Don't need to spin to 8000 to do that either. If you do, you sized your turbo wrong.
Don't need to spin to 8000 to do that either. If you do, you sized your turbo wrong.
tuna55 wrote:BoneYard_Racing wrote: The SRT/PT Turbo is going to struggle to make 350hp with the stock turbo with an Enforcer or SST it can be done but really a TD05 or bigger is the right answer.Do is the F2T a better answer here?BoneYard_Racing wrote: The 2.3 Ford is a pretty easy one. Start with a 87-88 Turbocoupe engine and computer. At minimum use a T3 from a manual trans 84-86 TC or SVO a slightly larger turbo would be preferred. Use roller cam shaft and valve train from an early 90s Ranger, Port everything a lot the head, lower intake manifold, exhaust manifold (make sure its stamped E6) cut everyting out of the upper intake. Use brown 87-88 TurboCoupe injectors with a nice FPR (ones for 5.0s work) make a bracket to take weight off the fuel rail. Put an open intake and exhaust on and add boost until you reach your goal. Make sure you use a Felpro 1035 headgasket the kit is like $40 at advance auto it really is just about the best.Dude, I may as well build it from scratch. How heavy are these things? I like stupid simple old tech stuff, but how much am I giving up compared to some of the other suggestions in terms of hp and lb?
To do it for the absolute least amount of money and effort the FT2 might be better though I don't know them well. The SRT 2.4 will do it with tons of room to spare, a huge power band, and, pump gas friendliness with the right turbo. You can make a N/A 2.3 into a 2.3T Keith Black has very cheap turbo pistons, the turbo rods are cheap enough if you use the right engine. Around 91 IIRC the 2.3 got smaller crank journals and a weaker crank they don't take to boost as well
Swank Force One wrote: Don't need to spin to 8000 to do that either. If you do, you sized your turbo wrong.
That's what I'm getting at. If peak power is, say, 6500, then I'd want the engine to be safe to at least 7500, preferably higher. That way you can drive up and over the power curve instead of up to peak power and then upshift into a hole.
This is also a benefit for a traction limited application, if power is falling off with increased RPM then wheelspin tends to rein itself in.
This is a lot of why rotaries tend to fight above their weight level. The power curve falls off gracefully.
Swank Force One wrote: Vigo, I don't think the f2t is the best motor for 350hp period, I'm a 3sgte fanboi.
And I came from the DSM world. Ben turned me on to the F2T shenanigans, and on my limited budget it's the easiest way for me to build a car that might kill me.
I think you guys are looking at some of these engines a bit backwards. While the F2T is a great engine, making 350HP and getting 400 ft. lbs. is not really a strength. For the most part, you are not getting extra torque, you are losing HP. Strap that same turbo on a 4G63, and you will make more HP to go with that torque.
Boost_Crazy wrote: I think you guys are looking at some of these engines a bit backwards. While the F2T is a great engine, making 350HP and getting 400 ft. lbs. is not really a strength. For the most part, you are not getting extra torque, you are losing HP. Strap that same turbo on a 4G63, and you will make more HP to go with that torque.
For sure.
The F2T will also take a LOT of boost to hit 350whp, more than most other motors. It's not very efficient. 
But that's part of the beauty in this case, yes? He wants 350whp. This is a strong 350whp because of its weaknesses.
I'll be honest, if the F2T and 4g63 would cost the same to purchase and set up in a RWD configuration, i'd probably choose the 4g63 every day, all day.
The F2 was already available in RWD configuration, so it's like half the work is done for you.
Im pretty sure a 4g64 bottom end bolts up to several factory RWD transmissions (and the 4g63 top end....), and you can turn it back into a 2.0 if you want to with a set of rods, although there's no real reason to do that. There's not really a strong reason why not to do rwd 2.4L 4g63 other than you have to assemble a motor yourself (which you sort of have to do anyway if you want a reliable 350whp from a 4cyl).
(ask Garaithon what he thinks of turbo mopar 2.2 vs f2t. My mx6 on 14psi would annihilate his turbo shadow pushing over 21psi on a holset, no joke.)
That falls under sorting out the chaff in my post. If you both post dyno charts with all relevant info like boost, AFR, total timing, knock counts, all relevant motor mods, vehicle weight and gearing, etc, it might mean something. There are turbomopars with properly modded top ends and proper tuning that have made over 400whp with smaller turbos on 21psi and pump 93. There are also turbo mopars that have made a little over 200whp on 21psi (MOST of them) due to crap or NO tuning. So boost is a useless number for comparing anything.
The next question is, would you rather have peak HP happen right at redline (so you never get to use it) or would you rather have a 1000-2000+rpm window above peak HP so you can actually get to use it? I'd rather have an engine that has a broad powerband than one that makes power in the last 1000rpm where you never get to use it.
I think another way to ask that question is "do you want an engine that feels like it would keep on making power forever and the only thing stopping you is good sense and your rev limiter, or do you want an engine that you are constantly going PAST the peak of and spend almost as much time on the downslope as the upslope?". I have found over the years that engines that have linear increases in power and peak close to redline give more driving ENJOYMENT than engines that peak early and have 1500-2000 useless rpms before redline.
I think the thing about broad powerbands is a misconception. Engines that make more torque than hp DONT have broad powerbands. They are, by definition, already losing power precipitously at 5200 rpm. Since they are usually turbo motors, they usually dont make a hell of a lot of torque before 3k rpm because boost is still ramping up. So when you look at a motor that makes 30% more tq than hp, you are looking at a motor with a 2000-rpm and change powerband. Ive owned and driven a lot of cars like this and it is NOT all that.
wspohn wrote: Stock (unopened engine) 2.0 Ecotec with different tune and a larger 20G turbo unit. 403 whp 382 Tq. Ought to fill the bill.
Is this a turbo engine to begin with? If so, I doubt that will be had for cheap enough. I might be wrong though.
OK, it seems we've all got our own race horses here, and it's all good stuff.
For the record, the goal is 1/4 mile ET. Nothing else in terms of power/torque delivery matters. If I have to launch at a higher RPM and shift at a higher RPM, I'm OK, so long as that translates to a better ET. If the F2T demands I shift at 6 grand, 1K short of the redline, but it's quicker to the stripe, that's totally fine.
So let's do this. Back your opinions with the following:
Engine donor cars (find examples if they're not typical junkyard fodder)
Transmission donor cars (if different than the above)
Engine management stuff (I imagine some of these will be megasquirt, but I am unsure if something modern like the Ecotec can be controlled easily this way)
Prep work (This one you change the oil, this one requires porting, pistons, rings, shave this, dremel that)
Recommended turbo
Recommended power level (you guys get the idea - beat 350 HP, you know what I'm trying to do, tell me if the acme engine can make 450 with nothing more than some adjustment to the returbulator valve)
Dyno plots if you have them (just an image and a summary)
So far it sounds like the Mistu, the F2T, the 2.4 Chrysler, and the Ecotec are winning, yes?
Some of these are going to be strange to me in terms of transmissions.
Guys, I really appreciate this banter. Keep it up - this will be fun. If I ever build it, each and every one of you who made a productive post (including the guy who suggested the Detroit Diesel) can drive it if I ever build it.
Well actually... the F2T stock redline is 6200, so....
Engine donor cars: 88-92 MX6/626 (All), 89-92 Probe GT/LX (barring the vulcan powered ones, obviously) Does NOT have to be turbo, necessarily, though bonus points if you do find one.
Trans donors: B2200 if you want to take a chance on longevity. B2600 if you want a stronger R-box, but it IS a truck trans. Check to see if gearing works for you. Or B2600 bell on RX7 T2 trans. Or Miata 6spd will bolt up after drilling two holes and slight modification to throwout arm. There will be some mixing and matching in terms of clutch/flywheels depending on transmission choice, but those are the documented transmissions that work. (NOTE: Miata 6spd has been mounted to an FE3 successfully. FE3s and F2Ts are interchangeable in FWD cars, will bolt in place of each other, so that's why i note Miata 6spd. It has NOT been mounted on an actual F2T.)
Engine management: Megasquirt. I can do 350whp using piggybacks/chipped ECUs, but in the end, it's probably not a whole lot cheaper, and in the case of using one of these motors in RWD config, it's probably harder. Megasquirt is the answer.
Prep work: Just clean it up, test compression. If you can rebuild heads yourself, i would absolutely do so. Big power to be found going from a 200k mile worn out head to a fresh head. Throw B2000 dual valve springs while you're in there for a boost up to. Don't need it to hit 350whp, but more power is never bad, right?
Recommended Turbo: Holset HX35 or similar sized.
Recommended power level: Not sure. Never seen one blow up due to power, just tuning/maintenance issues.
Dyno Plot:
Now to be fair, a clutch to hold this sort of thing probably isn't going to be cheap. IF you do go down this route and choose a transmission that lets you use FWD F2T stuff, i do have a Spec Stage 2 pressure plate (used) and a brand new South Bend TZ Kevlar disc i'd let go for challenge friendly pricing.
Vigo wrote: I think another way to ask that question is "do you want an engine that feels like it would keep on making power forever and the only thing stopping you is good sense and your rev limiter, or do you want an engine that you are constantly going PAST the peak of and spend almost as much time on the downslope as the upslope?". I have found over the years that engines that have linear increases in power and peak close to redline give more driving ENJOYMENT than engines that peak early and have 1500-2000 useless rpms before redline. I think the thing about broad powerbands is a misconception.
I agree 100%. I had a similar post here: http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/more-fr-s-ft-86-news-that-sounds-way-too-good-to-b/37986/page3/
Someone said that a 2.5RS has a "broad" powerband, and the S2000 is "peaky". I've owned both. I guess it depends on how you define it... but when you overlay the #s, an interesting thing happens. You realize that the S2000 makes very close to the same torque as the 2.5RS until 4500 rpm, but just carries it 9000.
Lets say you chopped the S2K powerband off @ 6000... which motor would you rather have? In summary, yes, motors that can breathe are more fun :)
Vigo wrote: I think another way to ask that question is "do you want an engine that feels like it would keep on making power forever and the only thing stopping you is good sense and your rev limiter, or do you want an engine that you are constantly going PAST the peak of and spend almost as much time on the downslope as the upslope?". I have found over the years that engines that have linear increases in power and peak close to redline give more driving ENJOYMENT than engines that peak early and have 1500-2000 useless rpms before redline.
I was not under the impression that we were talking about driving enjoyment.
Even so, if you're driving in a window around peak HP instead of up to it and then shifting, then you're going to be putting down more power overall. And you can just drive the thing and forget the car and focus on having fun, or going fast.
I think the thing about broad powerbands is a misconception. Engines that make more torque than hp DONT have broad powerbands.
Engines that make more torque than horsepower are just engines that can't breathe. You can have a broad powerband no matter where it is on the tach, the numbers are just numbers.
Swank Force One wrote: Now to be fair, a clutch to hold this sort of thing probably isn't going to be cheap. IF you do go down this route and choose a transmission that lets you use FWD F2T stuff, i do have a Spec Stage 2 pressure plate (used) and a brand new South Bend TZ Kevlar disc i'd let go for challenge friendly pricing.
Define cheap if going new. Links?
mndsm wrote:tuna55 wrote:It helps that approximately 4 people on earth are aware of what these freakshow engines are capable of, and two of them are myself and Ben.mndsm wrote:Dude, didn't the F2T win the FWD 350HP thread too? I guess it's true, "F2T all the things!"AND
Can easily be done for challenge money. I'll have about 600$ into my challenge engine OTD, and if you can find a clean B2K shell (Fat lot of luck in the great rust belt, but ATL's probably got 40 right now for about 20 bucks and a case of tallboys), you're there. Will be STUPID light too since the B trucks were stamped out of tin cans and gum wrappers.
Make that 5, I had a stupid fun Probe GT.
tuna55 wrote:Swank Force One wrote: Now to be fair, a clutch to hold this sort of thing probably isn't going to be cheap. IF you do go down this route and choose a transmission that lets you use FWD F2T stuff, i do have a Spec Stage 2 pressure plate (used) and a brand new South Bend TZ Kevlar disc i'd let go for challenge friendly pricing.Define cheap if going new. Links?
Select "2.2T."
http://www.dxdracingclutches.com/html/mx-6.html
Now, deals do often come up on various forums for lightly used, or even new clutches from abandoned builds and such.
You can also just straight up use FC Turbo 2 clutches. Specs are usually cheaper as well, but you'll have to go to something pretty unstreetable from them to hold it. Really depends on what you want to do in terms of power.
Full disclosure, my stock clutch (well... we'll see if it was stock or not when i remove it, i was TOLD it was stock by the PO) held 22psi, 23psi, but did NOT hold 24psi on my setup. They're very overbuilt clutches in factory form. Now again, this may not be relevant depending on what transmission you end up using. You may even find that using a T5 with an adapter plate might be advantageous on this front.
ProDarwin wrote: Someone said that a 2.5RS has a "broad" powerband, and the S2000 is "peaky". I've owned both. I guess it depends on how you define it... but when you overlay the #s, an interesting thing happens. You realize that the S2000 makes very close to the same torque as the 2.5RS until 4500 rpm, but just carries it 9000.
I'd agree with you. The S2000 keeps going and going, the 2.5RS takes a little while to wind up and then it's all over before you know it.
The flip side is, you don't have to run at 10/10 to get the most out of the EJ25. It just makes power here and there, and you can shift early or wind it out to redline depending on where the next corner is. Having a rev cushion over max power gives you that kind of flexibility.
I'm speaking of trying to get the most out of the car, of course. No doubt a poorly driven S2000 would still tromp a EJ25 powered car... but you'd have to work a lot harder to beat another S2000, while EJ25 engined cars do about the same no matter how good or bad you are.
Engines that make more torque than horsepower are just engines that can't breathe. You can have a broad powerband no matter where it is on the tach, the numbers are just numbers.
If you define powerband as 'number of rpms above X hp' than MAYBE you can have a E36 M3-flowing motor with a broad powerband. Like, a motor that makes 500hp at 5000 rpm might still make 200 hp at 8000 rpm. And if all you cared about was 'rpms making above 200hp' it might make that for 5000 rpm. But in the case that i was actually talking about, that this thread is about, turbo 4 cyl engines, what i said is completely true. An engine that has way higher peak tq number than peak hp number NECESSARILY, MATHEMATICALLY is already going to crap at 5250 rpm and probably doesnt hit full spool until 3000 or later, so it has a 'powerband' a little over 2000 rpm. It might still move ok at 6000 or 6500 rpm, but in reality, driving that car, feeling the constant loss of power after peak will be such an ongoing letdown that you'll shift early just to make it 'feel' better. This is how it happens in real life.
OK, I compliment you guys and now you're off running discussing powerbands. You want to discuss powerbands? Great, find a dyno plot of your best theoretical Challenge motor, plug it into a theoretical light car and give me a computer calculator theoretical ET/MPH.
That's all I care about.
I don't care if it's a F1 throwaway engine making power between 14,000-18,000 or a Cummins doing it's work making power from 2,000-3,000, just show me ET/MPH.
Stop arguing.
You may as well be discussing which valve covers look the best, or if pushrods are good or not, or if Rush Limbaugh can beat up Piers Morgan. Do. Not. Care.
Awww, did I ruin the fun? Sorry. I guess I'm cranky. 3 hours of sleep last night.
Chrysler:
Engine Donor: 03-05 SRT4 03-09 Pt Cruiser Turbo or GT Cruiser. Any 95-09 2.4 can be used if you are ok with changing pistons and rods
Transmission Donor: Liberity/Wrangler 6spd, Supra trans with 2.2/2.5 bell from Dakota (on 2.4 TD applications the 2.2/2.5 bell bolts to the newer engine one hole does not align. I would assume that works with the RWD configuration.
Engine management: Megasquirt works well. If you use the SRT PCM the Diablosport tuners work well. AEM EMS and FIC are available
Prep work: Starting with turbo engine none. Starting with N/A engine add SRT4 pistons, ring, rods, and, bearings total cost less than $500 good enough for 500hp with a good tune.
Externally: 750cc or bigger injectors. 3 bar MAP and TIP (using stock PCM) big fuel pump, 3" o2 housing and downpipe
Turbo: TD05 or 16g would be my recommendation. A big wheel TD04 (SST, Enforcer, BWS) should work but you're pushing it. A stock TD04 is going to have a very difficult time.
Dyno stuff: Enforcers: http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f113/all-e1-e2-dynos-post-here-345185/
Stage 3(TD05) http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f169/max-stage-3-horsepower-how-much-489140/
Sorry SRTForums kind of sucks its really hard to find good info
In reply to JtspellS:
That detroit isn't light at all.....think 2000ish lbs.
I like your idea though
Also, I grow tired of your peasant bickering about a mathmatically calculated number that is meerly your efficiency......berkeley efficiency. berkeley everyone who tells you otherwise. Damn hippies, get off my lawn.
I like power, and don't care how it happens. Paul, tell them how amusing my F2T is, and how badly the top end well... doesn't fall off. Just a 3000rpm powerband of hugeness.
Chrysler 2.4
Engine donor cars: SRT4 neon or GT cruiser/PT turbo. Engines are all the same
Transmission donor cars: Manual 2.4 Wrangler/Liberty bellhousing and MA5 out of a solstice/sky or colorado/canyon. Auto Small block Chrysler 727 TF with adapter plate setup.
Engine management stuff: MS can use the factory cam/crank sensors and there should be base maps available. That should/would be the easiest option if you are swapping into oddball chassis (which is a given).
Prep work: Use either a custom intake or a 01/02 2.4 caravan intake so the TB will face towards the front of the engine in a RWD config. Ebay header with t3 flange. All 2.4T engines were returnless FI also so you'd need to swap it to a return system. Larger injectors depending on required power and turbo selection
Recommended turbo: HX35 or HX35/HX40 hybrid.
Recommended power level: Pretty sure HX35 cars are making 400+ I need to find dyno plots to back it up.
Dyno plots if you have them (just an image and a summary): see above
Quad 4 and a T5?
Vigo wrote: If you define powerband as 'number of rpms above X hp' than MAYBE you can have a E36 M3-flowing motor with a broad powerband.[
It's whatever is usable. An engine that makes strong power from 1500 to 4500 has a 50% wider powerband than one that makes the bulk of its power from 3000 to 6000. Both have a 3000rpm wide band but the first engine can triple its RPM while the second only doubles it.
An engine that has way higher peak tq number than peak hp number NECESSARILY, MATHEMATICALLY is already going to crap at 5250 rpm
It all depends on how much "way" is, and the characteristics of the turbo. I'm thinking here of intake flow restricted turbo engines that can only make 300hp but they make it here, there, and everywhere.
Horsepower is a funny thing. You can't feel it in the same way you can feel torque, because torque is a real thing and horsepower is just a mathematical construct, a way to calculate best torque at the wheels once you figure gearing into play. Driving for best HP feels slower than driving for best torque. For example:
It might still move ok at 6000 or 6500 rpm, but in reality, driving that car, feeling the constant loss of power after peak will be such an ongoing letdown that you'll shift early just to make it 'feel' better. This is how it happens in real life.
So, are we concerned with making the driver grin or are we concerned with making a fast car?
You'll need to log in to post.
