Forum > It's all about the Turbo...
Ranger roller cam retarded one tooth? WTH? Why?
65ShelbyClone:
--- Quote from: 71pintoracer on December 04, 2020, 05:03:52 PM ---So anyway, back to the main question, is there any reason to run the cam retarded? Or did he just screw up? :-\
--- End quote ---
It's popular to retard the Ranger roller a lot improve the top end because it's a truck cam that doesn't rev all that well. A full tooth is too much, but perhaps not for someone who only has a stock cam pulley.
--- Quote ---To me, the bigger turbo was a mistake because it doesn't build boost until about 3400 rpm and the rev limiter is at 6200.
--- End quote ---
On a stock 2.3T that is definitely a mistake. Your '88 engine would have come with the small IHI turbo that starts making boost in the low 2000s. It would be a good idea to find out what turbo the PO put on there. I can help ID with a decent picture or three.
A stock 2.3T is going to have a hard time making making power out to 6000. Ford rated the peak at about 4800.
--- Quote from: 71pintoracer on December 06, 2020, 09:27:52 AM ---l know about the premium fuel switch and he said that's what they used to switch from stock to performance tune.
--- End quote ---
That's not exactly how it works. The premium fuel mode is stock. That's what the engine makes it's rated output on. All the regular fuel mode does is limit boost to the wastegate setting (10psi is stock) instead of 15psi on the boost control solenoid and it reduces a timing multiplier. The knock sensor then makes it pull even more timing if knock is detected in either mode. The fueling stays very rich under boost either way. The ECU doesn't do anything as sophisticated as map switching.
Wittsend:
--- Quote from: 65ShelbyClone on December 10, 2020, 09:40:38 PM ---
The fueling stays very rich under boost either way. The ECU doesn't do anything as sophisticated as map switching.
--- End quote ---
Sometimes I forget how OLD these engines (and their engine management systems) are. Like the original poster mine is an '88 T/C engine. The '88's were the last of the T/C's and yet they are now 32 years old!!! When I bought my T/C back in late 1993 it was only 5 years old. In some ways it is a surprise the ECU's even work at all (I do have two spare LA-3's, just in case).
- I also have a '63 Rambler American. The 196 OHV engine was last built in 1965 (55 years ago) and the design dates back to the flathead it was upgraded off of to 1940. That is 80 years ago! The 145 CID engine in my Corvair wagon is 60 years old. At this point I'm not sure what seems older, me, or my cars. We are both dented and rusting.
71pintoracer:
Thanks for the replies. Here is a picture of the turbo. This car has a Ron Francis harness so I don’t know if it still uses the regular/ premium switch. The boost goes to 15 psi on either setting. I really don’t “feel “ any difference. The pcm has a slot cut out of it and has wires coming out of it so something has been done.
I do have a stage one Racer Walsh cam, not sure what the specs are or if it would be better than the ranger cam. But it’s a slider cam so l would have to buy a set of rockers to use it. And use oil with zinc. Neither is a big deal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
65ShelbyClone:
It looks like an ebay Garrett knockoff. Knowing anything beyond that would require getting measurements from the compressor and turbine wheels. The raised rectangular boss on the engine side is where any info would have been engraved. Chinese copies are seldom exact copies, seldom as-described, and frequently have terrible compressor/turbine wheel combinations.
My suspicion is that it has roughly a T04E-57 compressor and some turbine wheel & housing that's mismatched to it.
--- Quote from: Wittsend on December 11, 2020, 12:06:28 PM ---Sometimes I forget how OLD these engines (and their engine management systems) are. Like the original poster mine is an '88 T/C engine. The '88's were the last of the T/C's and yet they are now 32 years old!!!
--- End quote ---
And by '87 the 2.3T ECU had already been upgraded to a single-board design with surface-mount components and much faster processing.
71pintoracer:
So basically it’s junk. I figured as much. So what do you think about changing to the stage one cam?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page