How 'bout some sane, workable HP increases for le' Vulcan?

[fixizin]

When it comes to the Vulcan, as mounted in the Ranger, I'm liking the idea of a rear/remote-mount turbo, taking the place of the muffler, e.g. the STS style setup, sized/gated for 5-10PSI. (Consensus seems to be stock internals are good for 12+ psi--sans detonation!)

The long intake runner obviates an intercooler. Your airbox can be fed by the rear fender well just as easily as the current front fender well, eh? Underhood space stays at about same level of "crowding", or LESS. MPGs probably INcrease... if you can stay out of "ego boost", lol.

I wouldn't even bother running oil lines; i.e. besides the run-lengths involved, why run hot, increasingly dirty (combustion products, etc.) oil to your sensitive turbo? Not to mention adding potential leak points to your engine oil loop?

I'd just get a tiny 4" square oil cooler, a 1 pint reservoir bottle, hook up that 12V electric pump (delayed turn off after key-off?), pour in synthetic 0w-20, tuck it all up under the bed, perhaps behind a HINGED, drop-down skidplate, and let the turbo have its own closed CLEAN COOL lube loop! Probably go 50k+ miles between changes!

All ideas patent pending. ;')

 

[Gotta_gofast]

Well, a lot of people will boo the STS systems because of their theories. I can see people's reasoning for not wanting to mount the turbo so far back, but I have first hand seen a system on a mustang and it was really powerful. There was hardly any turbo-lag and the intake pipe running back up to the manifold had fins to cool a little. I think his exhaust was dual 2" (one for each turbo) to keep velocity up and cooling to a minimum. This was on a 4.6L motor. If I had the money, I would do this set up in a heart beat.

 

[betomonroy]

I aplaude the idea of it's own stand alone oil system. But if I was You... a dual turbo set up with it's own stand alone oil system. The turbos may come out from motorcycles system. Compact and convenient for the Rangers undercarriage spaces.And the idea of dual turbos for an engine this small sounds pretty appealing to my 2009 project.

 

[fixizin]

Yeah... cookin' with gas now... ;')

People boo anything new or non-mainstream. But it's a sound idea for moderate boost, and there's still plenty of high temp heat energy aft of the catalytic. The (alleged) added lag is miniscule, and not an issue for me. Some videos indicate there's no significant lag at all!

I'm basically looking for 2 extra cylinders, but I don't own an engine crane, lol. If it saves fuel and is LIGHTER than a V8 (no suspension upgrades), bonus-bonus! (Besides, my 3.0 has only 35k mi. and is running strong... what would I do with it? Plus the tranny apparently fits NO other engine on earth, so WTH...)

I aplaude the idea of it's own stand alone oil system. But if I was You... a dual turbo set up with it's own stand alone oil system. The turbos may come out from motorcycles system. Compact and convenient for the Rangers undercarriage spaces.And the idea of dual turbos for an engine this small sounds pretty appealing to my 2009 project.

Interesting take w/ motorcycle turbos... not familiar with them at all... but since I'm after only very MODEST levels of boost, they could be the ticket! I just want to add some OOMPH!, not drag race Ford GTs.

Any models or sources in mind? Are you thinking this config would reduce lag, or just save space?

I should probably take a welding course at the local CC, but the vo-tech classes are probably all filled up with former stockbrokers, LOL!

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

i love to think outside the box...but i also like to look at things realistically before diving in. your design is interesting, but has a few inconveniences.

you should take a close look at remote mount turbos and just how much room the turbo, intake and exhaust plumbing, oil pumps, oil tanks, wiring, oil lines, etc all really take up. they are far from compact....if you lay under your truck and really look hard...theres room...but not alot of room. imagine trying to squeeze one or even two 3" intake pipes between the frame and manifolds (or you could go outside the frame rail...but i hate the look...or around the front of the motor, but that doesnt look all that clean either).

running dual turbos for a very low boost like 5-10 PSI seems hardly worth the extreme amounts of complication your adding to the system (not to mention relacting the fuel tank).

electric motors are unreliable. i would never use one to support a turbine. your engines oiling system is extremely robust and extremely reliable...damn near bulletproof (cough-camsyncro-cough). if your sending large enough particles through the turbo to cause damage to it...well ive got worse news for you

you will never get an increase in mileage with a turbo over the n/a motor. if your lucky, you will get little or no change in MPG.

theres a huge gapping hole in the engine compartment behind the passanger headlight (even larger after relacting the intake, which youll have to do anyway). mounting the turbo here means its not under the car where it could recieve damage. no extra oil tanks, pumps, or lines (just 2 simple ones), no squeezing extra piping up from under the truck. 5 PSI could be achieved with a TINY turbo.

just points to consider, take it or leave it

 

[Gotta_gofast]

People boo anything new or non-mainstream. But it's a sound idea for moderate boost, and there's still plenty of high temp heat energy aft of the catalytic. The (alleged) added lag is miniscule, and not an issue for me. Some videos indicate there's no significant lag at all!

I'm basically looking for 2 extra cylinders, but I don't own an engine crane, lol. If it saves fuel and is LIGHTER than a V8 (no suspension upgrades), bonus-bonus! (Besides, my 3.0 has only 35k mi. and is running strong... what would I do with it? Plus the tranny apparently fits NO other engine on earth, so WTH...) QUOTE]

I rented an engine hoist from Ace Hardware to put my V8 in my truck. And, if you're running aluminum heads and intake you will be the same weight or possibly lighter than an iron V6.

 

[inferno94]

Engine bay turbo placement is standard for a reason (should be enough proof for the "no way to improve power output or Ford would've done it" crowd). I'm not going into it right now but read a book about turbo systems (maximum boost) to find out more.

Wickid's placement idea is interesting possibly involving putting the exh mani's on backwards then into a collector -> turbo -> rest of existing exh.

250 to 300 hp is really small numbers for a boosted v6. There is a member here with a mazda 1.8L making 320whp and close to 300ft/lbs in an escort if I'm not mistaken. There is a guy with a miata with the same 1.8L making over 600hp to the wheels at around 30psi. Not trying to be insulting just trying to give a perspective of what turbos can do for the uninformed.

If it's about more power to tow and make regular drives more fun then 5-6 psi managed by a rising rate fuel pressure regulator should be fine (this can increase the max output of stock injectors) as long as ignition timing is retarded to avoid detonation.

If I had the option I'd put an SHO engine in my truck before a turbo, more reliable, runs on regular gas, that's just me after having 3 turbo cars though.

 

[94prerunner]

i have been thinking of doing this to my truck for a while now. i have lots of room in the back of my truck. there is no bed just the fiber glass fenders and roll cage and fuel cell and coil overs so i could mount it any where i want. i have had a hard time finding out where i can get some more info on turbocharging a ranger thoe.

 

[rurouni20xx]

re

the undercarriage turbo is an interesting concept, but 2 probs. as sludge said cooling probs are an issue, you def want to run oil lines from the engine, you add boost to the motor, your gonna skrew your mileage. the other issue is look at all the crap that comes off your front wheels and smacks the hell out of your expensived turbos and setup not to mention your piping. and another thing, you better have high flow cats or the extra boost will blow the packing into the turbo and theres a flaming mess. hope your not going thru dusty terrain either, the army had problems in iraq on the m1 tanks sandblasting the turbine engines and sandblasting the turbos on the humvees and 5 tons, so make sure your air filter is somewhere protected. where your current airbox area is w/ ducting thru the grill is perfect in my opinion. motorcycle turbos...bad idea. those turbos are designed to deliver approx 15 psi boost on a maximum of a 1400 cc (1.4L) engine delivering 350cc exhaust pressure in pulses, couple that to a 3.0L (3000cc) engine your gonna blow it in half or spin the bearings real quicklike. even w/ two turbos running on 1500cc a piece that distance delivers about 4 psi. you can also accomplish this by taking a hair dryer and attach it to your airbox inlet and hook the wires to your voltage regulator on the alternator for increased rpm w/ revs for a lot less money if our crazy enuff to install another alternator to run the hair dryer. my advice, full size automotive turbo for 3.0 application or two for 1.5 4 cylinder applications and high flow cats to make it legal (or do like i do and hollow out the convertor then put it on so it looks legal) and then two fart cans for flow, you know the "high performance muffler" that makes your neighbors civic sound like an oversized pissed off bumblebee. i had two coming off a straight pipe from my y pipe that came out in front of the axle in a straight line and i kept getting asked if i had a v8 in my trk, if you dont believe me go to autozone and get two of the for 65 bux like i did and try it you might like it. cheers to the turbo project

 

[94prerunner]

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/howstuffworks/4663-how-turbochargers-work-video.htm some good info on turbos for you guys

 

[Gotta_gofast]

Rurouni,
hehehe... two fart cans on 3.0L V6 made it sound like a V8 huh? Well, I spose maybe a Chevy. But I own a 3.0L (flo-pro duals) and a V8 ranger... there's quite a difference.

 

[rurouni20xx]

yeah it did sound chevyish, considering all i have to compare my blue oval truck to is 305 and 350 chevys, v6 mustangs and a few gts w/ owners that dont know how to shift and lose their ass to an older ranger up to 40 mph. i may not have the top speed but to see me pull away a short distance and the worry on the owners faces makes me smile. a v8 swap would be nice but i dont think i can afford it.

 

[fixizin]

Alrighty then...

LOTS of good food for thought, so thanks for all the feedback. I'm basically setting up a straw man of ideas, then putting him out in the high winds of reality, to see what stands up, lol.

I have MANY misgivings about under-bed turbos, not the least of which is off-road vulnerabilities. (OTOH, my 4x4 didn't come with ANY skidplates, so can't really get that hardcore anyway.)

But I *do* want to keep this thread channeled and focused, within the following boundaries:

> LOW-budget, minimalist solutions... UNDER 300HP... NO V8 swaps... besides, that's "cheating".

> STOCK 3.0 Vulcan, stock heads, cams, manifolds, internals, STOCK, STOCK, STOCK... unless there's a compelling case for junkyard pulls of Exporer parts, for example.

e.g. I'm sure the stock injectors won't do, even for 5PSI, but perhaps the stock fuel pump is good up to 8psi... yes/no?

 

[Gotta_gofast]

I know you want to keep the stock heads, but I highly suggest you get a standard abrasives port and polishing kit. The extra flow will really make a difference with the turbocharger and the smooth blended combustion bowls will resist detonation a little saving your engine. Also, rogue 1.7:1 roller rockers will help fill those cylinders a little better and reduce the friction the valvetrain creates. Go through and port/polish the intake manifold too. I would look into a larger throttlebody. If you're going to run 5-6psi you might as well make the most of it. I do not know the flow of a '99 fuel pump, but I know the older ones were rated 60LPH. Not nearly enough for a turbo V6. You're lucky to get 200hp out of the stock pump without leaning or starving for fuel. A stock mustang fuel pump is 88LPH I believe, and this might flow enough. But if you're serious about doing this right and reliable, find yourself a 110LPH pump. This way you won't have to worry about hiccups in your acceleration.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

a stock 3.0 isnt going to live anywhere near 300 HP for very long...hope it isnt a daily driver

by far the easiest, cheapest, and most effective power boost for your engine is a "conventional" turbo set up located in the engine compartment running <10 PSI. this will allow you to leave the engine as is aside from fuel delivery (it might be worth your time to replace the head gaskets with some fel-pro ones just in case).

if it were me, and i were planning on only running 5-8 PSI, i wouldnt even waste my time and money with porting, polishing (other than the chambers), TB upgrades, etc. thats all trivial stuff when you could just turn your boost up another 1 PSI and make more power than all those mods put together for basically free. if you plan on running over 10 PSI, then you are getting closer to the boost limit and it might be worth your time to milk a few more ponies out with those mods...but not before then. (im not trying to argue with you gotta_gofast, i would just have a different approach ).

your best bet is to select a HP figure to aim for before selecting your injectors and pump. you can "over pump" it, but too large of a fuel pump will just circulate the fuel, causing it to warm up and costing you fractional amounts of power.