250 banger is running, good enough to drive but I got bad detonation in boost

[Mike1157]

Well, the Monster is legit. He is a bonafide street car.


I decided against the personalized plate. The reason for that was simple. I did not want to have to explain a bazillion times what it meant when only the twelve of us know why it's called GMONSTR.
Other contributing factors were that the state of Alabama decided to charge me for all three years that the car has been in my possession despite the fact that it has been non-running.
So,...I paid $171.00 to license the Monster today,..when I was expecting 70.

I intend to modify the coverage I put on the Monster to include a stated value policy, But for the sake of what I wanted to accomplish today, all I needed was proof of ins.

It did drive the distance. There and back was about a 20 mile round trip. I'm starting to become concerned that what I think are 3.55's are way deeper than that. It seem that the car runs at 2400-2600 RPM at what I think is 70 MPH. I still need to properly calibrate the speedo to be sure,..but it's like the engine is spinning way to high to be in 4th gear to be a 3.55.

I'll have to look into that more.

After I got it back I removed the Autolite 65 plugs (which looked perfect,..IDK why I decided to go colder0 But I installed a set of 64's that I have had since day 1. I gapped them to .032, and then took the car for a drive.
This thing detonates so bad when you try to put your foot on the floor that had these been hyperU craptic pistons, they'd be broken by now. I'm only talkin about 1 second of that, but there is clearly something wrong.
When I roll into the throttle, as long as I keep it at about 1/2 throttle, it pings. Stand on it, and it freakin rattles.

Here's my new Auto- Hypochondriacism.
A long time ago I was building a Clevor that I intended to put nitrous on.I planned to use a open chamber 2v head. After reading and talkin to people, I learned that the lack of a "quench area" would cause the engine to detonate very easily.
Consequently,..I bailed on the Clevor thing, and just went w/ a conventional Windsor head instead. I never got to see for myself whether or not that head was gonna cause rampant detonation.


This is a pic of that chamber.

And this is the closed chamber version of that head. The flat area is necessary to promote a clean burn, as it forces more complete combustion as a result a tighter packed mixture.

Now,......this is the Monster's camber:


I'm not seeing no quench.
I knew this in the back of my head, but gave it little consideration, hoping that it wouldn't be an issue. Now it may be that this is why the thing is rattling.
Then again,..It could just be tune related. Time will tell I guess.

If that turns out to be the case,..it'll be the death nail for any boost north of probably 5 P.S.I. as this all ties back to lack of quench being intolerant of high cylinder pressure,..and even that seems to bring on the rattle.

This car is running megasquirt, it is injected, and has a 66mm Turbo on it. The tune right now puts it in the 11:1 AFR, and 18 degrees timing range when in boost. Surely I can't be the only guy in the world trying to turbocharge this engine w/ this head on it?

If I can't "tune out" the detonation because of the open chamber, what kind of power can I expect from this thing Dean? (Yeah,...I know you'll be looking in,...MOF, I'm expecting that you will)

[xctasy]

LOL. 0 Post#686 7-03-2015, 01:01 AM all over...



See http://www.fordmods.com/documents.php?d=43

The common E6RF 12A69BA sensor is the orange inserted item in one of XFlow_Fairlane's post #6

All later EECIV EFI's had Pin 23 hooked up to the Knock Sensor (Unleaded Only)

https://fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=54364





You just need to come down on total advance.

All X-flow Canted valve heads have 302 Boss/ 351 Boss closed chamber properties, so there is poor gas flow incomming, and excessive quench. Ford Australia started with Leaded 97 octane the heighest lead value in the world untill 1986. Then they dropped the compression ratio from 9.35:1 to 8.6 or 8.8:1, and added 1986 E6 Mustang style high swirl ramps and EECIV TFI spark reduction stratergy. That allowed 91 octance to give the same power as 97 leaded.


So you have to do the same, and quell detonation by tipping in advance retard under boost. High static advance, then no more than 23 total, and maybee even less than 16 under boost.


The front head stud takes a knock sensor on X flow Fords. ARP stud kits aren't drilled for the battery earth which also fits the KS.

Early log head Falcons had a front US passenger side thread drilled into the head bolt.

The bolt is basically the Cleveland type, 7/8"taller than the old 200/250 non cross flow logger. It has a screw in thread, and a Piezo electric knock sensor was used to trim the spark advance.

You can use it to peal back advance under load.


Don't be affraid of knocking back advance...low advance tollerance and a lack of incipient knock is proof of efficient combustion. Thats what all box code WA1 EECIV ecu's have, essentially 1987-1997 4.9 F150 and 1980-1991 5.8 G code VV7200 P71 knock sensor logic.


Its the whole reason why Ford Special Vehicles killed most of the 1970 to 1978 Cleveland race engines, and why dumb a$$e$ who put earlier Durasparks on TFI EECIV 4.1s ended up taking them out....


Oh yeah, now I remember..

https://fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?t=59435

When I did mine, I used the coomon 60 pin plug EEC 4 Ford Falcon XF 1986 to 1991 E6RF-12A69BA item, which looks similar to the old EEC3 and EEC4 Panther platform items for 302 and 351 from 1981 to 1991. It mounts on the common earth strap for the log head bolt number one, US drivers side front bolt. The Alloy head bolt, also used on Classic Inlines engines, is about 0.875" taller, but uses the same sensor bolt as my 1972 XA Falcon engine.

The sensor is Fig 13 on the Page 221 Tomco website listing http://www.tomco-inc.com/Catalog/knock%20sensors.pdf, looks the same as the F150 4.9 six as well. Tomco 22 or 42 (29022 and 29042)

Tomco listes them differently to Standard Parts #KSxx listings, but the Ford knock sensor was the first to the US market in 1981 as a type 21 item, Tomco part number 290021.

The Aussie ford item just polls an on off 3 volt signal back to the EEC4, and that cuts the TFI timing back.

Since its a Honda head, it needs Larry Widmer Honda logic.

He uses the GM'S 1986-1996 1997562,10456017,10456287 (Tomco 29014) knock sensor on his 480 hp VTECH engines

He also uses a GM knock sensor, which he learned about while he was in the stock car biz. “I got busted for running them in NASCAR…that and traction control,” he recalls with a grin.

Those Metal Lines Running Underneath The Headers Are Strain Gauges That Measure Cylinder Distortion. If The Cylinders Start To Flex Too Much, The Engine Management System Automatically Reduces Timing And Adds Fuel.

Lastly, Copper head gaskets require indxed spark plugs, since the engine requires very critical set up.

[Mike1157]

Thanks Dean,..I knew you'd be there sooner or later.

This is what I posted over at ford six:

Thanks guys,...worked on this all day. I think I'm close (If tire smoke is any indication of that)

The car needed a ton of timing taken out, and yes I'm datalogging each test. We originally had a steep curve into 100kpa and beyond from "cruise timing" up into the boosted areas of the timing chart. Too much timing M.O.F.

Now my cruise timing is at 27 degrees and falls off to 14 degrees at 200kpa w/ 16, and 18 degrees steps respectively where boost begins.

The AFR was also smoothed into the "fat zone" so that the cruise AFR wasn't so drastic a jump once the engine started seeing boost. Now the AFR table is much more gradually "fat: as the engine starts to transition from vacuum into boost.

The pistons are Racetec 2618 3.700 bore forged flat tops. The cam is a solid roller w/ 550/540 lift numbers, and 225-235 degree duration at .050 I beleive ground on a 112 C/L and installed at 110.

After the last timing changes I'm making really good power. Boost comes on even going up a gradual hill w/ very little throttle ( like 25%)
The car is a heathen,...it takes very little throttle to get the rear to start coming around..all of this just occurring today.

It's exactly what I wanted. To take a 6 banger,...notorious for being slower than a glacier,..and adding some unorthodox stuff to make something that nobody else will have, while at the same time making the same, if not more power and torque than a mildly modified BBF.

So,..I'm close. Still not 100 % sure that the pinging is entirely gone,..but the engine is making really good power and will light the tires relatively easily.

As one might expect from a car w/ a BBF sitting under the hood.

Except I only have half of that.

[JACook]

I'm not seeing no quench...

Not as much as the 4V Cleveland chamber, but your chambers are D-shaped, so with your zero-decked block, there
should be -some- useable quench, unless you used a really thick head gasket. Unfortunately, the circular dish profile
does eat into a fair amount of that area...

Hopefully you can remedy the rest of the pinging with more tuning. Oh, and congrats on finally being able to drive it.
This has been fun to watch.

[Walking-Tall]

It did drive the distance. There and back was about a 20 mile round trip. I'm starting to become concerned that what I think are 3.55's are way deeper than that. It seem that the car runs at 2400-2600 RPM at what I think is 70 MPH. I still need to properly calibrate the speedo to be sure,..but it's like the engine is spinning way to high to be in 4th gear to be a 3.55.

Depending on how tall your rear tires are, and if your stated 4th gear is 1:1 (or AOD, with 0.67:1), those kind of RPM's for 70MPH doesn't seem unreasonable... but unless the drive/driven speedo gears are WAY off, or you've got super tall tires out back, those aren't 3.55:1 kinda 1:1 cruise rpm's. Many moons ago with my '80 Capri, with a 302 and FMX in it, and the original 3.45:1 gears out back and 215/60R14 rear tires, it revved right around 3000rpm at ~60MPH. For instance, if with P225/60R15 rear tires, and 1:1 top gear (non-overdrive) with the transmission, 2500rpm equates to 2.73:1 rear gearing... If with an AOD and 0.67:1 overdrive final ratio, ~2200rpm would be on par for 3.55's, and ~2500rpm would indicate 4.10's might be in there.

Those are decent looking chambers, with nice non-shrouding around the intake valves. Keep tuning

[xctasy]

From your earlier info, your car has 3.73's

4R70W gearset is , 2.84:1, 1.55:1, 1.00:1 and 0.70:1 in top.

The rear Sumitomo HTR Z 315/35ZR17's are 25.68" unloaded and is incorrectly rated at 787 revs per mile...its actually 804. Based on my experience with contact patch at whatever psi you run in them, the loaded rolling diameter is in fact 25.13 ". Its always around 2.2% less than the book value dameter, BF GoodRich and Michelin have confirmed this over the last 20 to 100 years of raidial construction.

At 0.70 in top, thats 28.628 mph per 1000 rpm, or 2446 rpm at 70 mph, less if slipping.

So your right on the basics.


Incidently, tire tread depth is IIRC 0.5", so rpm could go up to 2546 rpm as the rapidly incinerated Lizard warms its tires up on a regular basis...to become...SLICKS!.

Good enough for 157-163 mph at 5700 rpm.

Given your excellent leakdown figures and low oil consumption, and open engine breather that won't be putting the PCV fumes into the intake tract, you can pop a 112 mph 1/4 mile at 5700 rpm through the traps.

Once you get the detonation threashold under control, I'm sure you'd be able to run 11 pounds.


With a computed weight from your vehicle of 3200 pounds all up with you,

You'd only need 369.51 rwhp to do sub 11.96's at 112 MPH trap speeds in 3rd at 5700 rpm.

[Mike1157]

Depending on how tall your rear tires are, and if your stated 4th gear is 1:1 (or AOD, with 0.67:1), those kind of RPM's for 70MPH doesn't seem unreasonable... but unless the drive/driven speedo gears are WAY off, or you've got super tall tires out back, those aren't 3.55:1 kinda 1:1 cruise rpm's. Many moons ago with my '80 Capri, with a 302 and FMX in it, and the original 3.45:1 gears out back and 215/60R14 rear tires, it revved right around 3000rpm at ~60MPH. For instance, if with P225/60R15 rear tires, and 1:1 top gear (non-overdrive) with the transmission, 2500rpm equates to 2.73:1 rear gearing... If with an AOD and 0.67:1 overdrive final ratio, ~2200rpm would be on par for 3.55's, and ~2500rpm would indicate 4.10's might be in there.

Those are decent looking chambers, with nice non-shrouding around the intake valves. Keep tuning

From your earlier info, your car has 3.73's

4R70W gearset is , 2.84:1, 1.55:1, 1.00:1 and 0.70:1 in top.

The rear Sumitomo HTR Z 315/35ZR17's are 25.68" unloaded and is incorrectly rated at 787 revs per mile...its actually 804. Based on my experience with contact patch at whatever psi you run in them, the loaded rolling diameter is in fact 25.13 ". Its always around 2.2% less than the book value dameter, BF GoodRich and Michelin have confirmed this over the last 20 to 100 years of raidial construction.

At 0.70 in top, thats 28.628 mph per 1000 rpm, or 2446 rpm at 70 mph, less if slipping.

So your right on the basics.


Incidently, tire tread depth is IIRC 0.5", so rpm could go up to 2546 rpm as the rapidly incinerated Lizard warms its tires up on a regular basis...to become...SLICKS!.

Good enough for 157-163 mph at 5700 rpm.

Given your excellent leakdown figures and low oil consumption, and open engine breather that won't be putting the PCV fumes into the intake tract, you can pop a 112 mph 1/4 mile at 5700 rpm through the traps.

Once you get the detonation threashold under control, I'm sure you'd be able to run 11 pounds.


With a computed weight from your vehicle of 3200 pounds all up with you,

You'd only need 369.51 rwhp to do sub 11.96's at 112 MPH trap speeds in 3rd at 5700 rpm.

I don't know/remember but I can't imagine choosing such a deep gear for this car. (Mustv'e been during my crack smoking phase) I'll have to change that down to probably 3.23/5/7's before this is all over, as it is now very obvious to me that I have made an error in judgement.

[deathbypsi]

Mike , did you ever figure out what the exact static compression of the motor is?

I have been a MS user for years now and I killed two headgaskets in one week on a 2.3t Ranger when I had set my base ignition timing 10* advanced over what it should have been and rattled it to death. The aftermarket crank pulley I used had a "ding" on it I mistaked for a zero timing mark when in fact they did not mark these pulleys. By pure luck this dent in the pulley appeared to be a zero mark to me and I used it as such. Needless to say my motor didnt like 28psi, 93 pump gas and 28* total timing.

Point is, triple check everything to make absolute certain that the base timing figures the MS is calculating off of is spot on.

[Mike1157]

Mike , did you ever figure out what the exact static compression of the motor is?

I have been a MS user for years now and I killed two headgaskets in one week on a 2.3t Ranger when I had set my base ignition timing 10* advanced over what it should have been and rattled it to death. The aftermarket crank pulley I used had a "ding" on it I mistaked for a zero timing mark when in fact they did not mark these pulleys. By pure luck this dent in the pulley appeared to be a zero mark to me and I used it as such. Needless to say my motor didnt like 28psi, 93 pump gas and 28* total timing.

Point is, triple check everything to make absolute certain that the base timing figures the MS is calculating off of is spot on.

The CR on this engine is 9:1 depending on the Chamber volume,...(and again,..I'm positive that that is/was one of the things I checked when I ordered the pistons) If I was truly an engine builder, I'd have all of that stuff written down on some notebook for future reference.......must not be an engine builder.
I think that the pistons have an 11cc dish,..3.700 bore,...3.91 stroke... and here's the OMG moment.......for some reason chamber volume was thought to be 66cc ( again,...I'm positive that this was checked) that should be like 9.14:1

But,..I've had to retard timing alot in this engine,....having to retard timing alot is a sure sign of higher compression,... It could be more than that, From what I'm reading,..stock chamber volume on the carby head could have been as small as 50cc's in stock config. And that,....would be a bad thing (like 11:1 ) I think these are HF-1 heads, and I know that I polished those chambers, what that leaves me for volume,.......... I just don't know for sure anymore.




Timing has been verified over and aver again. What the ECU says, and what a timing light corroborates are one in the same. I created my own reference marks when I built this thing.

[deathbypsi]

i would do a cranking compression test to see what kind of cylinder pressure there is.

[Mustang-junky]

Dropping down in gears to 3.27 will load up the motor more, it'll ping more. Cooler air could reduce detonation. Is your intercooler big enough? Water and meth might be your best bet, cooler intake temps and added octane.

Jess

[xctasy]

Since I'm from New Zealand, he's had alien help, LOL.

Mike has shopped out some work over the last 3 years, so you'll excuse him for fogetting more than we'll ever learn and still end up being clever.


back in page 1 of his first post, where you find the narrowed SN95 8.8 inch 3.73 axle ratio.

.........

After both ends were sectioned accordingly, I took the shortened housing to my buddy's shop and he put it back together using his housing jig. While it was there, he installed my new 3.73's.
I sent my axles off to moser, and had them resplined to the shorter length, and had them put the C-clip retainers back on the ends.

For the record, this is a street car. I know that 28 spline C-clip axles on a drag car at a drag strip would be the main ingredient for a trashed quarter panel, but the drag strip, and a set of sticky tires are not in this cars' future, so....... I'll consider myself warned.

i would do a cranking compression test to see what kind of cylinder pressure there is.

, and page 24 He's done a cold cranking, static leakdown test before dropping the copper gasket for an MLS.

I asked him to do that Static Leakdown Test, but it was his own idea, eh Mike?.

Today I went and bought two new diagnostic tools: I bought a compression tester, and a leak down tester.

But,..........

I bought them from Harbor Freight.

I looked into the purchase reviews on the leak down tester. People complained that the instructions were vague, and hard to understand. Some didn't like that the tester was calibrated to work at 15 P.S.I. Those that liked it, said that the instructions weren't that hard, and that the fact that it was intended to work at 15 P.S.I. would reduce the chance of high pressure just pushing the piston back down in the bore. They did state that the instructions provided w/ the tool was incorrect, and some listed their remedy for getting the thing to work, and the 39.00 price was about half of what a "name brand" piece would cost.

So I bought it.

I performed the compression test first. So as to have a reference to compare the suspect #1 cylinder, I started at number 6 and worked forward.

It went like this: ( cold, with the throttle closed)
6. 170
5. 160
4. 165
3. 160
2. 160
1. 165

At least the was consistent cylinder pressure.......

He's way up high in Alabama so the static compression is high, but not really high.


The HF 1 Head (Honda cast to a Ford specfication as requested by Henry Ford II in 1978, so that HF 1 could be Henry Ford 1 or Honda Ford 1, who knows)

It has a nominal blueprint reading of as little as 53.1 cc to as much as 56 cc chamber in the Ford factory bookes. 3.700 x 3.91 with has 11 cc custom RaceTeks

Thats before having its valves opened out, the chamber profiled and polished, and a moderate head shave. That expands things 3 cc's on the upper blueprint limit.

So 60 cc is a good calculative figure. , 41 to 44 thou MLS gasket with 3.81" diamter anular section, deck to piston should have been 16 thou below, but I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY.


Intially, we wanted a 125 thou copper gasket to get 8.08:1.


But it leaked, didn't it? So although a hig compression isn't good for a turbo, its aftercooled and blue printed so the over 9:1 compression stays. .

A stock 41 to 44 thou MLS gasket was added, so CR has shot up to 9.39 by my calcs.

From http://www.csgnetwork.com/compcalc.html


I got 9.39:1 based on:-

Bore Size 3.700
Stroke Length 3.910
Head Gasket Bore Diameter 3.810
Compressed Head Gasket Thickness 0.044
Combustion Chamber Volume In CCs 60.00
Dished Piston Volume In CCs 11.00 plus annular radius of standard 3.5 thou piston clearance to 0.165 thou in ring land = 11.1 cc
Piston Deck Clearance 0.016

IIRC, annular piston clearance volume is 3.6835 vs 3.68 on a std bore 250, 28.815-28.760 is about 0.05 cc, so on a 3.700 bore, add 0.1 cc


he's got forged pistons, so he has some real confidence.


The cam timing can be retarded further if there was a cold cranking compression problem, generally, if it goes over 195 psi at sea level, you have issues with making and engine run with modern oxygenated high benzene content fuels.


As for the axle ratios, 3.73 is the best since for a 1/4 mile and maximum speed optimisation, the trap speed in 3rd has to be just past the peak power band of 5500 rpm, so 5700 is it.

For open road cruising, the gear that optimised maximum speed is also the right one for the highway.

I wounldn't change it from 3.73.


But it taint my car, but it'll cope with a set of the other 8.8" ratios roumored to be around, namely 2.26, 2.47, as well as the more common 2.73, 3.08, 3.27, 3.31, 3.45, 3.55 ratios.

Butcha know, the G Monstas got torque to move Birmingham into the Madrid Sizemic plate...

[xctasy]

Punching 3.27's, 25.13" and 5700 rpm into

Step 1 - Enter the following
Ring and Pinion Ratio
Tire Height (inches)
Upshift RPM
and

Step 2 - Entering Gear Ratios 2.84:1, 1.55:1, 1.00:1 and 0.70:1

into https://weddleindustries.com/gear-calculator


I get At 5700rpm, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th gives 45.9, 84.0, 130.2 and 186.0 mph respectivly.


Enough to hunt Ferrari Daytonas and BB 512's, only quicker.


And cruise at 70 mph at less than 2150 rpm.

Dropping down in gears to 3.27 will load up the motor more, it'll ping more. Cooler air could reduce detonation. Is your intercooler big enough? Water and meth might be your best bet, cooler intake temps and added octane.

Jess

I don't know/remember but I can't imagine choosing such a deep gear for this car. (Mustv'e been during my crack smoking phase) I'll have to change that down to probably 3.23/5/7's before this is all over, as it is now very obvious to me that I have made an error in judgement.

Lets see, we've given him a new LSD

if we give him Meth will it help.


As a former health care worker who has looked after people with mental issues and with court orders, its all al little bit too much.


I'd say 40 to 60 % of total fuel load liquid mix of 50/47/3 H20, Methonol or Alcohol and a touch of acetone will allow him to run as much boost as he'd fell comfortable with cast iron rods.


Load it up with six 25G needles at 155 mls per minute, and you wont have to worry about all the other tuning stuff.


See notes below.

Hows your oil consumption?


At the moment, you'll almost certainly have blow by before the rings bed in. So your air fuel ratios will be screwy and knock will be a common event until bed in.


Peak advance will have to be dropped right down until the leakdown rates improve. A blowby sensor can monitor this, but costs 600 bux

http://performancetrends.com/prices...._Sensor_Prices

Blowby typically presents itself as a problem of excessive oil consumption (which can also cause detonation), high oil pan pressure which can blow out seals or prevent oil drain back to the pan from the heads

Vizard says remaining engine life can be nailed down accuratley by knowing blowby rates. Described on in pages 398 and 399 of his second edition of modifying BMCs A series engine,


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tuning-Brit.../dp/0854297324


and discussed Turbo applications specfically. Diagrams 15.2a, and 15.2 nail the system down. The reason is that blowby will drop after bed in, and stay constant, and then go up many thousands of miles. But an engine not donating will produce horrific blow by, and still work, with crazy low 24 hour leakdown figures.

As long as the rings continue to bed in against the hard as hades cylinder liners, your peak advance level will be able to go up sometime soon. At the moment, you are almost certainly getting blow by charge dillution, meaning your peak octane requirment will go up until ring bed in.

Okay.

On my Cortina 2.3 turbo, it had chronic cylinder oiling issues due to the typical old umbrella, ella, eh, eh , eh, seals Ford used for years from 62 to 83. Leakdown issues due to ring sealing problems from a tired old engine. So I just added neat Tolunlene, then, after I found it was bassically Benzene and cancerous, I went to 50/47/3 50% deionized Water/47% Denutred Alcohol and 3% acetone, and injected it using a Registerd Nurses fine aspirate needle in a Moreys Upper cylinder lubricant bottle to allow me to run stock 97 octane Gasoline advance on a 9 pound boost Propane engine. In your case, with six holes, you could consume up to 60% of the fuel load at boost.

Stock, that system was normally an upper cylinder lubricant only allowed 1 cc/min (two drops per minute, a drop is 0.5 ccs).

20 thou, 25 thou, 28 thou and 31.5 thou fine aspirate needles flow 155, 180, 225 and 245 cc/min of H20 at 8.5" Hg ported or manifold vac. At WOT, flow drops due to vac drop. In road driven miles, % ADI additive to fuel use is based on throttle application like a power valve which drops out at wide open throttle because its not gravity and fuel pump fed. Normally you'll only have it set at 5 to 25% of gas tank to H20 reserviour.

Edelbrocks Varajet or two 19 thou jets from a standard Ford window squirter at 45 psi gives 125 cc/min, there is no real duty cycle.

My engine might have made 180 hp with its single Mazda 626 turbo, so thats about 720 cc/fuel to 125 cc/min H20 wide open throttle.


A 500 hp engine needs 1620 cc/min minimum at wide open throttle, or up to 972 ccs per minute to quell pre ignition. At wide open throttle, a 10 us mpg engine will suck 6 us mpg of anti detonation fluid.

Water kills the detonation, alcohol helps power, accetone takes care of the phase separation matters. Delivery via an electric motor is okay at wide open throttle, but another system is to use 0.51, 0.63, 0.71 or 0.80 mm (25, 23, 22 or 21G) imbeded jets which flow at those 155 to 245 cc/min rates above.


I use a Moreys Upper Cylinder Lubricant bottle to supply, and don't use wide open throttle full supply since its normally transitional. There is a way to stop cold start water supply.

[xctasy]

Another option is to boost modulate. Ak Milloer used to TC-1 valve his 250 engines, and over boost with a pronae or gasoline low compression low head cfm flow engine and big T04 V1 Turbo. His boost modulation was to stop boost increase.

On high flow engines, ricers with 600 hp turbo Hondas do this the other way around, on the intermediate ratios to keep the manual gearboxes out of Turbo accentuated VTEC induced front drive wheelspin. Child owners of tricycles will understand traction limited torque induced steer.




In your case, you have excellent off boost torque and engine mangement. So if you want to avoid detonation, and enjoy the part throttle economy and fun of a high compression roller cammed I6, you can boost modulate to 6 psi, and , and then unbundle it past 4000 rpm.

An example is the MG Metro 1275 Turbo.

It had a weak gearbox, and a Lotus Esprit turbo, a Garret T3 60. Way too big, way too much boost, should have killed the 9.4:1 compresion ratio engine.

But it didn't.....

http://www.mgownersclub.co.uk/mg-gui...mg-metro-turbo

The engine was fitted with a Garrett T3 turbo on a specially designed and cast exhaust manifold. Compressed air was delivered to the single carburettor that was specially modified to run with pressurised air by having special sealing and a variable rate fuel pressure delivery to ensure a constant positive 4psi fuel delivery pressure whatever the operating pressure was. The engine was also significantly strengthened with materials and processes common to competition engines with many Turbo only parts such as the cylinder head, pistons crankshaft, block, sodium filled exhaust valves, etc. This was a pretty unique engine yet when fitted into the car it didn’t look that different.

The Achilles heel for the Turbo was the 4 speed gearbox as the engine was in simple terms too powerful for it. To try and compensate for the weakness Austin rover developed a two stage electronic control for boost to try and soften the impact. The problem was that peak torque with even low levels of boost would damage the gearbox so boost was set on the wastegate at a low 4 psi. However, at 4000rpm or higher an electronic module would allow a controlled leak from the sensor hose going to the wastegate and would allow air to ‘leak’, so that the wastegate actuator would see a lower pressure and would not lift the wastegate valve off its seat. That allowed the boost pressure to rise and only when it reached 7psi would the module then close off the ‘leak’ and allow the wastegate to move. It would then modulate the leak to maintain this raised boost pressure until rpms dropped below 4000rpm.

The second part is the old methonol breating race engine Aussie and Kiwi round track racers love. We often use 4-bbls and methonal to make funhouse in line sixes.

Sadly, we tend to kill a lot of them too, due to fuel distributiion matters. But ando76's shows that X-flows can avoid the big bang.

http://www.ozfalcon.com.au/index.php...os-ute/page-14


I've been around the alternative fuel scene for a long time, from 1985-1986 at the local Power Board as a laki helper to an Ex Ford Service Techncian. From 1994 to 2003, 9 years with the Propane XE Falcon,

9 years with my buddies 350 Chev engined LPG Holden Ute,
3 years with his brothers 390 FE powered proane Land Rover 109 wheelbase with 80 series Landcruiser underpinning.

and just a year with the aborted Cologne V6 Cortina.

I opted out due to money, mortgage, and engineering comitments.

So it was a whole diet of auto sh!+ box twin cam Toymoters with 1295, 1998, 2163 cc vibrating hulk iron block donks from 2003 to date.


My personal opinion is once you have the cast iron rods sorted, you can simply bathe the engine in a properly 50/47/3 Water Alchol/Acetone mix at up to 60 % wide open throttle, and quite simply, F-ing stand on it. Its classic fighter pilot stuff.



I've always found the Honda head and 250 block to be nigh on bomb proof, and I'm certain that your engine base is so strong, that you could consider that option...boost modulation, and Anti Detonation Igntion.

ADI fell out of sorts due to the likely hood of

freeze up,
lack of service,
crap bulding up in the system, and

the issues of high compression in the American emissions cycle.

And the historicals of idiot missfills, kinda like putting Etheylne Glycol in a Citroën LHP pump and turning it back into a Lemon.

Its the Jet Fire F85 Rocket Fuel all over again.

ADI just doesn't wash with mere mortals.

But you've got a cold blooded monster there, and if your able to consider the option, its institution is easy, and it would simply uncork the latent potential.

It was only the Germans who were smart enough to use MW 50 (Methanol-Wasser 50) in the planned 1942 BMW 801D supercharged engine of World War II , but it was on the late 1944 onwards Messerschmitt Bf 109 aircraft engine. Used during dog fights...

The Spitfire missed out on it and used emergency boost, or in US speak, War Emergency Power.




Don't make the same mistake, use the German system...

[xctasy]

I do feel silly...you been planning this all along....saw this justa moment ago....


"best junkyard options for a fox body"

See the famous Lincs 200 13.5 second 1984 Mustang with 83 X code LTD 3.3 conversion to see how simple it can be. One 92 hp six and one 20 psi turbo boost killed the old girl, but it shows you what you can do.

http://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24859

Post #6 by mike1157 » Mon Aug 12, 2013

Thanks,...you did alot of work to offer up a very helpful reply. I appreciate it.

The 200 turbo build of Lincs 200 was very inspirational. That guy probably has forgotten more than I'll ever know,...and he's 20 years younger than me. Reading that he was able to flog that high mile bottom end while he sorted out his turbo was what I was really looking for,...as I wanted to do a really exotic head mod first, to include building a tubular intake manifold that will allow me to port fuel inject it w/ the throttle body on the driver side of the engine, much like a 300 in the F150. The turbo,...the wastegate, the B.O.V. and I/C are all too cheap on ebay as long as you don't mind patronizing another Chinese company. That said, It'll still end up being fairly expensive, and very time consuming, considering I gotta build all of that stuff, but I think I'm up to the challenge.

Unlike Linc though,...I'm not trying to use the stock log,or a 1 bbl carb sitting directly over the exhaust manifold. I'm looking at using an A2Water intercooler w/ meth injection activated at boost pressures above 7 PSI, /w timing pulled out as boost pressures ramp up all controlled by a Megasquirt ( that I'll also have to build myself) If that'll net me the 300 HP/350 TQ I can get as a result of dropping a stock 100k mile Chevrolet LS in the car instead,...I'll really give that a hard look. The primary attraction of the 200 being that it's in the car, it fits w/o any modification,...and it was made by the same company that built the car it resides in.

But,....I'll turn coat and go to the dark side if I cant.

[Mike1157]

Well,...I guess that there are still quite a few developments that need mentioning.

This is a twin scroll setup. That requires two wastegates. The ones on the car that saw initial testing were Turbosmart copies purchased off ebay for about 59.00 ea. Even though they supposedly had the 6 pound springs, the first tests were showing me as much as 11p.s.i. After my last communication w/ you, I guessed my static CR to be somewhere between as low as 9.7:1, to as high as 10.25:1.
Knowing that my potential compression ratio is detrimental,..adding over ten pounds of boost to that, and only having a set of forged pistons to aid in the engines ability to tolerate my learning curve....I fattened up the AFR hugely. At the same time removed so much timing, the engine will only see 15 degrees at max boost.

But that tune never saw an actual road test.

I decided to remove the Chinese wastegates to bench test them and see where they were actually cracking open, and at what pressure they were reaching fully open...I removed them, and rigged up a regulator setup.


I applied pressure to the first gate, and started cranking the regulator open. 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and finally at 13 p.s.i., the gate started to open, all the while air is leaking profusely past the guide and valve. It wasn't fully open until pressure exceeded 15 p.s.i., and that's where the gauge stopped. ( And these were supposedly the 6 pound springs.)

The other gate showed the very same dismal performance.

So I threw them away, and spent the 460.00 it takes to buy real Turbosmart 38mm gates.

The gates came w/ 7 pound springs. When I used the same testing procedures, they opened up at exactly 7 p.s.i., and were almost equal when compared against each other.

I installed them that night.


The subsequent testing the next day was amazing...the car outright blazes the tires...Full boost occurs at 2300 RPM. The datalog revealed that the engine went to 6200,...and was bouncing off the rev limiter. Boost is exactly as tested,..7 p.s.i.

It also revealed that the injectors were running at 112% duty cycle, and the AFR under boost was in the high 9:1 range.

That will never do.But I'm not hearing anything close to an engine rattle anymore.

So I retuned it. I took out about 17% of the fuel.

Then retested it. I'm still not hearing any detonation.

It's still seeing 6000 RPM when the tires start spinning, and it feels like it wants to go higher, but...I don't know where it's safe to spin the engine to,..and w/ a stock 1978 cast rod,..I'm thinking 6k is the redline. Boost is dead steady at 7 p.s.i. now.

The datalog shows that the AFR responded in kind to my removal of fuel,..and now was in the high 11:1 range under boost. Still 15 degrees at 7 p.s.i. The duty cycle has dropped down to the high 70% range now...so it's getting close.

I've had several cars, so I have a feel for the power potential here. If I had to guess, I'm thinking the car is making exactly what I want it to make at this boost level, and that should be 300/300...But it's all grunt, and no real power pull.

So,....we'll see...Only a dyno will tell the tale,...and that's 500.00 that I'm not prepared to spend, so I'll just have to wing it.

[Mustang-junky]

That's great! Got to feel good to make some real progress towards where you want to be. Sucks when cheaping out gives you grief.

Jess

[ZephyrEFI]

Some good progress, congrats!

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk