Ray Cecil Posted July 2, 2019 Share Posted July 2, 2019 You didn't say anything about a bolt on 'kit', and 20 years ago I would have said impossible. But an Eaton M90 from an L67 is only about $200 used. Those 3800's changed the game for Holden, Buick and Pontiac. A little of the redneck engineering you seem so fond of would have you blown in a weekend. Let the cries of blasphemy ring out! (but you know I'm right) Jim, I already have a chevy ignition, may as well french the induction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85lebaront2 Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Blower. Turbos will always have lag unless they're small enough to be limiting, and are close enough to the ports that the volume is very small. Blowers are always making power so there's no 'hit' It effectively increases your displacement and compression ratio while not making the curve more peaky. Jim, tell that to the late Carroll Shelby with what he did for Chrysler. The turbo Chrysler engines as originally built were 142 hp from 135 ci, after Shelby got through with the initial update it was 170 hp from 135 ci. With some other improvements (more boost from 12 psi to 15) I am getting right at 200 hp from that same 135 ci engine still with an 8 valve head with same side manifolds. The Maserati headed TC and the Shelby CSX used DOHC 4 valve heads on the same basic 2.2L engine. No lag I have ever really noticed, the biggest issue is the stall speed on the A413. The variable vane turbo that the more recent Ford Powerstroke diesels use was pioneered by Shelby for the 1990 VNT (Variable Nozzle Technology). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Jim, tell that to the late Carroll Shelby with what he did for Chrysler. The turbo Chrysler engines as originally built were 142 hp from 135 ci, after Shelby got through with the initial update it was 170 hp from 135 ci. With some other improvements (more boost from 12 psi to 15) I am getting right at 200 hp from that same 135 ci engine still with an 8 valve head with same side manifolds. The Maserati headed TC and the Shelby CSX used DOHC 4 valve heads on the same basic 2.2L engine. No lag I have ever really noticed, the biggest issue is the stall speed on the A413. The variable vane turbo that the more recent Ford Powerstroke diesels use was pioneered by Shelby for the 1990 VNT (Variable Nozzle Technology). Speaking of the maserati, Lee Iacocca died today. He did a lot for that company and will be missed. Bill, please have a look at the new carburetor problem thread. Seems the guy rebuilt his 2300 and it won't idle right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Jim, tell that to the late Carroll Shelby with what he did for Chrysler. The turbo Chrysler engines as originally built were 142 hp from 135 ci, after Shelby got through with the initial update it was 170 hp from 135 ci. With some other improvements (more boost from 12 psi to 15) I am getting right at 200 hp from that same 135 ci engine still with an 8 valve head with same side manifolds. The Maserati headed TC and the Shelby CSX used DOHC 4 valve heads on the same basic 2.2L engine. No lag I have ever really noticed, the biggest issue is the stall speed on the A413. The variable vane turbo that the more recent Ford Powerstroke diesels use was pioneered by Shelby for the 1990 VNT (Variable Nozzle Technology). Bill, I mentioned Shelby in post #7. He was a great race engineer and along with KarKraft helped defeat Ferrari at LeMans. He and Iacocca also go way back. Their many accomplishments together changed the way we look at cars today. A 50% increase in hp is no joke. You did well! But this thread is about the I-6 (and others like it) powering pickups. The Cummins was mentioned, and the Dodge slant six too. So, "Why Drive a Truck With a Big Six Cylinder?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85lebaront2 Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Bill, I mentioned Shelby in post #7. He was a great race engineer and along with KarKraft helped defeat Ferrari at LeMans. He and Iacocca also go way back. Their many accomplishments together changed the way we look at cars today. A 50% increase in hp is no joke. You did well! But this thread is about the I-6 (and others like it) powering pickups. The Cummins was mentioned, and the Dodge slant six too. So, "Why Drive a Truck With a Big Six Cylinder?" One word, Torque. As has been said, "horsepower is how hard you hit the wall, torque is how far you move it". In 1986, the base engine on the crew cab F350 was a 300 six, Then it jumped to the 351, no 302 offered in that package. The DRW was not offered with the 300, base engine was the 351. My first two pickups both were sixes, the 1958 F100 had the 223 and the 1977 F150, the 300. I hauled a heavy (Wolverine) 11 1/2 foot slide-in with that truck and we drove it up into Shenandoah Park over Christmas break one year, Matt rode either in the camper or middle of the seat as he was 9 or 10 at the time. We did need to get down into 2nd and even first going up Rt 33 into the park, but the 300 handled it. My department at NNS had a number of Ford trucks while I was there, all but one of them powered by the 300, the only Ford that wasn't, was a 1997 F150, with the 4.2L V6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 One word, Torque. As has been said, "horsepower is how hard you hit the wall, torque is how far you move it". In 1986, the base engine on the crew cab F350 was a 300 six, Then it jumped to the 351, no 302 offered in that package. The DRW was not offered with the 300, base engine was the 351. My first two pickups both were sixes, the 1958 F100 had the 223 and the 1977 F150, the 300. I hauled a heavy (Wolverine) 11 1/2 foot slide-in with that truck and we drove it up into Shenandoah Park over Christmas break one year, Matt rode either in the camper or middle of the seat as he was 9 or 10 at the time. We did need to get down into 2nd and even first going up Rt 33 into the park, but the 300 handled it. My department at NNS had a number of Ford trucks while I was there, all but one of them powered by the 300, the only Ford that wasn't, was a 1997 F150, with the 4.2L V6. The 300 was gone by then. LOTS of fleet trucks were built with the straight six and really tall gearing. I suppose the gas meter reader or the auto parts delivery guy didn't need a lot of capacity and the beancounters in corporate wanted a fuel efficient vehicle that didn't break down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve83 Posted July 3, 2019 Share Posted July 3, 2019 Injectors may have been improved [?].There were 2 designs that are almost impossible to distinguish while installed, but I've never found the Densos in a 4.9L of any age. https://supermotors.net/getfile/265821/thumbnail/fuelinjectorscutaway.jpg This makes it look like they were redesigned in '91: https://supermotors.net/getfile/258009/thumbnail/fuel-injector-specs.jpgSteve, check the injector rail pressure on the early vs late EFI 300.I've checked it on my Bronco (with '95 F150 engine & '96 Bronco 5.8L tank/pump) several times, and on my '95 F150 (with replacement pumps). It's the same as the V8s (~35psi) despite the Ford specs at the bottom of this diagram saying it should be higher. https://supermotors.net/getfile/283459/thumbnail/fdm.jpg I've actually driven the Bronco (towing a trailer) at ~12psi (when it was running out of gas, and VERY slowly, just to get to the gas station).I thought the 300's injectors went from 'in manifold' to 'in head' at some point.No. AFAIK, no gas engine has injectors in the head, until maybe direct injection. I've never seen it in a Ford, Saab, Nissan, Land Rover, Jaguar, BMW, Honda, Mitsubishi, VW, Dodge, GM...You might think that Ford would have had the fuel pump continue to run for xxx (circulating cool fuel through the loop)...That could take a half hour, depending on ambient temp, so that's too much load on the battery. And without manifold vacuum to regulate pressure, it would spike very high, creating a greater potential for leaks (including into the engine through a failing regulator, which is common). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 I thought the 300's injectors went from 'in manifold' to 'in head' at some point.No. AFAIK, no gas engine has injectors in the head, until maybe direct injection. I've never seen it in a Ford.Sorry. I realize now that I was thinking of the AIR injection, that moved from the exhaust manifold to the head. EGR kills DI engines. The Mazda Skyactiv thing that works like diesel seems pretty cool though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Lewis Posted July 4, 2019 Share Posted July 4, 2019 I thought the 300's injectors went from 'in manifold' to 'in head' at some point.No. AFAIK, no gas engine has injectors in the head, until maybe direct injection. I've never seen it in a Ford.Sorry. I realize now that I was thinking of the AIR injection, that moved from the exhaust manifold to the head. EGR kills DI engines. The Mazda Skyactiv thing that works like diesel seems pretty cool though I've read about SkyActiv, but still don't understand how it works. I understand the words "13:1 compression" and "multi-hole injectors" and "dished pistons", but ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nic55kel Posted July 6, 2019 Share Posted July 6, 2019 Injectors may have been improved [?].There were 2 designs that are almost impossible to distinguish while installed, but I've never found the Densos in a 4.9L of any age. https://supermotors.net/getfile/265821/thumbnail/fuelinjectorscutaway.jpg This makes it look like they were redesigned in '91: https://supermotors.net/getfile/258009/thumbnail/fuel-injector-specs.jpgSteve, check the injector rail pressure on the early vs late EFI 300.I've checked it on my Bronco (with '95 F150 engine & '96 Bronco 5.8L tank/pump) several times, and on my '95 F150 (with replacement pumps). It's the same as the V8s (~35psi) despite the Ford specs at the bottom of this diagram saying it should be higher. https://supermotors.net/getfile/283459/thumbnail/fdm.jpg I've actually driven the Bronco (towing a trailer) at ~12psi (when it was running out of gas, and VERY slowly, just to get to the gas station).I thought the 300's injectors went from 'in manifold' to 'in head' at some point.No. AFAIK, no gas engine has injectors in the head, until maybe direct injection. I've never seen it in a Ford, Saab, Nissan, Land Rover, Jaguar, BMW, Honda, Mitsubishi, VW, Dodge, GM...You might think that Ford would have had the fuel pump continue to run for xxx (circulating cool fuel through the loop)...That could take a half hour, depending on ambient temp, so that's too much load on the battery. And without manifold vacuum to regulate pressure, it would spike very high, creating a greater potential for leaks (including into the engine through a failing regulator, which is common). quote "Steve83" "No. AFAIK, no gas engine has injectors in the head, until maybe direct injection. I've never seen it in a Ford, Saab, Nissan, Land Rover, Jaguar, BMW, Honda, Mitsubishi, VW, Dodge, GM..." The buick L67 supercharged 3800 has the injectors in the head - no room on the LIM with the supercharger sitting there. Could be others but definitely rare. Nic55kel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts