Explanation please

[ZenXtra07]

Ok, going to do the 2.3T swap and was trying to pick which after market header to use. Did some research here at the engineering library and found a book that stated that a supercharger, specifically a turbocharger on an auto, will gain energy the quickest when pressure waves simultaneously hit the turbine. In our 2.3's that would be if we could get pistons 1 and 4 exhaust to constructively add to pistons 2 and 3 exhaust. This should be easy because they are only 180 degrees out of phase. So here is my question, if this book is correct, then I would want a header that had 1 and 4 equal length, and 3 and 2 half the length, or double that, of 1 and 4 's length. Who makes this type of header? I can't find anybody that does and I'm wondering if I'm not taking something into consideration????

Any help is appreciated. Thanks

I'll cite the book after i get out of class.

Ok the book (Turbo Machinery Dynamics) actually references another book,:Heisler, H., Advanced Engine Technology, SAE International, Warrandale, Pa.,1995.

Also, all of this is assuming that our 2.3's, pistons 1 and 4, fire together, and pistons 2 and 3 fire together. To my understanding, this is the case with most fords.

 

[dieselboy740]

im not getting it.... you essentially want a equal length header/ manifold. All of the cylinders fire at different times. 1342 is the firing order so on a twin scroll manifold you will want 1and4 2and3 together.
im using the same header as this on my car

 

[ZenXtra07]

Well now I'm just confused. First of all, I was totally wrong about the firing order, thank you for correcting me. Second, I think the book is wrong then? The book basically said that you want all the pressure waves from the exhaust to hit the turbo at the same time. This link: http://www.legacygt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7590 has cleared up some of the confusion.

So my conclusion is that by using an equal length twin scroll setup you keep spent exhaust fumes out of the combustion chamber, and this will be more efficient then using a twin scroll setup that will allow the exhaust pressure waves to hit the turbo at the same time?

Is this correct?

 

[dieselboy740]

i think your over thinking it....

 

[AllanD]

You are greatly overthinking it.

You are getting what is essentially a T-03 slapped onto a Pinto engine
It is a FORD, not a Ferrari

But in a theoretical "turd polish to 20 decimal places" ideal, you want the
pressure vaves hitting at equal time intervals, but even if you did that on
a 2.3turbo it's still a pinto engine with a turbo.

The turbo easily doubles the power and in some well tuned examples nearly
triples the torque, and that's with a cast iron manifold....

The header looks "pretty" but the primary point of a header on a ford 2.3 in a ranger is to relocate the turbocharger to allow you to have all that power.... and keep your air conditioning....

THE limiting factor on a 2.3 ford is not the method the exhaust gasses get to the turbo
not how much boost you run, not "gutting" the intake manifold plenum, not how fast you spin it... the limiting factor is the ability of the cylinder head to breath
And most port and polish jobs on an IRON 2.3 head are "turd polishing"
raised to high art.

Put the turbo on it keep the boost reasonable, run stock head bolts
because they allow you to "sneeze" the headgasket and thus the
headgasket blows out like a fuse to protect the engine
(the alternative is broken pistons or bent rods and a ruined engine)
and just enjoy it for what it is... a Truck that can run with a 4.0SOHC
or 5.0 but gets twice the fuel mileage if you can restrain your inner child



AD

 

[scotts90ranger]

that's the hard part... turbos just sound too good to resist... that and the fun part...

 

[dieselboy740]

You are greatly overthinking it.

You are getting what is essentially a T-03 slapped onto a Pinto engine
It is a FORD, not a Ferrari

But in a theoretical "turd polish to 20 decimal places" ideal, you want the
pressure vaves hitting at equal time intervals, but even if you did that on
a 2.3turbo it's still a pinto engine with a turbo.

The turbo easily doubles the power and in some well tuned examples nearly
triples the torque, and that's with a cast iron manifold....

The header looks "pretty" but the primary point of a header on a ford 2.3 in a ranger is to relocate the turbocharger to allow you to have all that power.... and keep your air conditioning....

THE limiting factor on a 2.3 ford is not the method the exhaust gasses get to the turbo
not how much boost you run, not "gutting" the intake manifold plenum, not how fast you spin it... the limiting factor is the ability of the cylinder head to breath
And most port and polish jobs on an IRON 2.3 head are "turd polishing"
raised to high art.

Put the turbo on it keep the boost reasonable, run stock head bolts
because they allow you to "sneeze" the headgasket and thus the
headgasket blows out like a fuse to protect the engine
(the alternative is broken pistons or bent rods and a ruined engine)
and just enjoy it for what it is... a Truck that can run with a 4.0SOHC
or 5.0 but gets twice the fuel mileage if you can restrain your inner child



AD

well put.. lol turd polishing the iron head...i have a few volvo 16v heads laying around. 1 is a spare for my 242. the other 2..well 1 might just end up on the bronco.
Edit: hang with a 4.0-5.0...lol... the bII will walk on 6.0 gto's at 20psi... scary but it does

 

[Sevensecondsuv]

My iron head flows 65% over the factory number (Yes, I had it flowed at the machine shop). That's pretty dang good for "turd polishing". Then again every 2.3 guy who saw it said that the 1-5/8" diameter (1-1/8" is stock) exhaust ports should have hit water. But somehow they didn't.

And hanging with a 4.0/5.0, HA!!! It'd take 2 or 3 5.0s in a ranger to keep up. I've yet to find much of anything on the road that will hang with mine from a stoplight to 45-50 mph.

 

[AllanD]

well put.. lol turd polishing the iron head...i have a few volvo 16v heads laying around. 1 is a spare for my 242. the other 2..well 1 might just end up on the bronco.
Edit: hang with a 4.0-5.0...lol... the bII will walk on 6.0 gto's at 20psi... scary but it does

As I've been telling people for more than decade, there's a really easy way to put a DOHC volvohead into your ranger engine bay, but my recommended method is to bolt it to a Volvo block...

Hell why stop with a 4cyl block and head?

Volvo makes 5cyl and 6cyl DOHC engines too...

AD

 

[fastpakr]

Same Lima bell pattern?

 

[AllanD]

No, but you can always use the trans that's mated to it, OR have a custom scatter shield made.


Putting a Volvo twincam head on a 2.3Lima shortblock would be like
putting Taylor Swift's head on Rosie O'Donnell's body.

Let me point out that Volvo doesn't MAKE an engine with an iron crank.
They are ALL steel.

AD

 

[dieselboy740]

As I've been telling people for more than decade, there's a really easy way to put a DOHC volvohead into your ranger engine bay, but my recommended method is to bolt it to a Volvo block...

Hell why stop with a 4cyl block and head?

Volvo makes 5cyl and 6cyl DOHC engines too...

AD

lol yup. I have several.
Notice my avatar?
its a 2.3 volvo.. with rods pistons and a few other goodies. before i put my header on.
I have lots of volvo info.. search turbobricks.com

its for my 83' 242 volvo..jvab internals, megasquirt, coilovers, 5 linked, prp bucket seats, 1000cc injectors, 4'' intercooler, ttr cam gears, underdrive pulley, edis, ipd sways, 13'' brembos, tko600, rollin on 18" Atlantis, flathood, vdo gauges and more..Im actually running a ford trans.. i bought a brand new tko600 for it..

 

[AllanD]

My Go fast toy is a Saab 900 turbo.

Basically all the power of your volvo with quite a bit less weight.

My 900 weighs in at 2620 with a full load of fuel and will run
at 135-140mph until it runs out of fuel.

Volvo's are slightly safer in a crash.
Saabs are less likely to BE in the crash
(better avoidance ability

I have a Saab friend that just "went over to the dark side"
he bought a 1990 740Turbo, another friend bought himself an S60-R
that car is frankly as fun as hell.... it has lots of power and being AWD
has lots of traction but the additional weight gobbles up that power....

the S60-R is basically describe as a car that "Sticks" but it won't "Dance"
It's hard to persuade it that you WANT it to do something that it was
programmed to NOT do.... traction control attitude control.... Ugggghhh!!!

AD

 

[dieselboy740]

242= lighterweight...2 door..sedan btw im going for 500 whp..
I was checking to see what tire size i can run.. so flame on.....

 

[tpking]

sweet looking car ... the should shut some ricers up lol