Possible boosting, need guidance

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":1hgdt4iq said:
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
41940449582_8e59bd7b7f_b.jpg


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

41985266841_a57917936b_b.jpg



This turbo Oil drain o-ring: Ford # 87203-S96 measures 15/16” ID , 1/16” width
28113776998_734ac2d9c4_b.jpg


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


2300TURBOCARBMUSTANGstreetlethal013.jpg


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,

1972broadspeedbullet_3000_turbo_002.jpg

1972broadspeedbullet_3000_turbo.jpg



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

1976_1980_tvr3000m_turbo_002.jpg


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

1980_1981_2800_turbo.jpg


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.
 
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

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

100_2926_zpsdzad5lno.jpg


100_2829_zpslwsfyi6o.jpg
 
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.
 
pmuller9":o2ylibsr said:
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.
 
xctasy":21p9ckp1 said:
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.


2300TURBOCARBMUSTANGstreetlethal013.jpg


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,

1972broadspeedbullet_3000_turbo_002.jpg

1972broadspeedbullet_3000_turbo.jpg



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

1976_1980_tvr3000m_turbo_002.jpg


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

1980_1981_2800_turbo.jpg


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.
 
StarDiero75":1juvyiul said:
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.
 
TB03XX= T03 with whatever fittings

TB0355.jpg


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":3izc9hwy said:
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
 
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?
 
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
pacecartodd1_3.jpg


pacecartodd1_4.jpg


pacecartodd1_5.jpg


pacecartodd1_6.jpg


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.
 
xctasy":yq3b4kns said:
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?
 
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.
 
pmuller9":3kmdmm9j said:
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.
 
pmuller9":2losarwg said:
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 :)
 
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.

.

have (affordable boosted) fun:

100_1477_zps5ca71ed1.jpg


100_1361_zps8cd5bbb4.jpg


100_1347_zps9a993e14.jpg
 
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?
 
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
 
Back
Top