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

[Gotta_gofast]

No problem Wicked. I'm no expert when it comes to turbocharging. I just figured that by making the engine more efficient at low boost, it would be safer and more reliable. I'd be afraid that increasing boost to compensate for other cheap mods would create heat and further increase the chance of detonation. Porting and polishing the heads and intake manifold would be a fairly cheap addition to the build. (Unless you hire someone to do the labor, then its not worth it IMO) And there's plenty of TB options for under $100. The roller rockers aren't needed I spose. Its something that can be added later.

Is it effective to run an intercooler with only 5-6psi? I saw a pretty neat setup on a supercharged 5.0L. If I remember, he brazed copper tubing to his "box" upper plenum. On the inside he had 1/4" fins running parallel with the throttle body flange from the front to the back of the manifold. Through the tubing he shot CO2 to chill the manifold. It was kinda cool and didn't look half bad, but I don't know how much real world gain that would be. Anyway, back onto the subject. Would a vulcan even touch 200rwhp with only 5-6psi?

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the whipple kit was set for about 12 PSI and ive never heard of guys having problems with it. you should be able to run 10 PSI all day long without issues. the big thing is to select the proper injectors and dont lean/detonate.

an intercooled setup will always out-perform a non-intercooled one. anytime you compress air you heat it, even if its only 5PSI. ive seen all kinds of neat alchohol/water/CO2 cooled setups and the only thing i dont like about them is they are limited use. the great thing about a FMIC is it is always on and never runs out. not to mention less maintenance or things to break.

200HP should be "doable" with 6 PSI if you had a professional tune done.

 

[fixizin]

Originally Posted by Wicked_Sludge:
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).

Not my idea, but the OP, AFAICT, seems to think the much smaller diameter of the "motor-sickle" turbos would help significantly with the space constraints, i.e. keep things more "tucked up", less protruding. Smaller dia. plumbing in the "busy intersection" too. It's worth considering.

I envisioned the "tiny twins" as right next to each other, fed from the single stock exhaust pipe... picture pipe coming back to a plumbing reduction tee, or better yet, a cross, with the tiny turbos fed off the side branches, and the wastegate on the straight-thru... intakes could be wye'd back together with std. "tuner" fittings. NOTHING CRAZY, that would go left of centerline, or mess with fuel tank.

Again: LOW boost levels... STOCK drivetrain... minimal custom pipework, maximum off-the-shelf parts.

electric motors are unreliable.

You mean like the one running your fuel pump? ;') I'm sorry, but your statement is too blanket to be valid. If you know some SPECIFICS about certain types/brands of 12V automotive oil pump motors, please spill.

Besides, I could easily add a pressure sensor + alarm to my stand-alone "clean lube loop".

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.

A man needs propaganda, to feed his GF, as to why so much noise and cursing is coming from the garage... "it's for the environment" is always a winner! And of course if it's good for the environment, it's great for the CHEEL-dren!

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.

OK... and that may be where I'll end up... but that *suggests/implies* custom/aftermarket exhaust manifolds, and I'm pretty sure it would UNbalance the engine to run even a small turbo off of just one bank, yes/no?

OTOH, is it possible to ROTATE the stock ex. manifolds 180 deg., so they're flowing UP and FORWARD?? I've never had 'em off, or studied the bolt pattern closely.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

Not my idea, but the OP, AFAICT, seems to think the much smaller diameter of the "motor-sickle" turbos would help significantly with the space constraints, i.e. keep things more "tucked up", less protruding. Smaller dia. plumbing in the "busy intersection" too. It's worth considering.

even small turbos are still large. the bends in the exhaust and intake to meet the turbos, FOUR different "Y"'s and flanges all take up space...more space than a single, automotive sized turbo would take up.

You mean like the one running your fuel pump? ;')

you mean the one that ive replaced twice in my trucks 130,000 mile life? yes. thats the one. im still running the original 1993 engine oil pump. its not a blanket statement. oil pumps are more reliable than electric motors.

OK... and that may be where I'll end up... but that *suggests/implies* custom/aftermarket exhaust manifolds, and I'm pretty sure it would UNbalance the engine to run even a small turbo off of just one bank, yes/no?

OTOH, is it possible to ROTATE the stock ex. manifolds 180 deg., so they're flowing UP and FORWARD?? I've never had 'em off, or studied the bolt pattern closely.

i wouldnt run the turbo off of one manifold. that engine would be nigh impossible to tune.

the stock manifolds are symmetrical and can be flipped. the only custom work would be downpipes and the like.

 

[Gotta_gofast]

Wow, I didn't know the Whipple guys were running that high of boost. I wouldn't be afraid to run closer to 8-9psi with the proper tune.

OK... and that may be where I'll end up... but that *suggests/implies* custom/aftermarket exhaust manifolds, and I'm pretty sure it would UNbalance the engine to run even a small turbo off of just one bank, yes/no?

Fixizin, why would you run the turbo off of one bank of cylinders? lol, your manifolds can be flipped bud.

 

[fixizin]

Keep 'em coming...

There's an old saying: You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, or to paraphrase, you can't make a Shelby GT500 SVO super 'stang out of a 3.0L Ranger... and I don't want to.

I *would* like to get some serious BUTT DYNO, bolt-on to the extent possible. IIRC my '99 is rated at a tame/lame 147HP, so even 220 RWHP would be FREAKIN' AWESOME!... and yet still be a realistic and useable truck.

 

[Gotta_gofast]

A fox body stang with a 5.0L puts out roughly 180 rwhp in stock form. So, you are correct. 220 rwhp is going to be enough to get into trouble. lol

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

220 RWHP is going to take a bit more than a low 5-8 PSI boost. think more 12 PSI boost, which is about as high as you want to go on a stock engine (and youd better have a good tune).

 

[fixizin]

Oh... I see everyone is online tonight, and my posts are getting out of sync...

anyway... SWEET money-saving fact about FoMoCo "headers" fitting "upside down and backwards"... I assume someone has done this, and they clear the fenders, etc...?? What about those UNDERHOOD TEMPS?

Where do folks put the FMIC, so as to not block airflow to the radiator?

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the manifolds are very compact, i dont see there being fenderwell clearence issues (ill admit ive never actually flipped them in a ranger). the difference in underhood temperature pre and post boost will be negligable.

the FMIC goes right up in front where it recieves the most and coldest airflow. the radiator takes second priority and can "make do" with whatever air makes it through other grill openings and the FMIC itself.

 

[fixizin]

... 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.

Well, I didn't see THAT coming... hmmm. OTOH, I thought the 2.3L Turbo guys were running stock exhausts... I'd better double-check.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the stock converter will hold up just fine. some poeple just dont know what they are talking about

 

[fixizin]

the stock converter will hold up just fine. some poeple just dont know what they are talking about

I know... but I try to be diplomatic about it. ;')

 

[fixizin]

Then there's the NOISE issue...

Back to the Pros and Cons of REAR-mounted turbos...

I'm sure at first the turbo whine is re-assuring, and cooler than a shark skin dashboard, but I bet after a while it could get annoying, especially to passengers.

But if your whining spinner is "way back yonder"... less noise in cab? Or does the "whine" just travel up the intake anyway?

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the whine comes from the exhaust and intake. the turbo housing itself is quite thick and doesnt let out a lot of noise. how much whine you have depends on the design of your intake and exhaust. run a nice quiet factory muffler and an enclosed air filter and you'll barely hear the turbo. run an exposed K&N and a 3" straight pipe and it'll be ear-peircing.

either setup can be made quiet or loud, its all in how you set it up.