16 Guests, 1 User
Tonycando

Author Topic: Turbo Conversion questions  (Read 5481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Greymare

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Turbo Conversion questions
« on: October 16, 2014, 02:56:04 PM »
Hello all! I am thinking about doing a home built turbo setup with a blow through carb setup. I have seen the ebay turbo kits for as little as $500. I have the skills to make the rest of it work. I read up on converting the stock carb to a blow through and it seems pretty easy. I have a 2.3 auto right now and want to install a turbo and a T5. This car will be my DD so its not about having extra power for hot rodding it although I am sure the extra power will  be nice. I want it more for fuel mileage which means I will be going low boost.

Here are some of my questions for you folks.
1) What kind of Mileage are you getting from you 2.3 turbo setup? (Also what kind of setup are you running? Boost level, Turbo size, trans, gears, fuel source, ect.....)
2) What kind of Boost will the stock engine handle?
3) Anyone here ever done a home built turbo setup with or without blow through carb?

I am sure there will be more questions later but this will be a good start to see if this is really the directions I want to go.

Thanks in advance for any and all help!

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2256
  • FeedBack: +241/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2014, 06:33:07 PM »
I recommend EFI and a donor turbo car. "65 Shebly Clone" is doing one at the moment. From my experience he is doing it the right way.  Follow his build and below are links to my post "So you want to build a Turbo Pinto? Parts 1 & 2."  One thing that always rings true for me is when I say, "On a scale of 1-10 it looks like a 2 on paper, but in reality it is a hard 7."


http://www.fordpinto.com/general-pinto-talk/so-you-want-to-build-a-turbo-pinto-part-1/msg76893/#msg76893

http://www.fordpinto.com/general-pinto-talk/so-you-want-to-build-a-turbo-pinto-part-2/msg76894/#msg76894

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • FeedBack: +139/-0
  • Soylent Green

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2014, 10:52:01 AM »

1) What kind of Mileage are you getting from you 2.3 turbo setup? (Also what kind of setup are you running? Boost level, Turbo size, trans, gears, fuel source, ect.....)
2) What kind of Boost will the stock engine handle?
3) Anyone here ever done a home built turbo setup with or without blow through carb?

1.) I can't answer that from experience just yet, but I will say that an EFI 2.3t/T5 is fully capable of over 30mpg in a slippery, but very heavy Thunderbird. That's with 1982-era electronics. I've heard reports of the same driveline doing around 30 in a Pinto. A carburetor won't do as well, but I would hope for 26+ with careful tuning and driving. If you do any kind of mixed driving, then the carburetor is a 5-10% economy loss off the bat simply because it can't shut off the fuel during deceleration like EFI can (called "overrun fuel cut").

2.) 8-10psi without any pinging. A factory 2.3T with forged pistons and 8.0:1 compression will handle as much as it takes to fold the stock rods, which is around 350-400rwhp/rwtq and typically 20-30psi depending on build.

3.) No, but you might find something on theturboforums .com. You'll need a fuel pump that can supply 5-7psi above your peak boost pressure and a vacuum-referenced 1:1 pressure regulator with an EFI-style return line.

I would strongly suggest getting a wideband O2 sensor for tuning the AFR.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline amc49

  • PCCA VIP
  • Pinto Master
  • ***
  • Posts: 1256
  • FeedBack: +242/-1
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 4
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2014, 03:18:21 PM »
If you do not understand what EVERY SINGLE SMALL HOLE in a carb does and how to change that you are not ready for blowthru, rather drawthru is much easier. The negative to positive pressure issues with the carb will blow your mind.

 A carb cannot touch electronic injection as well and where the mileage increase truly comes from.

Homebuilt will not touch a fully engineered pre-setup like a factory turbo car, a million bucks worth of value there. Homebuilts often blow the first 2-3 engines until one gets a handle on how they work. Slightly lean just to make a NA car run off a bit often melts the engine with homebuilt turbos. You don't get nearly the chances to get it right. Why these guys are saying what they are. I myself have watched several insist they were going turbo until they gave up amid many broken parts. Being sharp is not enough, you gotta be REALLY sharp.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • FeedBack: +139/-0
  • Soylent Green

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2014, 12:06:21 PM »
Homebuilts often blow the first 2-3 engines until one gets a handle on how they work.

That is especially true with 2.3s. They are a tough engine, but have special considerations, particularly octane sensitivity. The fact that they have a 1950s chamber design coupled with all-iron construction, a low rev ceiling, and lots of torque (= cylinder pressure) makes them less forgiving on the tune. Fortunately they tend to blow head gaskets before things start to melt.

Ford employed a knock sensor on the 2.3T and an ECU strategy that aggressively pulls timing when knock is detected. They could be run on regular fuel, but at a 30%+ reduction in power.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2256
  • FeedBack: +241/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2014, 12:47:51 PM »
 "They could be run on regular fuel, but at a 30%+ reduction in power."

In fact, the 87-88 Turbo Coupes came with a Premium fuel switch specifically for that purpose... - if you are running the LA-2/LA-3 ECU.  For sure it pulls about 2-4 pounds of boost. Not sure if it also alters timing and fuel.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • FeedBack: +139/-0
  • Soylent Green

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2014, 04:05:38 PM »
SVOs had the octane switch and I think Merkurs may have too. In "regular" mode, the octane switch completely disables the boost control solenoid and does pull some timing. I can't remember off-hand if it alters a multiplier or just reduces global timing by a fixed amount. The BCS is inactive below 4000rpm even in 'premium" mode, supposedly to help the transmission live longer. The torque curve ramps up very fast from 3000-4000rpm and peaks around 3700 in a lot of cases.

I have my MegaSquirt set to duplicate the stock BCS behavior although it's probably not necessary with the driveline in a car that is 1000lbs lighter than the original.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline Greymare

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2014, 08:58:27 PM »
Well I was trying to avoid the headaches of installing a bunch of wiring in this car. I wanted something simple with just a manual boost controller. I only planed on running 4#s of boost or so just to help during the take of times and when you hit the hills. That's when you need that extra little bit of power. I am very familiar with the advantages of fuel injection. I know that would add mileage for sure but would rather stay carburetor. I have plans later to add in a Hydrogen generator to really add to the mileage. As for the knowing the carb passages. I don't but the people I know do and I plan to have them help me. I have also found some detailed instruction on what needs to be modified. This car is going to make some fuel mileage when I am done. Fuel injection will be coming later I am sure as I can't leave things alone.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • FeedBack: +139/-0
  • Soylent Green

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2014, 09:29:21 PM »
I have plans later to add in a Hydrogen generator to really add to the mileage.

You can do that if you want, but it's not going to improve your fuel economy. Neither will acetone.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline Greymare

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2014, 10:58:55 PM »
You can do that if you want, but it's not going to improve your fuel economy. Neither will acetone.

Well I did a lot of research on this and found conflicting results. I know there we some test done by popular mechanics that said they did nothing. After reading their article I had decided not to waste my time. Then one of the guys I work with started telling me about his uncle and his redneck hydrogen generator and how it took his El Camino with small block V8 from 11mpg to 20+mpg. I called BS and told him I would have to see it. So we meet up and we did some road miles with the generator turned off. The car got closer to 10 mpg. Then we went the same path and came back with something like 18.7 mpg! I don't feel the way he is running his is safe but it for sure convinced me that it worked. I think I have a plan to make it much safer. If it gives me 3-5 mpg I will consider that a win. I will also have EGT probes to keep a good eye on all of the exhaust times. I feel you on the not believing it will work but after seeing it first hand I will give it a try.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • FeedBack: +139/-0
  • Soylent Green

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2014, 12:52:55 PM »
I called BS and told him I would have to see it. So we meet up and we did some road miles with the generator turned off. The car got closer to 10 mpg. Then we went the same path and came back with something like 18.7 mpg!

How exactly were those numbers arrived upon?
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline Greymare

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2014, 11:20:34 PM »
How exactly were those numbers arrived upon?

We went to a gas station and topped it off all the way up to the neck. Then we drove the car on some back roads to eliminate traffic as much as possible all the way back to the station then checked the mileage. Once topped back off we did it again with the generator on. It was enough to convince me there is something to it. As I said his setup looks very unsafe to me and for sure has to be creating some crazy EGTs. I have a plan to make it much better which I am sure will hurt the gains some but will no leave me with a hydrogen explosion under my hood if thing go bad.

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • FeedBack: +139/-0
  • Soylent Green

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2014, 11:35:23 AM »
Obviously I wasn't there, but the the test method was faulty in any case. The error is inversely related to the amount of fuel and miles used to arrive at the results. Since both were very low, the error is extremely high.

Then the laws of physics enter into it, particularly conservation of energy. The engine converts chemical energy into into physical motion at about a 30% efficiency which is then converted back into electricity by the alternator at about a 65% efficiency which is then used by electrolysis of water at lets say 50% efficiency(industrial cells average in the low 70s). The hydrogen and oxygen then contain the remainder which is then re-used by the engine at the same 30% efficiency.

100 * 0.30 = 30 (engine)
30 * 0.65 = 19.5 (alternator)
19.5 * 0.50 = 11.7 (cell)
9.75 * 0.3 = 2.93 (recovered by the engine)

In other words, of the original gasoline energy used to electrolyze the water, you can recover just 2.93% of it as useful work.

That's a 97% loss.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline Greymare

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2014, 01:31:33 PM »
Obviously I wasn't there, but the the test method was faulty in any case. The error is inversely related to the amount of fuel and miles used to arrive at the results. Since both were very low, the error is extremely high.

Then the laws of physics enter into it, particularly conservation of energy. The engine converts chemical energy into into physical motion at about a 30% efficiency which is then converted back into electricity by the alternator at about a 65% efficiency which is then used by electrolysis of water at lets say 50% efficiency(industrial cells average in the low 70s). The hydrogen and oxygen then contain the remainder which is then re-used by the engine at the same 30% efficiency.

100 * 0.30 = 30 (engine)
30 * 0.65 = 19.5 (alternator)
19.5 * 0.50 = 11.7 (cell)
9.75 * 0.3 = 2.93 (recovered by the engine)

In other words, of the original gasoline energy used to electrolyze the water, you can recover just 2.93% of it as useful work.

That's a 97% loss.

I will start by saying I am new here. I will also say I am 39 years old and have played with cars since I was 14. That being said I want to say I am not some D**b*ss. I understand that there are some variations in both times we made the road trip. I didn't have a nice closed circuit to do the test as to provide exact numbers.  I also know that I filled the tank and fuel neck up to the top so the amount of fuel was the same.  As for the distance what is to short? I never said how far we drove so you donít know if I drove 1 mile or 500 mile. Also who said that it was connected to the battery on the car? There may have been a second battery.  With all that said let me say now that there is a huge amount of error in your math as I know there was almost a 48% gain on this particular car. I know that this is not going to be the same results for me but it is still impressive and enough for me to ignore the number crunching naysayers that only believe what they can figure out with a math problem to be fact. Even if it was half that amount who wouldnít want 4 mpg extra for what could be a low cost?     

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2256
  • FeedBack: +241/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2014, 01:55:51 PM »
Normally I wouldn't step into this conversation, but I don't think 65SC was calling you a D**b *ss.  I myself would have interrupted, " we drove the car on some back roads to eliminate traffic as much as possible all the way back to the station then checked the mileage" as being under 100 miles.

A starting point of any valid debate begins with defining your terms. So, defining the distance and its circumstances, the set up of the Generator etc. would be helpful. Stating driving down "back roads" and then making a point it could have been "1 mile or 500 miles" and "There may have been a second battery" is not going to convince someone that the devise is effective.  This is all very vague.

65SC is basing his position on the laws of physics and a driving distance sufficient for an accurate determination of mileage improvement. And given the "48% gain" claimed it would cause most (myself included) to look for a greater proof before acceptance.  I'm not saying the device does, or doesn't work.  All I'm saying is evidence presented isn't sufficient for a reasonable person to accept.

Perhaps it can better be illustrated this way. If one were to say putting a restriction in the exhaust system can considerably produce more power it sounds bogus.  But when one understands the restriction is a turbo the principles behind it makes it easier to grasp concept.  In the case of the turbo it is using the existing heat and pressure (as a result of combustion) to force more air into the engine for greater power.  But, note this power increase still come at an increase in fuel use.

In the same way the hydrogen generator may increase mileage, but at what energy cost to generate it?  So (as eluded to potentially being present) does a second battery skew the results. Is it charged externally?  If so that cost needs to be weighed against the cost of gasoline for a true cost per mile. What does the weight of the system do to mileage?

Build the system. Report back the results after long term testing - which by the way starts with testing the existing vehicle extensively before modification.  I hope it works but it will take more than a one time test to convince me it does.  If the results are genuinely positive take it to Popular Mechanics and smile.

Offline dick1172762

  • Vintage Pinto Racer
  • PCCA Management Board
  • Pinto Sr. Master
  • ******
  • Posts: 2623
  • FeedBack: +362/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Windows User 1000 Posts Tenth year Anniversary Fifth year Anniversary
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2014, 06:52:52 PM »
Well said Wittsend! I started to post about it but all the words were @#$%^&* and I gave up. Sounds like the old 100MPG carb that the oil co bought to save their a@# back in the 50's. I've still got one of those carbs on my Pinto and while I've never got 100 MPG, I have got in the low 90's. The longer I use it the better the story gets. I'm sure 100MPG's is due in another year or two. Right now, I'm looking for a good lawyer to take the carb to the next step with the oil co. I've been told by several lawyers that men in black Suburban's have talked to them.
Its better to be a has-been, than a never was.

Offline Greymare

  • Pinto Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • FeedBack: +0/-0
  • Another Pinto Driver

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Poll Voter Windows User
Re: Turbo Conversion questions
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2014, 08:48:41 AM »
Wittsend
My original post was not intended to be a "valid debate" but as a I didn't just take the guys word for it I got off my @$$ and did a little testing to see proof. I do apologize if it sounded like I was being an @$$ to 65SC as that was not my intention. My intention was to say you can't set and shoot something down with what are called facts if you don't have the fact. I didn't both providing all the facts as I didn't know I was headed into a debate over what I saw with my own 2 eyes. Again I wasn't looking to change anyone's mind here just trying to give any idea of what I have seen not some numbers that someone crunched on a calculator to decide if something works or not. I also understand that there needs to be a baseline before I try my set up later. As I will be driving it every day I will have plenty of miles to see results if there are any. I am sure even then there will be people that bring to question traffic and temperature outside. As I said before if its 3-4 MPG I'll consider that a win. I am done with this topic because as I said I am new here and don't want to end up getting myself banned over something I said.

   
Dick
Its fine I am a big boy and I can take whatever you have to say. I have all those keys on my keyboard as well. If the conversation gets bad enough I just forget to use them sometimes. LOL As stated above though I was replying to the point that you canít shoot something down with facts if you don't have all the facts and I didn't provide every fact as I didn't know I was going to be in a debate.