Fox T-Bird/Cougar Forums

General => General Fox T-Bird/Cougar Discussion => Topic started by: 88foxt on September 04, 2005, 11:19:50 PM

Title: Your Opinions
Post by: 88foxt on September 04, 2005, 11:19:50 PM
I've been cruising the net today looking mainly at stang sites. Svtperformance.com to be honest. I was looking at alot of their vids
and then went into their forums on turbo vr supercharging. Now in my opinion from the vids I seen the turbo cars whip ass, not taking anything from the modded 03/04 Cobras the are fast. But those turbo stangs were really fast. What i'm getting at here is what do you guys/girls like to have? n/a, turbo, supercharged, stroker or a combo of?
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: 88turbo on September 04, 2005, 11:32:15 PM
turbo :D
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Red_LX on September 05, 2005, 12:09:52 AM
I think turbos are definitely better than centrifugal superchargers. You can't beat the bottom-end punch a roots-type blower will give you though, I've always liked them for that fact.

However, I've always wanted to build up a Mustang with a stroker in it (351 or 302). Just can't beat the simplicity of n/a power :)
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: cougarman on September 05, 2005, 08:23:54 AM
twin turbo!! :D  :bowdown:
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Snubz-N-Ttown on September 05, 2005, 12:02:12 PM
I too love the twin turbo's :D
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: 88foxt on September 05, 2005, 06:52:17 PM
I like turbos too. But it does anybody do all motor any motor? and the price of turbo kits are crazy (v8 kits) ! Supercargers are cool bolt on and go no fab for this to fit no custom this ,very nice . This is the problem with turbo kits I've check on. Now I know there are a few out there that fit well for the v8's but look at the price. Seems like you could have a nice motor built. For the price of some of those kits $6000 or more for a v8 turbo kit is alot of money. I know you pay for speed but man! This is aimed more at the v8 t-bird crowd not the turbo coupe owners you guys/girls already have a turbo. :D
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: cougarman on September 05, 2005, 11:15:55 PM
http://www.turbomustangs.com/forums/  check out the "diy/junkyard" section. These guys build thier own turbo lits. :D
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: oldraven on September 06, 2005, 01:05:35 PM
I pick both. :D

170hp from baseline to 7000rpm, from 1.4L SC/turbo that gets 32/48mpg. Now bump that displacement to 2.3L and drool with me.

(http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/uploads/016_001.jpg)
(http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/uploads/025_001.jpg)
(http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/uploads/035_001.jpg)
(http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/uploads/036_001.jpg)
(http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/uploads/037.jpg)

 Full article. (http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/volkswagen_news/article_1496.shtml?page=2)
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Red_LX on September 06, 2005, 09:50:57 PM
Man I hate big plastic engine covers...
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: V8Demon on September 06, 2005, 10:00:28 PM
Lemme get this straight. that VW has BOTH?!  In a production car that rolls off the assembly line?  I've seen full out drag cars like that, but to see it made for everyday use by a major company is very innovative.

If I had to choose a forced induction method it would be A roots or screw type blower......Me likey torque! :D
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Bird351 on September 07, 2005, 07:57:17 AM
Well, I always wondered if there was a reason to combine a turbo and a supercharger.. looks like they found one.

Quote
The maximum boost pressure of the “Twincharger” is approx. 2.5 bar at 1500 rpm, with the exhaust turbocharger and the mechanical supercharger being operated with about the same pressure ratio (approx. 1.53). A straight exhaust turbocharged engine without compressor assistance would only achieve a pressure ratio of about 1.3 bar here.


1 bar = like 14.7 psi, right?
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: oldraven on September 07, 2005, 10:17:44 AM
Quote from: Bird351
Well, I always wondered if there was a reason to combine a turbo and a supercharger.. looks like they found one.


Yeah, cheap fun. :D

Quote
1 bar = like 14.7 psi, right?


I was wondering the same thing. 36+PSI? This is European data, so perhaps bar is calculated differently there. :dunno: I don't know. Anyway, even at one bar, that's a lot of boost for 10:1 compression. :wtf:
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: slamedcat on September 07, 2005, 10:20:39 AM
http://onlineconversion.com/pressure.htm

1 bar = 14.5037738 pound/square inch [absolute]

so....

2.5 bar = 36.2594345 pound/square inch [absolute]
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Funky Cricket on September 07, 2005, 10:42:59 AM
twin charging is not new, and been done alot in very limited applications, you get the immediate boost response and torque of the roots (or twin screw) supercharge then when the turbo kicks in you get your added boost provided by the turbo, and the roots style sc won't pressize the incoming air beyond a point so you aren't "over boosting" the system or they will bypass or bleed extra pressure very complicated.
they are pretty wicked, but very very exspensive and a pain the ass to tune right
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: oldraven on September 07, 2005, 11:36:11 AM
Quote from: Funky Cricket
twin charging is not new, and been done alot in very limited applications, you get the immediate boost response and torque of the roots (or twin screw) supercharge then when the turbo kicks in you get your added boost provided by the turbo, and the roots style sc won't pressize the incoming air beyond a point so you aren't "over boosting" the system or they will bypass or bleed extra pressure very complicated.
they are pretty wicked, but very very exspensive and a pain the ass to tune right


Yeah, Lancia and Nissan have already done it with the Delta S1 and March, but in very limited production on the Lancia part, I hear. It was also used on old war planes, but I think this is the first for such a high volume production, and certainly the first 'clutched' supercharger combined with a turbo.

Hey VW, while you're at it, I think the new 3.2L VR6 needs one of these setups too. Esspecially with 4-motion.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: 88foxt on September 07, 2005, 10:17:44 PM
Funky Cricket is right I think one of the older model MR2s had turbo and supercharger on it.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: stuntmannick on September 08, 2005, 02:11:32 AM
If you want to go fast.......supercharger
If you want to go faster....turbo
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: oldraven on September 08, 2005, 10:25:56 AM
Quote from: 88foxt
Funky Cricket is right I think one of the older model MR2s had turbo and supercharger on it.


Nope. There was a SC'd and a turbo'd 2, but not at the same time.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Bird351 on September 08, 2005, 10:55:37 AM
Quote from: stuntmannick
If you want to go fast.......supercharger
If you want to go faster....turbo


At $3 a gallon, I think I'll stick to slow. :D
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Funky Cricket on September 08, 2005, 10:59:38 AM
I saw a prototype of this awhile back on the VW Turbo wagon from 2000 or 2001, was wicked, wicked fast.

mmm VR6... all wheel drive... twin charged..
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: slamedcat on September 08, 2005, 11:00:34 AM
Quote from: Bird351
At $3 a gallon, I think I'll stick to slow. :D


Slow isn't always efficient. But for the most part I aggree. I cant afford to build or buy an efficient engine.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Bird351 on September 08, 2005, 11:10:51 AM
Quote from: slamedcat
Slow isn't always efficient. But for the most part I aggree. I cant afford to build or buy an efficient engine.


Been meaning to make a thread on that. Being that I drive only the Mark now, (my aunt has the '86) I've been wondering what changes (within reason) *might* improve mileage beyond the obvious of keeping my foot out of the engine compartment and keeping it tuned up. :p

I think I am going to do one more big Seafoam treatment on it and then change to a little bit lighter oil and clean the plugs. Using mostly 10w40 in it right now. Plugs were new, but I made the mistake of doing the first Seafoam treatment AFTER changing them.

I'm getting about 100 miles to half a tank, on average.

OK, enough derailing the thread for this post. :p
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Funky Cricket on September 08, 2005, 11:13:25 AM
besides, boosting isn't neccarily a gas waster.. just if you get in it all the time. look the the tc's they aren't too bad on gas.. just have to keep the right foot in check.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: oldraven on September 08, 2005, 11:16:40 AM
Quote from: Funky Cricket
I saw a prototype of this awhile back on the VW Turbo wagon from 2000 or 2001, was wicked, wicked fast.

mmm VR6... all wheel drive... twin charged..


Did you know VW already has a 300hp R36 (yup, 3.6L VR6) AWD Golf slated for America (Euro ver. is expected to have in the 270hp range) and even a Jetta variant with the same powertrain? It's to compete with the WRX STi and Evo 8 MR. VW needs to get back into WRC. :bowdown:

Quote from: bird 351
I'm getting about 100 miles to half a tank, on average.


Good Lord! :yuck: I get about 250km (155miles) to a half tank, when I'm driving it in the city. And I really like having my foot in it.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Funky Cricket on September 08, 2005, 11:27:50 AM
No i didn't know that.. that would be sweet!!! I dig the rally inspired small sedans. I have always liked VW's.. desiel rabbit...
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: V8Demon on September 08, 2005, 03:41:05 PM
Quote
I'm getting about 100 miles to half a tank, on average.


22 gallon tank 20 MPG here with mods......
You sure someone aint siphoning gas outta your tank when you sleep?
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Haystack on September 08, 2005, 03:55:07 PM
yeah I agree, unless you are always floored during city driving and no freeway whatso ever in dire need of a tune up,.... Yeah i could see that. I get about 300 to 450 miles to a tank and I aint really light of foot. There is alot of freeway in there, but only about half the miles on the freeway. Mostly about 425 with my v-6 car driving it right, and about 350 give or take with my v-8 driving like an ass.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: EricCoolCats on September 08, 2005, 04:17:33 PM
The most efficient things you can do:
- TUNE UP (cap, rotor, spark plugs, wires if needed)
- New O2 sensors
- Change the fuel filter
- Check the air filter (replace if dirty)
- Clean the injectors (additive)
- Set your TPS to just under 1v (.998 is optimal, if possible)
- Set your timing to the stock 10 degrees
- Make sure the throttle body and EGR are clean and working properly
- Check your PCV valve and make sure it's not sticking
- If you have an adjustable idle, set it to 700 rpms in park
- Make sure the battery connection is good and CLEAN
- Set your tire pressure according to the specs on your passenger door tag
- Control that right foot ;)

These are all the basics but they really help the car run efficiently.

BTW, I drive 3.5 miles one way to work, down a big hill. Which means in the morning, it's all good, but coming home my foot has to get into it a little since the hill is fairly long and high. My average has been about 180 miles from full down to 1/4 tank. This lasts me 3-4 weeks if I don't drive anywhere else. I don't consider it great but it's not horrible either. It's kinda cool to judge your fuel economy by time and not distance for a change. ;)

100 miles to a half tank would really be acceptable if there's a lot of city driving. In fact, that's better than what I'm getting--I wouldn't complain too much about that. My old '84 V6 used to get a consistent 225 miles with 1/4 tank, pushing it near empty was 250 miles. With the V8 cars I can sometimes go to 300 miles to about 1/8 tank (bigger tank helps too).
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Bird351 on September 08, 2005, 04:37:54 PM
New cap/rotor, new plugs, (although they could already be fouled by the SeaFoam treatment) new fuel filter, battery is new and I think the terminals are as well, tire pressure is good, new PCV and breather filter, new air filter, TPS was set.. although the RPM was boosted a bit because of earlier stalling problems. Gave the EGR and IAC cleanings awhile ago, and part of the SeaFoam treatment was to spray down the throttle body. Injectors were cleaned more than once with Techron, which is just a bottle (2 a tank, in this case) of the additive from Chevron premium.

Now the bad: I know one O2 sensor is bad.. got a code for bad/missing right O2. (planned on dealing with it when I took out the H-pipe to pound out the cats) Picked up the socket to deal with that. Timing probably needs setting because it detonates w/ 87 octane and mostly clears up w/ 89.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: EricCoolCats on September 08, 2005, 04:50:43 PM
Could be the O2 then, and I agree about the plugs too. You can always clean them up and see if that helps. I have the same idle problem with the Blue Max V8. This past weekend I set the timing back to 10 degrees and adjusted the TPS. Barely got the car to move. It definitely likes more timing...kicked it up to 12 degrees and the knocking went away, and throttle response is a lot better. It's idling around 900 rpms, still in the normal range. That might just be how your engine is then. You figure, however it runs good, it's going to run fairly efficiently too. It's not like you're totally wasting fuel.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Bird351 on September 08, 2005, 05:10:01 PM
Gonna be a bitch to get at those plugs again. 5.0 plus ABS = my stupid half-crippled ass layin' on top of the engine to snake my hand down there to get the back two on the driver's side again.

Oh well, I want to change the plug wires to FMS 9mms soon.. be a good time to do that.. pull a wire, clean the plug, put on new wire.

My plan for the O2s is to drop the H-pipe on the '88 LSC if it's still good and hammer out those cats, and try those O2 sensors on the '89. (can buy new ones if needed) So far that car has been a sanity-saver as a parts car. Clutch fan, radiator, ABS relay, alternator, even the serp. belt got scavenged. Still want to find another LSC fan to buy the body, though.. it's a shame to let a straight body like that go to waste in my front yard. (wouldn't mind keeping the engine and a couple other pieces and then just selling everything else off for $100 or something)
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: slamedcat on September 08, 2005, 05:21:21 PM
Quote from: Bird351
Still want to find another LSC fan to buy the body, though.. it's a shame to let a straight body like that go to waste in my front yard. (wouldn't mind keeping the engine and a couple other pieces and then just selling everything else off for $100 or something)


I would love it but too far away. You might try posting it over at FvC. There are alot of Mark guys over there.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Bird351 on September 08, 2005, 05:45:46 PM
Quote from: slamedcat
I would love it but too far away. You might try posting it over at FvC. There are alot of Mark guys over there.


It's a  shame for you that I don't tow, because I'll have to go to Illinois for either Thanksgiving or X-mas. :p
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: slamedcat on September 08, 2005, 05:49:29 PM
, It would be nice to have another. They just ride so nice, but yet still handle like a sports car to a point.

What part of Illinois are you headed to?




The part about cleaning the fuel injectors. You might also want to make sure they are all the same rating. I changed the upper intake on my cougar and found 3 different color injectors. The car ran alot smoother and better after I put all the same in there.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Bird351 on September 08, 2005, 05:53:04 PM
Chicago area.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: slamedcat on September 08, 2005, 05:54:07 PM
Quote from: Bird351
Chicago area.

 
Bundle up its cold if you are out by the lake.
Thats about 3 hours from me too bad its not closer we could meet up or something.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: slamedcat on September 08, 2005, 05:54:36 PM
Quote from: Bird351
Chicago area.

 
Bundle up its cold if you are out by the lake.
Thats about 3 hours from me too bad your not going to be closer we could meet up or something.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Bird351 on September 08, 2005, 05:57:30 PM
Quote from: slamedcat
Bundle up its cold if you are out by the lake.
Thats about 3 hours from me too bad its not closer we could meet up or something.


I won't be happy if it's later in the year.. I have never driven on snow.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: Haystack on September 08, 2005, 06:31:09 PM
actually, snow is alot of fun if you take it right. As long as you take it slow and easy it is fine. I used to have a funny video of some freak snow storm (maybe less then an inch) in flordia and all of these suv's flipping over and cars just smashing into each other. It was really funny.
Title: Re: Your Opinions
Post by: joefriday on September 12, 2005, 11:06:44 PM
About the whole twincharger deal:

The max output is not 36.75 psi.  2.5 bar is 14.7 x 2.5 (or close enough, as 1 bar is equivalent to 0.99 atmoshperes of pressure), so while you're all correct in the fact that the math comes out to 36.75 psi, you forget that boost is referenced at ABOVE atmospheric pressure.  In light of this, the max output would be 36.75-14.7 = 22.05, or just 22psi.  That's  pretty good, but definately not uncommon (as I'm sure all you 2.3 turbo guys already know). ;)