Author Topic: A 1972 turbo swap adventure (Read 97582 times)

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #90 on:** October 12, 2014, 09:27:27 PM »

Remember the spaghetti monster inhabiting the front of my car in that last picture? Well, it's not there anymore...

...it's inside now.

Fortunately most of those wires are going to get shortened by about four feet. I got fed up and decided to omit the knock sensor and pigtail completely until a later date. I don't yet have an amplifier/signal conditioner for it anyway.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #91 on:** October 17, 2014, 01:34:37 AM »

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #92 on:** October 17, 2014, 07:40:10 AM »

Sounds good.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #93 on:** October 17, 2014, 09:46:07 AM »

Like a tractor motor should.

Thanks.

It's not quite drivable yet, but probably will be by the weekend. I need to bolt down the battery and coil, install the electric fan, and hook up the wideband O₂ sensor. At that point I can start tuning. Once that is mostly sorted, the details will get finished like tucking wires and making a gauge console to hold everything.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #94 on:** October 20, 2014, 01:02:34 PM »

Wideband connected and billet battery tray almost done.

Next up: coil bracket and e-fan.

Wittsend · « **Reply #95 on:** October 20, 2014, 08:36:49 PM »

I said B-U-I-L-D it not Billet!!!

I love all your custom pieces. I'm sure skills from years of experience and a labor of love.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #96 on:** October 20, 2014, 09:13:10 PM »

And maybe some "necessity is the mother of invention" thrown in. I'm accustomed to playing with Mustangs where anything and everything you can imagine is available. It's completely the opposite with this car where even stock parts are often hard to find. Even if I wanted the battery in the hatch, there aren't any plastic boxes or universal trays small enough for a group 51R!

Solution: build one.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #97 on:** October 21, 2014, 10:04:53 PM »

Heeey kids, it's time for another update.

Support bracket for battery tray. Done.

Filling that tray with a battery. Done.

Bracket to put TFI coil in original location. Done.

Now I can get back to fiddling with the EFI.

Tomorrow will bring the first attempt at moving the car under its own power.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #98 on:** October 21, 2014, 10:13:15 PM »

Nice battery tray..

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #99 on:** October 23, 2014, 02:04:10 AM »

Thanks. The car rocks when I try to "wiggle" the tray.

When there's nothing on TV, make your own.

This video doesn't do justice to the turbine whine. No one else's do either, so it may be inherent to recording vs. experiencing.

I fought for a long time trying to figure out why the AFR reading was so unstable no matter what I did to the fuel map. Today I traced it to a noisy ground on the wideband controller. Now it's a lot less fussy to tune. Low-load and transients need the most attention now; boost portion of the map are decent enough to move down the list.

I think this car is going to surprise a few people if I can get a hood to cover that lump in the engine bay.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #100 on:** October 23, 2014, 07:42:41 AM »

Sounds like it should haul the mail.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #101 on:** October 23, 2014, 11:34:07 AM »

With the way it feels, I'd say it's easily capable of a sub-14 quarter mile even on this groggy tune. The video doesn't capture it, but that quick little 1-2-3-4 jaunt was up to 55mph.

I can safely flog it a bit with the rich upper map, but the WBO2 is in the stock turbo outlet and I'm trying not to roast the sensor. It already overheated once.

Post-swap observation: this car needs stiffer front springs! It sits at least an inch lower in the front now and is very soft and easy to bottom-out.

Here's a parting glamour shot since I probably won't get anything done again until next week.

dick1172762 · « **Reply #102 on:** October 23, 2014, 12:26:13 PM »

All we did for springs was use a 74/80 Pinto spring. They are longer than the 71/73 springs and will need a coil or two removed. The more you cut off the stiffer the spring becomes. I try'd Walsh springs and there was no difference. One of Walsh's crew told me that the spring they sold were for a V-6 Pinto wagon with air.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #103 on:** October 23, 2014, 07:17:28 PM »

I had heard that Mustang II springs were an option. Stock ride height is preferable, but a little higher spring rate would be fine. The car has no swaybar yet, so any help in the front end counts.

Wittsend · « **Reply #104 on:** October 23, 2014, 09:51:13 PM »

I'm experiencing the same with my Turbo/2.3 '73 wagon. Too much weight and too little spring rate. There is a noticeable lift upon strong acceleration. It would be nice if there was a variable rate spring from another application we could use the springs from.

Over in my 1960's Studebaker world the hot ticket for front springs is an option, variable rate spring from the rear of mid to late 80's Buick Olds, Pontiac FWD cars. Maybe Pinto's have some unknown, oddball donor spring that might work too.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #105 on:** October 24, 2014, 12:55:28 AM »

Mine lifts a lot even under moderate throttle.

Just have to know the spring outside diameter, inside diameter, free length, car weight+bias and measure/estimate the compressed length at ride height to arrive at a spring rate. That's all...

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #106 on:** October 29, 2014, 09:39:21 PM »

Been running the car a lot and poring over resultant datalogs. I also fixed a noisy and very aggravating voltage problem with the wideband controller. For no obvious reason the AFR would dip almost full rich and the sensor would enter warmup mode. After some thought, I suspected that instantaneous voltage drops were causing it to reset. A 3300μF cap accross the controller's power and ground fixed 99% of that. Now I have to do the same thing for the ECU.

I installed one of those parts-store adjustable fan controllers and an unimpressive 12" electric fan. It keeps the car under 200° most of the time at least. We'll see how inadequate the cooling system is when summer comes back around. I had two 16" fans, but one wouldn't fit and the one that did couldn't be reconfigured as a pusher.

Oh, and video (watch it on YouTube for the full view):

I just realized that I could be driving around Paso Robles in that video. Scenery looks just like that.

It also still has the stock rear end with 3.55s, so that's where some of the punch comes from. Hopefully it doesn't break before I can get the 8" installed.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #107 on:** October 29, 2014, 10:49:00 PM »

How bout one 16" fan should be better than a 12" I would think???.. .. BTW, cool vid sounds good..

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #108 on:** November 02, 2014, 12:01:47 AM »

Well yeah a 16" is better, but:

1.) '71-73 cars have no room between the rad and water pump for a fan. ( I can barely snake a belt between the rad and pulley bolts). This means that a pusher fan is the only option.

2.) The 16" fan I have that could be reconfigured as a pusher was too big to fit on the front of the radiator. It hit the core support and hood latch support.

3.) The nice and thin 16" SPAL fan I have can only be used as a puller.

4.) I already had the 12" and it does fit.

I may end up modifying or ditching the hood latch parts depending on what happens with the hood in order to clear the intake. If I have to use hood pins, then a 16" fan is the obvious choice.

Does this look like fun?

Well, it's NOT. Those spikes and dips on the battery voltage (bottom graph in white) were causing a lot of problems, especially the low voltage dips. This noise is likely coming from the low-z injector circuit and is compounded by having to use PWM current limiting because they're low-z. When people said the MegaSquirt v3.0 board was sensitive to noise, I thought they meant external sources like RFI from non-resistor spark plugs. Well, it's actually internal noise from flawed design.

There are some ways to fix it with jumpers and trace-cutting, but I elected to:

(1.) install a filter capacitor on the injector flyback circuitry. This brought the voltage swings down to a tolerable level, but they still spiked between 11 and 15v. I knew it could be better, so I

(2.) put another filter cap on the bootloader header. Finally, rock-solid voltage readings.

Now that noise is no longer an issue, acceleration enrichment is proving to be a tougher nut to crack even without venturing into the realm of Enhanced Acceleration Enrichment (EAE).

Wittsend · « **Reply #109 on:** November 02, 2014, 01:18:32 AM »

I run my fan (yes, a pusher) out of a cage. It allows me to run as large a blade as possible (not sure of the size and it is getting chilly tonight). Power comes from the factory relay box. I also enlarged the cradle and use a stock Pinto 20" radiator. It allows me to maintain the factory hood latch. Never have a cooling issue.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #110 on:** November 02, 2014, 07:06:26 AM »

Looks like a nice fit..

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #111 on:** November 02, 2014, 06:26:03 PM »

Sheesh, I didn't even think to take the fan out of the ~~lawsuit avoidance enclosure~~ finger guard.

Oh well. It's staying fairly cool now that the daytime temps are in the 60s, but it gets up pretty high before the thermostat will open. Might have to put a bleeder hole in it even though I made sure it seated past the bypass hole in the housing like it's supposed to.

Anyone remember these?

I bought one about 13 years ago (when they were $140 and the dollar had 300% the buying power!) and still have it. The bad news is that it only does 1/4mi readings, not 1/8. I don't really want to pull my car up to 90+mph yet, so 0-60mph tests may be the only thing I do for now.

Oh yeah, and I'm thinking about installing this:

I think it was supposed to compete with Grant because it has what looks like a Grant-compatible adapter. Too bad it fits a Toyota Landcruiser and not a Ford.

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #112 on:** November 02, 2014, 09:50:48 PM »

Nice wheel, should be able to get a Ford adapter...

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #113 on:** November 08, 2014, 05:22:36 PM »

Yeah, Ford adapters are all over the place. Back burner for now though.

I haven't played with the G-Tech yet, but have been doing (much) more testing and tuning. Acceleration enrichment is coming along and the closed-loop idle is fun stuff.

An open downpipe is starting to $uck. The bass notes are so powerful that good earplugs are only marginally effective against a headache. Good exhaust is on the horizon and bad muffled exhaust may be in the immediate future.

On a side note, I want to discuss why "turbo lag" is such a frequently misused term. My car came with the largest T3 of the entire 2.3T lineup, a turbo nearly as large as what GM put on their 3.8L Buick Grand National. This graph (click it for full size) illustrates why genuine turbo lag has been an urban legend for several decades:

Span A is where I went from 27% throttle to just 44% and got 4.5psi of boost in 0.132 second.

Span B is the entire event from tip-in to 15.3psi boost, which is 0.924s. Subtract the non-WOT time above and it took the turbo 0.792s to gain 11psi. Engine speed only increased by ~150rpm so that was all turbo; no help from the engine. 2900rpm is well above the boost threshold for any 2.3T which is why there was hardly any lag at all with this 33+ year-old technology. Mashing the gas below boost threshold and waiting for it to wind up isn't lag, it's a problem of technique.

Wittsend · « **Reply #114 on:** November 08, 2014, 10:27:03 PM »

Why is it I feel if I came to your house I'd see these graphs framed and hung on the wall. LOL You are obviously having way too much fun with lines and numbers.

What are you running for an exhaust? I had to pinch off the second muffler feed of the stock pipes. Not the best for sure. I even have the CAT still attached. Just a little bend in the pipe got me to a muffler under the rear seat. And, you're not running an IC are you? Any plans?

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #115 on:** November 08, 2014, 11:22:30 PM »

Quote from: Wittsend on November 08, 2014, 10:27:03 PM

Why is it I feel if I came to your house I'd see these graphs framed and hung on the wall. LOL You are obviously having way too much fun with lines and numbers.

You wouldn't see anything framed until I can get the AFR to stay rock solid through transients.

Quote

What are you running for an exhaust? I had to pinch off the second muffler feed of the stock pipes. Not the best for sure. I even have the CAT still attached. Just a little bend in the pipe got me to a muffler under the rear seat. And, you're not running an IC are you? Any plans?

Exhaust? Barely any! I have the stock downpipe and a 45° elbow on the end facing outward by the trans crossmember. It's a little rough on the eardrums. The 'Bird had a generic turbo muffler that I saved, so that is probably what I'll use until a full-length exhaust system gets put on.

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #116 on:** November 12, 2014, 07:19:34 PM »

Not really an update so much as an observation.

My car seems a little short-legged with 3.55s. By any other standard they wouldn't and I wondered why, so I crunched the driveline numbers.

3.55s with the much shorter tires on my Pinto are functionally equivalent to putting a 3.94 ratio in the the Thunderbird that the driveline came from.

To match the 'Birds original 3.45s while taking tire height into consideration, it would only need a 3.12 ratio out back if it existed. I was concerned that the 3.00 MII rear end was going to make it a slug, but this is reassuring. 3.25s and a T-Lok might be a good all-around combo in the future.

Wittsend · « **Reply #117 on:** November 12, 2014, 07:57:47 PM »

I wish there was a universal standard for discussing tires AND rearend ratios. Something like revolutions per distance (say engine revolutions per 100 feet of tread travel distance)? Because.., as we both know they go hand in hand. Whenever one of them (singular) is compared it becomes apples to oranges.

When I got my 8" it was a 3.00 and I had 215-60-14" tires on the rear. If I got on the boost I didn't notice a significant lack of power. What I did notice was in everyday driving the RPM range was "off" for a given speed. What I mean is at a normal driving speed one gear was too low and the next too high. It was always missing the "sweet spot" if you will.

I went to 175-70-13" because I got a set of Rallye wheels (and got three, new Sumitumo's off CL for $35 - for all three!). It helped a little, but not enough. Eventually I got a 3.40 rear and I have been very happy with it. Everyday driving is much better. I'll be moving up to 205-60-13" if I ever get off my butt and mount them.

I would concur with you that 3.25 would be the ideal ratio (again a tough call given what tire size???). There is a 3.18 - unfortunately in the 6-3/4" rearend. The 3.40 probably winds out a little (not much, but a little) too much and doesn't take full advantage of the torque when the boost comes on. Like I said above, I had no acceleration issues with the 3.00, it was just the general driving that was unpleasant.

Unfortunately in the 8" Pinto/Mustang II rear you get 3.00, 3.40 or 3.55. I even spoke to a rearend Pro (he was the guy snagging all the 8" center sections at Pick Your Part) and he said from the factory the 3.25 was very limited. Aftermarket is the place to get them. So, it is 3.40 for me and I'll "tune" my final outcome with tire size. THankfully my Sunbeam Tiger and the Pinto share the same bolt pattern. Now if I ever get the Tiger going.... .

BTW, the T/C's came with 3.55 manual or 3.73 Auto - but they had much larger 225-60-16" tires. And so like I said above it would be nice to have a universal standard to compare all these tire/rear numbers by. I could do the math and use my own scale, but what does that mean to the rest of the world?

74 PintoWagon · « **Reply #118 on:** November 13, 2014, 07:08:21 AM »

Maybe this can help.
http://www.differentials.com/technical-help/differential-gear-ratio-calculator

http://www.merkurtech.com/merkurtech/calculators/rpmmph.php

65ShelbyClone · « **Reply #119 on:** November 13, 2014, 02:23:58 PM »

Quote from: Wittsend on November 12, 2014, 07:57:47 PM

I wish there was a universal standard for discussing tires AND rearend ratios. Something like revolutions per distance (say engine revolutions per 100 feet of tread travel distance)? Because.., as we both know they go hand in hand. Whenever one of them (singular) is compared it becomes apples to oranges.

What I did is determine the percentage difference in rear tire radius and use that as a multiplier. In this case, my 185/70-R13s are 10.5% shorter than the Thunderbird's 225/60-R15s. 1.105 x 3.45 = 3.81. 3.55s are 2.9% steeper than 3.45s, so 3.81 x 1.029 = 3.92.

I did use tire revolutions per mile for determining approximate engine RPM for a given speed.

Quote

When I got my 8" it was a 3.00 and I had 215-60-14" tires on the rear. If I got on the boost I didn't notice a significant lack of power. What I did notice was in everyday driving the RPM range was "off" for a given speed. What I mean is at a normal driving speed one gear was too low and the next too high. It was always missing the "sweet spot" if you will.

Something that 3.00s are going to do to my car is make 5th gear useful in fewer situations, but I think the other gears will be have better spacing at the same time.

Currently I'm looking at 3000/1900rpm in 2nd/3rd at 25mph and an almost identical split at 40mph in 3rd/4th. 3.00s will shift that to 2600 in 2nd and 2600in 3rd.

Quote

BTW, the T/C's came with 3.55 manual or 3.73 Auto - but they had much larger 225-60-16" tires. And so like I said above it would be nice to have a universal standard to compare all these tire/rear numbers by. I could do the math and use my own scale, but what does that mean to the rest of the world?

Just to be more specific, '83-86 TCs came with 3.45 gears; '87-88 TC manuals came with 3.55s and '87-88 automatics got 3.73s.

I guess a gearing equivalence ratio isn't something that online calculators address directly. Speedometer gear calculators involve it indirectly, but it's up to the user to apply it.

News:

Current Classifieds

Author Topic: A 1972 turbo swap adventure (Read 97582 times)