20G TSi

if no one has came to get it by friday, I'll come up (from cincy) saturday to get it for certain.

I rev on this one truck all the time (to get him to play). Its a 1968 Chevy shortbed with a mean ass 400 and nitrous. Runs 11.30-10.90's.

 

why is it odd to think someone would rev on a truck? There are a number of low 13 second (and even some 12 second) dodge/cummins trucks down here in cincy, at least. Then you have all the quick OEM trucks these days also - the lightnings/v10 dodges/etc. etc...

:shrug:

hah, thats pretty slick!

What nitrousbird said. most newer (all?) cars have the fuel pump sitting down inside a chamber within the tank. The reasoning behind this is to keep fuel at the pump through curves and hard acceleration when the tank isnt completely full. The return line is routed back into this chamber, keeping fuel at the pump at all times.

 

The ONLY consequence of running the tank almost empty all the time is that b/c the pump relies on fuel to cool itself, it runs hotter - shortening its life span.

Originally posted by T.B.D. PEE:

 

 

I recently assembled this system and found it to perform poorly on my TD.

 

Probably due to the fact that component specs have changed over the years, or it couldn't react quick enough on my car.

 

 

Mine would swing 2-3 psi back and forth, pulsing he WG...which sucked.

sounds like the solenoid was cycling. you could try a few different kinds of solenoids if you're set on this setup. I like ball/spring MBC's (i'm cheap) - I've found you can play with the spring tension (use cut springs from ball point pen internals.. heh) - when you have a good combo, you see no spike and boost comes on strong.

Originally posted by T.B.D. PEE:

 

 

I recently assembled this system and found it to perform poorly on my TD.

 

Probably due to the fact that component specs have changed over the years, or it couldn't react quick enough on my car.

 

 

Mine would swing 2-3 psi back and forth, pulsing he WG...which sucked.

sounds like the solenoid was cycling. you could try a few different kinds of solenoids if you're set on this setup. I like ball/spring MBC's (i'm cheap) - I've found you can play with the spring tension (use cut springs from ball point pen internals.. heh) - when you have a good combo, you see no spike and boost comes on strong.

Originally posted by buckeye:

ya I did say blow off valve but ment waste gate. I found the site that i got the idea from i and found that they just use a electric vacume valve to control the stock waste gate at higher psi and stop bleed off before max boost.

there ya go. That makes sense. I reread your edit and was gonna say you wont find a valve large enough that would last long under the amount of heat a WG sees. You're on the right track and the above diagram is probably what you were looking for.

 

Good luck with the project smile.gif

Originally posted by buckeye:

ya I did say blow off valve but ment waste gate. I found the site that i got the idea from i and found that they just use a electric vacume valve to control the stock waste gate at higher psi and stop bleed off before max boost.

there ya go. That makes sense. I reread your edit and was gonna say you wont find a valve large enough that would last long under the amount of heat a WG sees. You're on the right track and the above diagram is probably what you were looking for.

 

Good luck with the project smile.gif

You mean a wastegate, NOT a blow off valve. Boost is NOT controlled via a blow off valve (a valve on the compressor side, not the exh side).

 

I'm not aware of an electrically controlled wastegate - with the temperatures involved, a WG has to be as technically simple and robust as possible if its going to last.

You mean a wastegate, NOT a blow off valve. Boost is NOT controlled via a blow off valve (a valve on the compressor side, not the exh side).

 

I'm not aware of an electrically controlled wastegate - with the temperatures involved, a WG has to be as technically simple and robust as possible if its going to last.

Originally posted by Randy:

not much dude cause it's a ford

graemlins/gay.gif

I wouldnt pay much for 'em myself. Maybe ~$400-600 max. They arent the best head out there, and if they're used, you'll need new valve springs and a valve job anyways, putting you around the cost of a NEW set of fully assembled twisted wedge heads - which perform MUCH better.

Originally posted by rl:

They changed the ramp speeds, this didn't hurt horse power. The computers are the same (program wise). I can show you the programs for all of the early 90's MAF computers, they are all essentially the same. The shift retard thing is a complete myth, it does not exist on any 5.0 mustang of any year. Thats a myth that really gets to me (kinda like the people who swear the Fox computers make more power then the sn95 computers). smile.gif

 

Rob

www.lasotaracing.com

thanks for clearing that up for me. I've been outta the whole EFI loop since about 1998, and wasnt big into it then. I'd like to go back to efi using one of those nifty vicJR intakes with the injector bosses someday. It was outrageous to go EFI back when I built my 408w (as a matter of fact, Bischoff called it fuel infection on large CI motors).

Originally posted by QWK90GT:

The cobra intake you bought off my brother will work fine to get you into the 11's, he went 11.31@127+ with it and a set of TFS twisted wedge heads and 15lbs of boost

dayum, yeah, 15psi = bottleneck what? you could ram that through a straw and still make decent hp

 

the cobra intake should be fine, i'm jfwy. smile.gifgraemlins/gives.gif

 

[ 11. December 2003, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Jasons GSX ]

they changed cam shaft profiles in 1993 due to valve train noise and detuned the ecu a bit (did I hear something about retarding timing between shifts to save trannies? or was this for the sn95's?).

Originally posted by chochmo:

yup, as they said. Ditch the E-cam, and you need the 2.02 valves. I personally wouldnt spend the money on the Z heads, I have the TFS High Ports and they are nice. Bigger Mass Air needed also, and you will need to beef up the rest of the drivetrain as well like everybody said, at least if you wanna thrash it. I know people with stock T-5s running high 10s all day with no trouble.

IMO, you dont need to ditch the e303 cam and you dont need 2.02 valves either (unless you're going to use a head thats cast for use with 2.02 valves, ofcourse). And 42lb injectors aren't needed either, but would be a good ideal.

 

my old 302 setup (havent run a 302 since 1998) did just fine with an "e" cam, 1.90 valves and 30lb injectors. Sure there are better cams, 2.02int valves would be better and 42lb injectors would be safer but they arent absolutely necessary.

 

Neither are the tranny or axles, but if you want anything to last you should have the good driveline parts.

ported and polished FRPP Z Heads with 1.94 1.60 valves, 1.7 RR, e-303 cam, ported and polished cobra intake, 70mm tb, 73mm mas air with 30# inj, BBK CAI, 1 5/8 long tubes, o/r h-pipe, flowmaster catbacks, underdrive pulleys, 3.73, and novi 1000 pulleyed for 9lbs..... anything I'm missing? would this setup be capable of 11's? Please let me know and thanks for all your help!

that setup should definately be in the low 11's@116-118mph with a set of 26" tall 8.5" slicks - in a full weight car. IMO, 9psi may be a bit much, if all you're wanting is mid 11's. I ran an old SN89 paxton (read: inefficient POS) at 5psi with a similar setup and ran 11.60's@116-118 all day long.

 

What you're missing:

* tuning stuff or atleast monitoring stuff (gauges, etc). Not absolutely needed, but should have unless you're wanting to break piston rings in the #8cyl (always my personal problem).

 

* a good tranny and c-clip eliminator axles - again, not necessary, but if you want everything to stay together you should consider these parts. Also, a good diff, auburn pro, etc.

 

* safety equipment - you're going to get kicked off the track w/o addressing safety with that much power

 

* torque box re-inforcements. You'll be pulling the stock torque boxes apart with ease.

 

 

You may also consider 1 3/4" long tubes at that kind of power level. The price increase is negligible, but the power increase wont be. The cobra intake could also be a bottleneck - I'd think about using an eldelbrock or trick flow intake (unported) instead.

 

 

Another question... if a set of heads has a reccomended valve size, can you still use different sized valves, and can they be smaller then the reccomended size? For example, in the Ford Racing catalog the Z heads have a reccomended valve size of 2.02, 1.64... could I used 1.94, 1.60 instead without problems?

You dont want to do that. If you COULD, the smaller valve seat is going to screw up airflow, since it'll be protruding into the valve bowl (throat) area. If I were you, I would use the twisted wedge head (2.02/1.60)... its cheap and hard to beat for the money flow wise (and therefore power production wise).

 

 

I'm sure I'm forgetting something... RL will surely ammend smile.gif

Originally posted by buckeye:

Ok I will ask about mine here to make things compact How about a streetable setup for a carbed 351 w ? witha c-4 in front

carb?

intake?

heads?

cam?

depends on your idea of streetable and how much hp you want to make.

 

I'll take a stab -

 

carb - 750cfm BG

intake - port matched vicJR

heads - vicJR heads (my 408w made 608hp/580ftlb with unported vicJR's - hard to beat for the price)

 

cam - I wont touch cam specs not knowing the level of 'streetability' you're talking about. Compression ratio is going to dictate a lot as far as cam specs. I would get a hydraulic roller or a solid roller for a few more hp, if you're not afraid of checking and setting valve lash.

I agree, the TFS setup is probably the best way to go.

stock is 1.78".

 

You shouldnt have any problems with that combo. I ran a similar setup back in the day(eldelbrock performer heads, "E" cam and 1.7 roller rockers) and had plenty of clearance.

 

 

to be safe, I'd still suggest checking valve clearance though.

Depends on how much lift you'll have at the valve. I'd be safe and just run a 1.90 or 1.94" valve - but even then I'd always double check valve clearance...

 

You're not going to see much of a difference going from 1.94 to 2.02 or 2.05 on a stock compression (or close to stock) engine anyways.

use a simple hobbs/pressure activated switch.

 

I agree, there are better ways, but a $15. switch and cheap-O add-on injectors have to be the cheapest solution.

supra side mount IC. Best bang for buck and the UICP (and probably the LICP) should fit. With the boost increase (hallman BC), the IC would make a huge difference.

 

I know it did on my car. Went from 14.6-14.8@97-99mph to 14.0-14.1@99-101mph.

 

If you decide to ditch the t25, I wouldnt go with anything smaller than a 20G.

dark colors will get me in trouble at work... heh. The gray/white is much easier to disguise.

 

 

just a thought from someone that doesnt matter.

my low 11second all motor mustang is more reliable than my TURBO DSM as a daily driver.