DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, April 10 1999 Volume 04 : Number 219 In this issue: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216 Re: Torque measurement Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216 Re: 302 or 460 build up Re: 302 or 460 build up Re: Torque measurement MAF Sensor Question RE: Halp Diamond Star Motoring RE: marinized 4.3L (was DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216) Re: Torque measurement Mitsubishi MUT-II test connector RE: Torque measurement Re: Carl Summers please Three Questions Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216 Re: 302 or 460 build up Re: TEC II Re: 302 or 460 build up Re: 302 or 460 build up Re: Ceramic turbocharger info source?? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:05:14 -0400 From: "David A. Cooley" Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216 > >Mount your sensor in the exhaust crossover of the intake. > Is there enough flow there to get a good steady reading? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 08:06:10 -0500 From: Matt S Bower Subject: Re: Torque measurement Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020 wrote: > > > > > Since the motor mounts are connected to the block , you need to rotate the > > block to compress the load cell not the crank. > > The hardest part with this method is figuring out the scale in foot pounds. > > Usually load cells are calibrated with certified weights hung from a known > > length, usually a 1 foot long bar, hence 'foot- pound' I don't know how you > > could calculate the moment of movement that the block would place on the > > load cell. I would guess if you bolted a 1 foot bar on the engine at the > > center line of the crank and placed a 1 pound weight on the end of the bar, > > you would be able to calibrate the load cell out put for 1 foot Lb. Of > > course you would > > want to cal it to 300 ft.Lbs or what you think the engine would put out. If > > you use a 2 foot bar then 1 pound on the end would apply a force of 2 foot > > Lbs. This would save some cal weight. Your idea is excellent and should > > give some good results. Another way to read the torque would be to connect a > > load cell to the block about where the front freeze plug is, and the other > > end to the frame. This will make a solid motor mount that might damage the > > Trans case if you torque it to hard. You might want to try this using the > > same cal procedure, and if it works go to the mount system. > > except the bar has weight > better to place it vertical and use a scale to get the weight required > a 5" bar and 80 lbs pull would be 400 ft lbs > > Clive Not if he puts an Identical bar on the other side. That is how we calibrate load cells on dyno's in our test cells. we have mounts on the dyno and we have bars that fit into them on each side at centerline of the shaft. The two bars are equal length and weight so that they counter each other and put you back to zero. Than we add the weight. Our bars, since we have the room, are to put us four feet from center so that we use 25lb weights to calibrate every 100ftlbs. We have used this method for years. Matt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:10:35 -0400 From: Pat Ford Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216 On Thu, 8 Apr 1999, Stuart Hastings wrote: > Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:28:51 -0700 (PDT) > From: Stuart Hastings > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216 > > I'm interested in improving the performance of my boat. > > The boat engine is a 1988-model Chevy 4.3L V6, with a 2bbl carburetor. > This is an early 4.3L V6, with no balance shaft, and no roller tappets. > Outboard Marine Corp, my engines' "marinizer," rated it at 175 crankshaft > HP or 160 propshaft HP. (Current practice is to rate boat engine HP at the > prop.) OMC also offered this engine with a 4bbl carburetor, and claimed > 205 crankshaft HP for it. I checked with OMC, and the carb/intake is the > ONLY difference between these engines. OMC has confirmed that the 4bbl > setup will add 30HP to my engine. (I recall compression as > 8.4:1(?unsure), and OMC specifies 89 octane gas.) My particular engine has > about 220 hours, and seems to have been well cared-for; compression is > still about 165psi in all cylinders. > > I've done some preliminary queries, and discovered I can buy a used 4bbl > carburetor + manifold for about $350, plus shipping and miscellaneous > expenses (gaskets, carb rebuild kit, new throttle linkage). Probably $450 > total by the time I'm done. by boat standards that is cheap > die of neglect long before they rust away anyway. A side-effect of > "raw-water" cooled engines is their use of very-low-temperature > thermostats; since the cooling water is almost unpressurized, a 160F > thermostat lessens the likelihood of steam bubbles and burned valves. any warmer and you start getting mineral deposits > > Another unique boat engine problem is the exhaust. Most marinized car > engines have water-jacketed exhaust manifolds, because anything as hot as > an exhaust manifold is a fire hazard on a boat. I think this means that an > EGO is pretty much out of the question on a boat engine, but I presume on a 5.7 magnum I worked on on of the runners was un jacketed for about 4" and an o2 sensor > > I presume that adding an aluminum CIS intake manifold to my > raw-water-cooled engine will turn it into a giant battery :-) with > accellerated galvanic corrosion. you can get away with al and fe if you add a zinc anode > It's possible to fit these engines with > a (misnamed) "fresh-water cooling" system, consisting of a heat > exchanger, extra plumbing, automotive coolant, and a 180F thermostat, but > that's another $300-$500 investment. The higher running temperature is > good for combustion efficiency, oil life, and engine durability, but many > such boat engines will require an oil cooler too (still more $$). This is > all a little extravagant for a motor that runs about 50 hours per year in > fresh (non-salt) water. it also extends the boating season > > Since the point of this project is to increase HP, there's no point in > pursuing it unless the generic GM TBI system would supply 200+ crankshaft > HP from my unbalanced, non-roller-cam V6. > > 1. Are GM 4.3L V6 TBI systems capable of 200+ HP? > > 2. Is the GM 4.3L V6 TBI manifold made of Aluminum or Iron (or Plastic?). > > 3. I presume the standard TBI in-tank pump needs some baffling; what > *exactly* is required? Can I swipe the tank-wall fitting (probably steel) > from a TBI car and modify it for my boats aluminum gas tank? how deep is the tank if it is tall you can get away with a fuel fitting down low on the back > > 4. Automotive carburetors typically vent bowl fumes externally. Marine > carbs vent bowl fumes into the carb intake (above the butterflys), so > fumes don't collect in the bilge and explode. I presume that a > properly-installed TBI system won't leak gas or fumes into the bilge. > Correct? yeap > > 5. My Prestolite non-electronic "marine" distributor has fine metal > screening glued over the bottom vent holes. Can I "marinize" an electronic > TBI distributor by duplicating this screening? A distributorless system > elegantly avoids this, but then I presume I need the flywheel pickup that > may or may not fit my heavy, clutchless marine flywheel. And my marine > bellhousing probably doesn't have any provision for a crank sensor either. that screen is a flame arrestor, if you have an explosive bulge something else is more likely to spark the bang > > 6. Are there any blatant misconceptions in my thinking, outlined above? > > 7. If an appropriate TBI system exists (cheap, powerful, > marine-compatible), what donor cars should I look for? > > 8. Would I be smarter to grit my teeth and buy a used 4bbl for $450? > > 9. Would I be smarter yet to forget the whole project, because the > existing 2bbl works fine, and an additional 30HP (17%) won't improve the > boat's performance by very much ;-) ? can you get to hull speed? once at hull speed it takes huge power to get any real speed increase ( I don't remember the exact # but it was something along the line of %40 more power for %10 more speed) the added power would help getting a skier up > > My research so far has been a few Fuel Injection books, and the DIY-EFI > archives, and the DIY-EFI stuff is much more useful. I'm very impressed > with the depth of the technical discussions on this list; thus far, the > price of my research has been inversely proportional to its value :-) . > > Thanks in advance, > > stuart hastings > stuart@xxx.org > > > > > > Pat Ford email: pford@xxx.com QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com (613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews (613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 08:35:18 -0500 From: "N T" Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up The 302 is a 4 inch bore with a 3" stroke. They are really not built for high RPMs. Once you get them over about 3700 RPMs they start to sound like they'd rather be at 2500. Torque is fairly good. You'll probably see 275-300 ft/lbs at around 2300-2600 RPMs. I drive an F-150 w/ the 302 and it does quite fast. For a pretty bulky truck, it goes quite fast. The stock camshaft of the 302 is quite good for low end.. Is not suited to high RPMs though. The 351 likes low RPMs even more and high RPMs even less. The nice thing about the 302's is how commonplace they are. ALOT of people consider them ford's best product, and as Jim was mentioning, the "go-fast" goodies for mustangs bolt up easily. Now who could resist forced induction ?! Even a Supercharger is commonly available and easy to install. I'd definitly say the 302 is a great engine. I'd also agree with the posts saying the 460 is just toooo much. Unless you consider a full size pickup truck light (i dunno, maybe you drive a freightliner usualy?!) light, you're probably going to want a good shortblock engine. Dont forget the 302/351 can be cam-swapped,etc and you'll get the torque where you want it. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Yeagley To: Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 3:45 PM Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up > Pat, > > I wouldn't expect a whole lot of torque from the 302. It's got a pretty > short stroke, 3" I think, and short stroke motors are typically made for > high revving, upper rpm horsepower. Not to say you can't get low end from > it, but it would not be cost effective. > > The 460 spells torque. If you want to stick with the Windsor engine > family(302), why not go with a 351W? It's pretty much a stroked 302, > slightly taller and wider, but most 302 bracketry will bolt right up. Plus, > considering the popularity of the 5.0l Mustang, go fast goodies are > plentiful. > > Jim Yeagley > 1996 Dodge Indy Ram > See it and many others at: www.indyram.org > 1975 Pontiac Grandville Brougham Conv. (in baskets) > webmaster@xxx.org > jimyeagley@xxx.net > > -----Original Message----- > > > >Hi All; > > This isn't strickly efi but efi will go on it so.. > >I'm getting a 302 ( 5.0L) or a 460 (7.3L) to build for a light car > >Hp isn't what I'm after I want torque ( more fun, less tickets) > > > >what would you guys suggest for around 300hp and lotsa grunt( the 460 will > >be closer to 400hp) > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 07:59:39 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up HI-- Did anybody say a Clevor yet?? (351W block with 351C heads of the 2 barrel persuasion.) >Greetings, >I have to agree on the 351. Look at the December 1998 issue of Hot Rod and >see the FI unit they built. > >I would love to have this in my Lincoln. > >David >-----Original Message----- >From: KD6JDJ@xxx.com> >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Thursday, April 08, 1999 8:26 PM >Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up > > >|Gary Derian >|> >|> >|> >Hi All; >|> > This isn't strickly efi but efi will go on it so.. >|> >I'm getting a 302 ( 5.0L) or a 460 (7.3L) to build for a light car >|> >Hp isn't what I'm after I want torque ( more fun, less tickets) >|> > >|> >what would you guys suggest for around 300hp and lotsa grunt( the 460 >|will >|> >be closer to 400hp) >|> >| >| Gary >| I want to cast my vote for a well built 302 rather than either a 351 or >460. >| A -- The 460 is too big and heavy for any light street car. >| B -- The 351 is heavier and taller than the 302, and will get you about >17 >|percent more HP than the 302. >| C -- The Windsor 351 heads can be installed on the 302. The block can be >|redrilled to accept the larger 351 stud diameter. >| D -- You can get a cam to provide you with the 'torque at RPM' that want. >I >|bet that a stock cam , slightly advanced , will get you as much low RPM >|torque as any street machine you will ever try to impress. >| >| Just my 2 cents worth Jerry >| >| ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 08:07:11 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: Torque measurement >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Hermann >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Thursday, April 08, 1999 10:30 PM >Subject: RE: Torque measurement > > > > >> >>Well--you would be measuring the torque output of the TRANSMISSION, not the >>engine--so you would need to calibrate the thing a fair amount higher for >>the low gears. Look at the engine-tranny package as a black box to >>visualize why this is so. And calibrating with a bar stuck through the >>output yoke, with the tranny in gear, might be a lot easier approach. >> >>Greg > > >Hmmmm(n). I uderstand what you are saying, but if the transmission is in >neutral, and I open the throttle, the engine rotates oposite to the crank >direction. There is no output from the transmission... Is this just the >energy that is being stored in the flywheel causing this oposite reaction, >or am I more lost than I think? > >Ord Yep--in the situation you describe, it is the reaction to the rotational inertia of the ratating assembly that makes the engine rock. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 09:24:52 -0500 From: Thomas Martin Subject: MAF Sensor Question Has anyone ever worked with the differences in the MAF for a Buick 3800 "C" and the older Buick 3.8L GN or non turbo "3" engine? I would like to change over to the older MAF if I can for cost and airflow reasons. The MAF on the 3800 is the Hitachi MAF, and said to have a different frequency output than the older MAF. Is there any repair work that can be done on the MAF's? Mine gives no fault codes, but it does seem to be working incorrectly. My engine has poor power output when ambient temp is above 60 Degrees F, excellent power around 45 F, and decent when below 30F. Temp sensor and O2 have been replaced, MAT has been replaced, and nothing seems to affect it. Any ideas on replacing MAF or repairing existing MAF? Cost of the new MAF is near $300, the GN MAF is $106. Has anyone ever turbocharged a 3800? Thanks! Thomas Martin 80 Turbo Trans AM 400 Pontiac Power! 85 Cutlass Supreme Rocket 350 CCC 91 Bonneville LE 3800 Buick Power! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:08:19 -0700 From: "Stegbauer, Michael" Subject: RE: Halp Diamond Star Motoring Peter, Unfortunately, it is an interference engine. The timing belts have a habit of breaking and taking a few (or many) valves along for the ride. Those in the know recommend changing the timing and balance belts every 30,000 miles. I've never heard of anyone breaking a cam though, so maybe you've got something else going on. After markets cams are not real popular, but they do exist so you can probably pick up a used cam on the parts trader. Though, once you start pulling parts you're likely to find out that it's not worth fixing. Good Luck, Mike - -----Original Message----- From: Peter Fenske [mailto:pfenske@xxx.ca] Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 1:48 AM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: RE: Halp Diamond Star Motoring Hi All Thanks to David, Bruce and Mike as well as others for help with the 2.0 mitsibushi.. Prob was a broken exhaust cam.. Cam sensor is driven off intake cam broken halfway to be exact.. Well hope is not an interference engine.. Oh yes went to trade show today.. The auto xray guy showed me their new up grade for the autoxray which will do both domestic and foreign OBD11.. Price for the upgrade is 199$ can and 47 for cable. I will believe when I get it. :peter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:16:34 -0600 From: "M. Jones" Subject: RE: marinized 4.3L (was DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216) Stuart Hastings wrote: > > I'm interested in improving the performance of my boat. (snip) Hi, Stuart-- I added an aftermarket (Holley 4D) system to my 351W-powered inboard, so I can share a few generic tidbits. Shannen Durphey suggested mounting the O2 sensor in the intake crossover. I did this, and it seems to work just fine. If I were to do it again, though, I would devise a short, unjacketed section of exhaust (externally insulated) and mount the sensor there. The Pleasure Craft Marine manifold design would make it relatively easy to fab an adapter; don't know about your OMC's. Less worry about whether or not you've done the right thing! Or don't use the sensor at all. I've run with mine disconnected and notice no discernable difference in performance. (I can't say whether or not a stock GM system will allow this; somebody else on-list surely can.) An external aftermarket TBI pump will likely work fine; mine feeds 280 hp or so with no difficulty even down to the last few gallons in the tank. I used the original pick-up which penetrates the top of the tank. (My tank is vertically mounted at the transom.) My return line is mounted at the level sender flange. Through one complete season in some very hot whether, running for hours on end I've never noticed an increase in vapor coming from the tank vent. Never had any hot-fuel problems of any type. No start problems or lean-out or anything of that sort. BTW the Coasties say that the pump is supposed to mounted on-engine or within 1 foot. As to will it be worth it, If your boat is typical you probably won't see more than a 2-5 mph top speed increase. Where you'll notice the difference is in pulling skiers up and acceleration in general. The instant starts hot and cold make it all worthwhile, IMO, even without any performance increase. I have an aluminum Edelbrock, with a zinc anode mounted in an unused water passage tap. Even without the anode, in fresh water it will take 20 years before you run into corrosion problems -- especially if your boat is trailered. HTH, Mike Jones ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 11:17:19 -0700 From: Eric Schumacher Subject: Re: Torque measurement Long ago there were some guys that bolted a linear position sensor to the fire wall (for transverse engines) and the input shaft to the top of the block. Amount of position shift of engine against mounts indicated amount of torque. Was caliblated with torque rwrench on crank end with car in high gear and front bumper against a tree. In-accuracies are due to the changes of properties of rebber when it changes temp. Lotsa luck Eric 85 GTI with VR6 Power At 10:48 AM 4/8/99 -0300, you wrote: >I have some strain guages that I was thinking of attaching to my motor >mounts, the idea being to measure the torque output of the engine. I want >to calibrate it by imobilizing the crank relative to the block, and then snip ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 21:58:13 +0200 From: Niinikoski Juha Subject: Mitsubishi MUT-II test connector Does anyone know anything about Mitsubishi MUT-II test connector ? Vehicle what I am talking about is new 99 Pajero 2800 turbo diesel. Connector looks like standard OBD-II connector but having little notch at pin # 1 end. I have not yet measured anything from the connector but in the future I will do this. Pins populated at the connector and descriptions according OBD-II standard: 1 = ? 4 = chassis ground 5 = signal ground 7 = ISO K-line ? 8 = ? 12 = ? 13 = ? 14 = CAN low ? 16 = batt + Juha Niinikoski Espoo Finland ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 14:41:49 -0500 From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Subject: RE: Torque measurement A dyno works the same way. The rotor of the dyno is coupled to the engine under test. The dyno case is supported by trunion bearings. water is circulated between the rotor and case. The rotor tries to turn the case, and a load cell on the case reads out torque. In an engine, the crank is the rotor and the block is the case, a load cell on the block would read out torque just like a dyno does. If you want to measure off of the drive shaft an in line load cell would be needed. The cost of an in line is over $3K a tension compression load cell is around $500. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: bearbvd@xxx.net] > Sent: Friday, April 09, 1999 9:07 AM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Torque measurement > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Greg Hermann > >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> > >Date: Thursday, April 08, 1999 10:30 PM > >Subject: RE: Torque measurement > > > > > > > > > >> > >>Well--you would be measuring the torque output of the TRANSMISSION, not > the > >>engine--so you would need to calibrate the thing a fair amount higher > for > >>the low gears. Look at the engine-tranny package as a black box to > >>visualize why this is so. And calibrating with a bar stuck through the > >>output yoke, with the tranny in gear, might be a lot easier approach. > >> > >>Greg > > > > > >Hmmmm(n). I uderstand what you are saying, but if the transmission is in > >neutral, and I open the throttle, the engine rotates oposite to the crank > >direction. There is no output from the transmission... Is this just the > >energy that is being stored in the flywheel causing this oposite > reaction, > >or am I more lost than I think? > > > >Ord > > Yep--in the situation you describe, it is the reaction to the rotational > inertia of the ratating assembly that makes the engine rock. > > Greg > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:47:26 EDT From: EFISYSTEMS@xxx.com Subject: Re: Carl Summers please In a message dated 4/7/99 7:39:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mpilkent@xxx.com writes: << Subj: Carl Summers please Date: 4/7/99 7:39:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: mpilkent@xxx.com (Mike Pilkenton) Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu (DIY-EFI) Carl, I think I may have an old email address for you, could you please contact me off-list. I still need help with my 3.1L V6 project. Mike Pilkenton >> Hi Mike, I've been out of town and haven't been able to check the mail much and it was overloaded.......I'll contact you over the weekend.........cyall later - -Carl Summers ------------------------------ Date: 9 Apr 99 15:07:58 PDT From: Dean Schwartz Subject: Three Questions >From time to time members of this list have proven to have access to some great resources, and I hope you'll help me figure out three questions, 2 of them are EFI related. I have some Seimens injectors with the following numbers on the injectors, 3145 & A020. I'm trying to find out what flow these are rated. I have a pair of small block chevy heads casting number 33417369, any way to tell the chamber and port volumes from the casting number? Finally, will a TPI system fit under the hood of a '81 Corvette hood, without modifying the hood or the TPI system? Dean ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 20:00:56 -0400 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216 It's been done succesfully. Might be good only for "baseline", not for moving the sensor and using an existing calibration. Also, should have put more thought into this. TBI manifolds don't have the full crossover. This would be for an "adapted" 4bbl --> TBI manifold. Shannen David A. Cooley wrote: > > > > >Mount your sensor in the exhaust crossover of the intake. > > > > Is there enough flow there to get a good steady reading? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 20:49:18 -0400 From: "Jim Yeagley" Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up - -----Original Message----- The 302 is a 4 inch bore with a 3" stroke. They are really not built for high RPMs. Once you get them over about 3700 RPMs they start to sound like they'd rather be at 2500. Torque is fairly good. You'll probably see 275-300 ft/lbs at around 2300-2600 RPMs. I drive an F-150 w/ the 302 and it does quite fast. For a pretty bulky truck, it goes quite fast. The stock camshaft of the 302 is quite good for low end.. Is not suited to high RPMs though. - ------------------- Try a different cam in your 302, then you'll realize what a short stroke motor is built for. The only reason you feel like your truck has torque is because of the gearing. My '79 302 Mustang felt like a 4 banger before 2000 rpm. Go 351 for torque or as someone mentioned the L-6 300. That 6 is one hell of a torque monster, but the 351W parts will still be cheaper! Jim Yeagley 1996 Dodge Indy Ram See it and many others at: www.indyram.org 1975 Pontiac Grandville Brougham Conv. (in baskets) webmaster@xxx.org jimyeagley@xxx.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 02:35:06 +0300 From: "John Andrianakis" Subject: Re: TEC II Are you sure about this? Too many late model european cars carry the 4 wire bosch sensor. Do you know thep art number for the LS? Thanks in advance. John Andrianakis - -----Original Message----- From: Greg Hermann To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Πέμπτη, 8 Απριλίου 1999 11:10 μμ Subject: Re: TEC II >><> >> >>No. >> >><>UEGO is foolishness, and asking for expensive repairs!>> >> >>AND...again, I say that a standard 4-wire Bosch 0-1v EGO is fine. If it's good >>enough for a GT2 turbo 911, I think it can do the job. > > >That bosch IS the LS II WIDE BAND O2 sensor!! > >Otherwise known as a UEGO sensor. > >Greg > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 18:32:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Squash Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up OK, here's the answer. Aluminum 429/460. torque and HP in one large, light package! Andy - --- Jim Yeagley wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > The 302 is a 4 inch bore with a 3" stroke. They are > really not built for > high RPMs. Once you get them over about 3700 RPMs > they start to sound like > they'd rather be at 2500. Torque is fairly good. > You'll probably see 275-300 > ft/lbs at around 2300-2600 RPMs. > > I drive an F-150 w/ the 302 and it does quite fast. > For a pretty bulky > truck, it goes quite fast. The stock camshaft of the > 302 is quite good for > low end.. Is not suited to high RPMs though. > ------------------- > > Try a different cam in your 302, then you'll realize > what a short stroke > motor is built for. The only reason you feel like > your truck has torque is > because of the gearing. My '79 302 Mustang felt > like a 4 banger before 2000 > rpm. Go 351 for torque or as someone mentioned the > L-6 300. That 6 is one > hell of a torque monster, but the 351W parts will > still be cheaper! > > Jim Yeagley > 1996 Dodge Indy Ram > See it and many others at: www.indyram.org > 1975 Pontiac Grandville Brougham Conv. (in baskets) > webmaster@xxx.org > jimyeagley@xxx.net > > > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @xxx.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 21:41:16 -0400 From: donna habel Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up The company that made the special intake to mate 351C heads on the 351W block has gone out of business. Unless you can find one at a swap meet or want to custom fab an intake this route is out. This was something folks did to pump up the power of a 351W when there wasn't any performance parts for it. Nowdays the speed parts for 351W blocks are available and relatively cheap. Bruce Habel 69 Cougar w/351W 69 Cougar w/351C - efi project wannabe 69 Cougar convertible w/nothing At 07:59 AM 4/9/1999 -0600, you wrote: >HI-- > >Did anybody say a Clevor yet?? (351W block with 351C heads of the 2 barrel >persuasion.) > >>Greetings, > >>I have to agree on the 351. Look at the December 1998 issue of Hot Rod and >>see the FI unit they built. >> >>I would love to have this in my Lincoln. >> >>David >>-----Original Message----- >>From: KD6JDJ@xxx.com> >>To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >>Date: Thursday, April 08, 1999 8:26 PM >>Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up >> >> >>|Gary Derian >>|> >>|> >>|> >Hi All; >>|> > This isn't strickly efi but efi will go on it so.. >>|> >I'm getting a 302 ( 5.0L) or a 460 (7.3L) to build for a light car >>|> >Hp isn't what I'm after I want torque ( more fun, less tickets) >>|> > >>|> >what would you guys suggest for around 300hp and lotsa grunt( the 460 >>|will >>|> >be closer to 400hp) >>|> >>| >>| Gary >>| I want to cast my vote for a well built 302 rather than either a 351 or >>460. >>| A -- The 460 is too big and heavy for any light street car. >>| B -- The 351 is heavier and taller than the 302, and will get you about >>17 >>|percent more HP than the 302. >>| C -- The Windsor 351 heads can be installed on the 302. The block can be >>|redrilled to accept the larger 351 stud diameter. >>| D -- You can get a cam to provide you with the 'torque at RPM' that want. >>I >>|bet that a stock cam , slightly advanced , will get you as much low RPM >>|torque as any street machine you will ever try to impress. >>| >>| Just my 2 cents worth Jerry >>| >>| > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 08:06:43 +0100 From: Chris Wilson Subject: Re: Ceramic turbocharger info source?? In article <19990408210004.4633.rocketmail@xxx.com>, Andre Grandi apparently wrote: > Also check out the Japanese Lexus SC300, they made a twin turbo version of this > inline motor for Japan only that had 2 ceramic turbos.. > Good luck! I believe only the Lexus / Toyota Soarer 2.5 twin turbo,not the 3 litre version,had twin ceramic turbos.AFAIK the 3 litre was only made naturally aspirated,even in its home market.The wifes Jap import 2.5 *does* have twin ceramic turbos.So does my Jap import Supra.Not sure if either have CT-20 's or 26's though,thankfully they both seem OK,and haven't needed close scrutiny :-) - -- Best Regards, Chris Wilson. http://www.maximum-bhp.u-net.com ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #219 ***************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi".