team at Ford was to just set up an alternative to 129 to 140 hp 5 liter gas V8, with an improvement in EPA ratings. And get it on the market reliable. So that's all they did. It wasn't anywhere near as good as the

The seriously smakcked up gearing, and the vibration and heat of low octane motoring with 9:1 compression, and the delicay and complication of targeted plumbing put these engines into oil down mode, with conrods through blocks, cold start forged piston problems, and frustated drivers selecting low gears and putting the engines through the rpm ceiling. All these issues didn't happen with the blow through

the approx 230 hp 1972 BroadSpeed Capri Bullet,

Image
Image


the approx 230 hp 1976-1980 TVR 3000M Turbo,

Image

and the 188 hp net 1981 2800 Capri Turbo (Zakspeed via SVO's later West German guru, Mike Kranfuss),

Image

These shared the same ET 78 gearbox on some US 2.3 versions, but with very close 65-73 Mustang T10/ TopLoader type ratios.

The Zakspeed engineered Capri III even had the American market 2.8 Mustang block. Ford USA purposely turbocharged the wrong engine in the USA, and forbade the factory turbocharging of the 3.3 and 4.1 in line sixes.

The parts of the factory 2.3 Carb turbo are great to use.

Although Motorcraft TFi is a better option for a turbo ignition system than anything aftermarkt, a stock DSII with boost referenced fuel pump and a solid, reliable, easy to get turbo with a proper, large enough 2-bbl carb.


40 year old turbo
40 year old Duraspark II
Old 500 cfm Holley

and buy some pipe bends, and have then made up to suit.

The air fuel ratio thing is cutting edge, and the air craft guys have been doing that for years. You need to focus on whats important. One thing AT A TIME.

Nothing here is gonna bankrupt you if you decide on Yes or No's to whats important.

Nice to haves, well, they don't fix reliabity issues at 6 to 8 pounds boost.


Ford made about, what, 32000 turbo cars from 1979 to 1980, with the Carb turbo continuing in Canada and Europe till 1982 before it became the EFi 2.3 in 1983. I'd be very supprised if you couldn't get parts nearby.

So there are lots about, and the parts supply is reliable, and the parts are good. The carbon seal and black death were related to how difficult the 2.3 Carb turbo was to service. The same parts as a blow through on a gasoline six will work fine. Ford should have done this, but AK Millers turbo in line sixes were emissions legal, propane blow throughs or draw through gasoline, and 5.0 V8's got a huge shot in the arm when people forgot how much gas price hurt them if they were around in 1973 and 1979.

What is the model of turbo you keep referencing? And what carb is it? Its not a 2300 is it?

I am down to go and put the DSII unit in it. I'll just throw my HEI back on the engine thats on the stand. I want the best for this car. I'm not looking for a power house, just a engine that gets better mileage, pulls a little better, and is more fun to drive. I don't need a large turbo, a small economy one is perfect. i like that it spools fast so i don't gotta have lag, and I don't need it to spin super fast b/c i don't take this thing over 4000 really. I can think of maybe 4 times in 3 years I've gone over 4k, and 1 was a stuck gas pedal.
--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.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #29 by pmuller9 » Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:58 pm

StarDiero75 wrote:I'm a mechanical engineering major in school, so that'd really be sick to know. Especially since I'm taking an engine class this year.

That's perfect. Welcome to the world of engineering.
I don't know what you know about turbocharging but I will try to answer any questions you might have.
Pages 6 through 12 of the following Garrett turbocharger catalog has a good outline on turbocharging including some formulas.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqnbemrygclw1 ... .pdf?raw=1

I will try to answer your questions in order from post #27

The Garrett GT2554R is the smallest of the dual roller bearing turbochargers and is about perfect for your application.
The best I can find is that it is an upgrade for some of the stock turbos found on some Nissan engines meaning you won't find one in the wrecking yard.

The high pressure inline electric fuel pump is not reliable because it runs hot just sitting in the open air.
In your case if you use a bypass boost referenced fuel pressure regulator with a return line to the tank the fuel will always be circulating and staying cool. The other consideration is that the carburetor only requires 6.5 psi plus boost pressure so the fuel pump will only have to pump at 14.5 psi at 8 psi of boost and should run cooler than the high pressure pumps running at 60 psi+
Do a cushioned mount to prevent pump vibration from transferring to the frame.

The MSD box works with the DSll distributor and the distributor will not need to be re-curved by Bill since the mechanical advance gets locked and you program the mechanical advance from your laptop.
The MSD 6530 uses GraphView downloaded from the Pro-data+ software.
I will continue to see if we can get the timing job done another way.

The cam I recommended works with the stock log exhaust manifold.
If the turbo system is removed it still will work well N/A.
If you change to a header then a single pattern cam that has more overlap works best so the header can scavenge during the valve overlap period.
Last edited by pmuller9 on Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6886
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 #30 by xctasy » Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:29 am

TB03XX= T03 with whatever fittings

Image

When Garret was AIResearch, it made air craft cabin blowers, its growth was small diesels, included nearly all Mercedes Benz TD's with some exceptions made by Audis KKK.

The TB0302 was the first T03, similar to the Saab 99/900 Turbo unit, but used as well in the 1980 Turbo Lotus Espirt Essex and the later 1984 MG Mini Metro 1275 Turbo....then the 1983 2.2 K-car turbo.

In my opinion, the most versitile plain bearing turbo ever. It was sized to suit any engine from 1275 to over 4089 cc, with 2700 cc the sweet spot.

The new stuff is truly neat and well serviced, BUT for certainty of purpose, any old TB03XX will do if you can rekit it, and use proper long life fittings.


http://www.allpar.com/fix/holler/budget ... build.html

I will not dazel you with anything except early David Vizard turbo tech for 1970-1988 T series 1600/2000 EAO OHC Pinto engines.

See the David Vizards Modifying Fords SOHC engines book, ex SCRID, the turbo section is in Chapter 11, Page 131


https://fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?t=69374

xctasy wrote:Very expensive, and worse if you try and cost cut.

Factory system example is the 1975-1979 Mercedes Benz SEL 450 6.9. one of the best systems around. V12 Lamborghinis used it too.

Best discussion was David Vizards Modifying Fords SOHC engines, page 108 to 111.

He recommends buying a whole kit. Size wise, oil demands for a 5 liter I6 will be the same as a hard worked Pinto 2000.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26804743/How- ... vid-Vizard

Aussies were making systems for racing in the early 50's on small I6 engines.

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6557
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: 3360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #31 by pmuller9 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:51 am

I'm going back to a more simple approach on the ignition system but still want you to have vacuum advance as well as boost retard so let's not consider the MSD 6530.

Use the same set ignition as Bill, DSll distributor with the MSD 6AL and Blaster coil.
Get the DSll from Bill which leaves you having to add boost retard only.
This way if you decide to eliminate a turbo system you can remove the boost retard with it.

MSD makes a boost retard unit which is what most blow-thru carb projects use but I'm curious if Bill can add a dual diaphragm vacuum advance canister to the distributor that will do both vacuum advance and boost retard.

Have you studied Engine Volumetric Efficiency in class?

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6886
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 #32 by xctasy » Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:43 pm

The issues with blow through turbos is the same as draw throughs. Ford in 79 was way ahead of everyone with this.

What royally screwed FoMoCo was the non standard non turbo carb parts, and those vacuum lines that took a dump from wear or bad service. The key good thing were the check valves and dioodes, and the adjustability to the Vacuum Solenoid they had on the head. Ford used the HVACsystem as a vac reserviour, and that never made any work on faults very easy.

50 feet of old crappy vacuum lines and mechanisms that where an " invented fix"... they somehow went wrong when fiddled with in any way. That was sure the biggest issue.




You have to copy stock 1980's carb era turbo VECI' diagrams like the two blow through turbos, the Bosch K 1397 R5 Turbo 2's and 1655cc Hemi 1-bbl turbo Renault Feugo's.

They worked okay, and even the 1-bbl Solex equiped 1655 cc cars were more like EFi cars in the carb to turbo vac line diagrams.

If you use a stock DSII, you can use the null solenoids from any junked 1978-1988 Feedback carb Jeep or Ford to control advance and retard. The vaccum canisotr allows you to range the advance by an electric trip sensor, like a rehostat.

The check valves are very important, and I'd personally keep away from dual advance ignitions, because MSD's system is essentially a defacto Yellow Strain control box, and not always reliable.

here are the

checkvalves and
vac diodes to get.


On a blow through conversion, you sure wouldn't use a 5200 Holley Weber, but the so called "2300 series: Holley #4412 500 crfm carb, with proper Ford style vac advance routing, and choke removal. Holley Weber were 2300 carbs, NOT 2300 series Holley Paret Number 7448, 9917 or 4412 carbs.

the two parts are the
Image

Image

Image

Image

The key part to all this is a really basic and simple Vehicle Emission Control Information (VECI) system. Every car from 1962 has really had a raft of clean air regulation stuff progressively added to the engine. Ford did it all during the reign of the 200 from 1963 to 1983.

IMHO, the ancient junk yard stuff is the best aquistion, and it allows you to control ignition 100% just as pmuller9 is suggesting.

The service tech from Ford Dunedin told me early on....unless you understand orthodox emission and vaccum and ignition stuff, you'll create headaches from your doo gooder vacuum line removal ways. And it doensn't matter if its turbo, EFi, carb, or whatever.

He gave me the example of the smog and emmissions gear on a Pinto engine. He said the engines came from the same German plant, and any two Cortinas with them could be emissions mapped differently, but internally, the European and US and Australian engines were all the same. So I tried to learn about thoise systems, but its taken untill 2015 to 2016 to get it nailed. The turbo parts are a great source.

I'm just suggesting another way to nail the 2-bbl direct mount turbo blow trhough without unrelaible, non Ford parts.

The old TB03 series turbos have a good AR ratio and they are easy to mount, and the 200 Turbo blow through is the engine Ford should have turboed in 1978....but didn't. Because it would have created a massive issue with what would have stollen slaes of 255, 302 and maybee 351 engines.

Read through pm's stuff, and he'll get right in the zone. For me, its Ford US parts, not aftermarket other parts. The history of those is very important. If people are making 300 hp with TB0355 turbos from Ford Escort turbos, then a little 6 pound boost with a junked TB0302 is easiere than falling off a log.
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: 3360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #33 by pmuller9 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 5:15 pm

xctasy wrote:Read through pm's stuff, and he'll get right in the zone. For me, its Ford US parts, not aftermarket other parts. The history of those is very important. If people are making 300 hp with TB0355 turbos from Ford Escort turbos, then a little 6 pound boost with a junked TB0302 is easiere than falling off a log.

xctasy

When scrap metal prices peaked in 2010-2011 we lost most of the old car inventory when scrap yards decided to crush out. It was sickening.
Even carbureted 300 sixes are getting hard to find and the search often leads to farmers fields rather than wrecking yards.
The same with finding a 1980s to 1990s Turbo Ford escort salvage car.
A new TBO355 is very expensive.
The TB03 turbos for the Ford Escort have a very small turbine housing that will choke a 3.3 engine.
The Chrysler turbos for the 2.2 have a larger housing but still on the small side and again good luck finding salvage.

A lot of the MSD 6A box failures are from counterfeit units that can be identified by certain subtle appearance differences. See MSD counterfeit bulletin.
I always buy directly form MSD and have not had failures.
It has been my experience and others that on the 300 six no other ignition provides the same low rpm response and fuel mileage as the MSD 6A series when used with the MSD coil and low resistance spark plugs wires.

According to my calculations since the OPs 200 six never sees over 4000 rpms the 2100 1.08 has sufficient airflow.
Your thoughts?

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #34 by pmuller9 » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:33 pm

Ryan
What distributor do you have now?

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6886
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 #35 by xctasy » Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:19 pm

My 200 six at 160 hp carb needs are the same as your 300 six at 240 hp....duty cycle of a carb is high on a six cylinder engine with 1bbl seving 3 cylinders. I like the Ford Autolites and Motorcrafts. One 1.33 390 FE carb with 424 does great on a Chrysler 265 Hemi six on line with stock camshaft.

500 cfm carbs with 100% adjustable air fuel wont operate as a restrictor plate and will idle better than any 1.08.

The ELB 4.3 liter from 1977 used the same carb and metering as the 318 ELB...exactly. Mopar realised that both engines made the same power. Like the 250 2v, the 302c 2v down here used the same carb. Cars accelerated the same despite the six being rated at 170 hp gross, and the dual pipe 302C 2v, 240 hp.

So in line six carbs have to be bigger by 16 to 25% than what Detriot used.
Last edited by xctasy on Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:24 am, 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
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #36 by StarDiero75 » Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:05 am

pmuller9 wrote:Ryan
What distributor do you have now?

Sorry i haven't gotten back to your last post, I've been real busy with school now and this stuff is taking the back burner.

I currently have a CRT Performance HEI. I don't know what can be done other than a curve to make it work better. i don't have much of a clue with ignition other than just the basic stuff of just tuning it to drive well.
--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: 864
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #37 by StarDiero75 » Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:14 am

pmuller9 wrote:I'm going back to a more simple approach on the ignition system but still want you to have vacuum advance as well as boost retard so let's not consider the MSD 6530.

Use the same set ignition as Bill, DSll distributor with the MSD 6AL and Blaster coil.
Get the DSll from Bill which leaves you having to add boost retard only.
This way if you decide to eliminate a turbo system you can remove the boost retard with it.

MSD makes a boost retard unit which is what most blow-thru carb projects use but I'm curious if Bill can add a dual diaphragm vacuum advance canister to the distributor that will do both vacuum advance and boost retard.

Have you studied Engine Volumetric Efficiency in class?

Ok I can check into Bills then. I won't have this head on for at least another year. The valve job is setting me back $500ish in labor! Still gotta buy the valves, springs and retainers. So i wont be bothering him until I'm done with that. I'm curious too though if he could do a dual diaphragm and accomplish the boost retard with that. Have others done that?

I just started my internal combustion engine class. Our Thermodynamics class was a joke with the teacher being new and not good at teaching. I'm hoping the ICE class will be much better. We do have a turbo and supercharger section to cover so that will be very interesting but that won't be for at least a couple of months since it's toward the end of the course. So no, i have not done volumetric efficiency yet. But do continue :)
--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: 1971
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #38 by powerband » Thu Aug 22, 2019 9:12 am

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? ... I want something fun, yet reliable.

Keeping with the affordable theme, at low boost levels, reliable OEM - DSII ignition can simply be 'locked out' at a pre-set maximum advance that may not offer the ultimate peformance possible but will allow 'breadboarding' the critical companion components of fuel supply and AFR tuning, compressor choices, cooling and physical limitations of the engine bay. Upgrading components as needed readying for road tuning.


viewtopic.php?f=22&t=79920&p=619133&hilit=advance#p619133

for discussion:

... For high boost - high performance @ $ 500.oo + these days you can control timing, draw your own curve referenced to boost - no problem (MSD etc). For under $100 you can 'lock out' an OEM distributor OR find an emissions years (@71-78) DSII distributor and peek under reluctor plate. Most are already limited to near optimal advance for safe low boost use. The vacuum advance can actually still be used if sourced from intake since vacuum will transition to boost and no vac advance.

Stock OEM D4xx (1974) DSII distributor has a 13R weight channel meaning at Crank X 2 it equals 26 degrees maximum advance.

Image.

have (affordable boosted) fun:

Image

Image

Image
"Take time to stop and smell... The roadkill..."

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #39 by pmuller9 » Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:50 pm

Ryan
I PM'd Bill about using a dual vacuum canister to advance and retard the timing and we don't seem to be on the same page.
His last reply was to use the MSD boost retard box.
I still say that if the dual canister will move the pickup plate in both directions the timing will be advanced under manifold vacuum and retarded under pressure if you only use the outside port and leave the inside port to the canister open.

Did you take the time to read pages 6 to 12 from the Garrett Turbo catalog?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wqnbemrygclw1 ... .pdf?raw=1
We can begin discussions based on that material and more.

What distributor does your 200 have on it now?
Last edited by pmuller9 on Thu Aug 22, 2019 2:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
powerband
FSP Moderator
Posts: 1971
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 6:45 pm
Location: Mid Hudson Valley - \H/

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #40 by powerband » Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:14 pm

MacInnes book (Turbochargers), describes a distrib' canister setup built for retard:

(sic) The Corvair distributor 'vacuum canister' was instead used as a 'pressure canister'. Initial advance was set around 24 degrees BTDC. At @ 2000 RPM at WOT, boost pressure to canister (2 PSI) would retard timing @ 10 degrees until comparatively high RPM centrifugal advance added @ 12 degrees (3800 - 4500 RPM). ("maximum power from the engine without detonation problems")

MacInnes cautions the same timing 'map' will not work on other engine configurations, also points out importance of boost referenced carburetor Power Valve enrichment circuit.

.., all this before simple real-time digital AFR gauge and MSD controls let DIY forced induction projects out of the backyard .

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

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #41 by pmuller9 » Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:18 pm

powerband
Thanks for your input on this project as well as thanks to X

In response to post #38
As a daily driver the time operating with an intake manifold vacuum will far exceed the time under boost. (OK maybe not at first LOL)
I would want the timing to be at the full N/A mechanical advance plus vacuum advance when cruising at light throttle opening.

The non intercooled intake manifold temps will be at least 180 degrees F at 8 lbs of boost and I would expect the timing to be retarded 8 degrees. The mechanical advance would have to limited to a total timing at 28 degree BTDC.
The problem is you also have to retard the advance curve back to the emissions spec or more to prevent low rpm detonation.
IMO the combination of retarded advance curve and total timing is too much of a compromise for a DD street car.

I would rather keep the N/A timing at it's best and retard the timing as boost is applied.
I also like the backyard approach if possible.

User avatar
StarDiero75
Registered User
Posts: 864
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:39 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #42 by StarDiero75 » Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:41 pm

Thank you powerband for that.

I have not yet read the pages from Garrett. I'm literally living by the seat of my pants this week and not settling down till midnight or later, then getting back up for school in the morning. I will post next when i read the pages.

I have a CRT Performance HEI distributor

So you definitely recommend the MSD box over the dual canister then?
--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.

pmuller9
Registered User
Posts: 3360
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:33 am
Location: Columbus, Indiana

Re: Possible boosting, need guidance

Post #43 by pmuller9 » Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:20 pm

StarDiero75 wrote:So you definitely recommend the MSD box over the dual canister then?

The dual canister is an experiment for those that like to tinker.
I was looking the Cardone 30-2670 but not sure if it fits your engine. It looks like a DSll base with a dual vacuum canister.
You can look at one from a local parts store.

The combination that gives you everything without a laptop would be the DSll distributor, the MSD boost retard box (8762), MSD 6A ignition box with the MSD Blaster coil. If you remove the turbo or don't do one in the first place then just remove the MSD boost retard box.
The MSD boost retard has a dashboard mount dial that lets you make adjustments on the fly.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6886
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 #44 by xctasy » Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:58 pm

I like pmuller9's advice. If you take it, you'll always get a huge head start.

The placement of a turbo with great AR ratio of 0.63 ( the 132 hp Carb Turbo 2.3 for 79 to 82 had a better AR ratio than the 145, 175, 205 hp EFi 2.3 liters.) .....one of those turbos, on the cold side of the engine, fed with a header, with an upstream A360 Datsun/Nissan/Holden V6/V8 cool air supply....it'll trade off low end boost; but reduce cold air temperatures. The large diameter blower hat with secondary wire reinforced air cleaner has the right entry points to feed diffused air to the 2-bbl carb top with no choke horn.

Air fuel ratio, well its a ages old Schelber patent barrel valve, which flows from almost zero cc/min to 910 cc/min, infineltly variable.

No looking through the 40 to 87 call size Holley jet catalogue to get the same rates. Since each 2300 Holley 2-bbl since 1957 to date has two jets, thats 94 options you don't have to look for, and the stock range in peak horsepower is still up to 561 hp, the maximum two Holley 87 jets can make in pounds of fuel per hp.

123 cc/min or 40 thou nominal, 40 call size jet
129 cc/min or 41 thou nominal, 41 call size jet
136 cc/min or 42 thou nominal, 42 call size jet
142 cc/min or 43 thou nominal, 43 call size jet
149 cc/min or 44 thou nominal, 44 call size jet
157 cc/min or 45 thou nominal, 45 call size jet
164 cc/min or 45 thou nominal, 46 call size jet
171 cc/min or 47 thou nominal, 47 call size jet
178 cc/min or 48 thou nominal, 48 call size jet
185 cc/min or 48 thou nominal, 49 call size jet
192 cc/min or 49 thou nominal, 50 call size jet
198 cc/min or 50 thou nominal, 51 call size jet
205 cc/min or 52 thou nominal, 52 call size jet
212 cc/min or 52 thou nominal, 53 call size jet
221 cc/min or 53 thou nominal, 54 call size jet
230 cc/min or 54 thou nominal, 55 call size jet
239 cc/min or 55 thou nominal, 56 call size jet
248 cc/min or 56 thou nominal, 57 call size jet
257 cc/min or 57 thou nominal, 58 call size jet
267 cc/min or 58 thou nominal, 59 call size jet
285 cc/min or 60 thou nominal, 60 call size jet
298 cc/min or 60 thou nominal, 61 call size jet
311 cc/min or 61 thou nominal, 62 call size jet
325 cc/min or 62 thou nominal, 63 call size jet
341 cc/min or 64 thou nominal, 64 call size jet
357 cc/min or 65 thou nominal, 65 call size jet
374 cc/min or 66 thou nominal, 66 call size jet
392 cc/min or 68 thou nominal, 67 call size jet
411 cc/min or 69 thou nominal, 68 call size jet
429 cc/min or 70 thou nominal, 69 call size jet
448 cc/min or 73 thou nominal, 70 call size jet
470 cc/min or 76 thou nominal, 71 call size jet
492 cc/min or 79 thou nominal, 72 call size jet
517 cc/min or 79 thou nominal, 73 call size jet
542 cc/min or 81 thou nominal, 74 call size jet
566 cc/min or 82 thou nominal, 75 call size jet
587 cc/min or 84 thou nominal, 76 call size jet
615 cc/min or 86 thou nominal, 77 call size jet
645 cc/min or 89 thou nominal, 78 call size jet
677 cc/min or 91 thou nominal, 79 call size jet
703 cc/min or 93 thou nominal, 80 call size jet
731 cc/min or 93 thou nominal, 81 call size jet
765 cc/min or 93 thou nominal, 82 call size jet
795 cc/min or 94 thou nominal, 83 call size jet
824 cc/min or 99 thou nominal, 84 call size jet
858 cc/min or 100 thou nominal, 85 call size jet
890 cc/min or 101 thou nominal, 86 call size jet
923 cc/min or 103 thou nominal, 87 call size jet



What you loose in good quick short run to turbo and carb boost, you gain in proper air fuel ratios. Power valves are for copeing with rampant lean spots in engines that have divergent runner lengths...just a Power Valve Channel Restriction and power valve rating and boost referencing process, which is reactionary and always in lag. So are acclerator pumps and squirters...all middle age activites to keep the peasants playing.

A proper Fuel Control or Mixture Control Solenoid will perform permanant, absolute control at all times...the ĺean and rich cylinder average just needs a couple of narrow bands to swing the overall mixtures into the idle, cruise, power transitions. Two bungs at 12 inches down in N0 1 and N0 5 exhaust port on a good header exhaust will eliminate the need to mess with the PVCR and PV and accelerator pump, accelerator pump cam, float level, needle and seat, idle mixtures and accelerator pump clearances, no issues with air bleeds, fuel bleeds & emulsion bleeds.

"Why don't stop all this trying and try one of my whistles out..."

For lean cruising on a low compression, low boost engine with very tall gearing, you can use an old Ford LTD/Crown Vic trip master to log MPG, and if you want to, you can single synch the flywheel with a total advance readout, and adjust everything on the fly.
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