B/RB Oiling mods
- Thread starter 71ChargerRT
- Start date
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Maximum Boost by Corky Bell. It's old and some of the information is a little dated, but it's still one of the mainstays on the subject and considered a must-read by many. Bell is very opinionated, though, and some of his opinions (such as water/meth being an absolute no-no) have been disproven as flawed at best.
Street Turbocharging by Mark Warner. It's broken down well, with each aspect of turbocharging broken down by subject into individual chapters. When it discusses fueling, it's usually related to fuel injection, but there's a good appendix at the back regarding blow-through carbs. It also has several examples of custom turbocharged vehicles in another appendix, ranging from a 10-second Mustang to a rotary-powered Datsun 510. It's got more modern information than Bell's ancient text. There are a number of very useful formulae in this book concerning fueling requirements (again, for EFI) and how to use compressor maps.
If you're going to buy one at a time, I'd highly suggest getting Bell's book first. Warner's will be a good one that builds upon it. I would definitely suggest getting both, though, and reading them enough times that you get to the "I remember this part and am gonna skip it" stage. There is way, way more information in these books than you'll digest in a single reading. Don't try to grasp it all on the first read-through. If you want to know this stuff, you'll read them again and again. I have... in fact, I still am.
There are literally no "how to build exactly the combo you want" books out there, so you have to grasp the concepts and work from there after deciding what you really want. Both books will help you in that respect.
Also, though it's main subject matter is on EFI, Designing and Tuning High-Performance Fuel Injection Systems by Greg Banish has some great basic ideas about things like spark advance and air-fuel ratios, though you will have to read through the process of working with EFI to fish them out. It does deal with things like tuning for boost or nitrous, too. You just need to sort of interpolate the ideas into terms of jetting rather than keystrokes if you're going to build a blow-through system. In my case, this book was invaluable, since my goal is to have daily driveability and (hopefully) economy as similar as possible to a new car, all while making maximum power under boost. That ain't gonna happen with a carb and distributor, which is why I've spend so much time on research.
Feets is on both Moparts and Theturboforums, and used to post here as well. Rather than contact him straightaway, I'd suggest you read through any threads he's posted about his build if you want to attempt to duplicate it. As I recall, his car ran 10s. It was featured in an issue of Mopar Muscle several years ago.
I wouldn't contact anyone until you've learned a lot more on the subject and have some kind of combination other than "I want to run nines with a turbocharged big-block" in mind. Broad, generalized questions like that usually remain unanswered or draw the ire of people who could potentially be of big help to you. Figure out a general idea of what you need to achieve your goals. Is a stroker engine actually necessary, or are those cubic dollars better spent elsewhere? I think you'll find the latter to be the case. Consider this: Figuratively speaking, a 440-cubic-inch engine at 15PSI of boost is ingesting as much air as an 800-cube NA engine. After you've done some reading, you'll understand why that's not literally true, because you'll understand things like pressure and airmass ratios and total airflow in regards to VE, all of which are critical to realizing your goal. They're what horsepower is all about. Remember that boost, by its very definition, is a measure of your engine's resistance to airflow. Twice as much boost does not equal twice as much airflow; boost is a scale of diminishing returns based on the engine's naturally-aspirated volumetric efficiency... so maybe there's more gain to be had by upsizing the valves your 452s, and then attacking them with the die grinder than there is in a $2,000+ rotating assembly.
Read the books. You'll start to use your head rather than your wallet.
Street Turbocharging by Mark Warner. It's broken down well, with each aspect of turbocharging broken down by subject into individual chapters. When it discusses fueling, it's usually related to fuel injection, but there's a good appendix at the back regarding blow-through carbs. It also has several examples of custom turbocharged vehicles in another appendix, ranging from a 10-second Mustang to a rotary-powered Datsun 510. It's got more modern information than Bell's ancient text. There are a number of very useful formulae in this book concerning fueling requirements (again, for EFI) and how to use compressor maps.
If you're going to buy one at a time, I'd highly suggest getting Bell's book first. Warner's will be a good one that builds upon it. I would definitely suggest getting both, though, and reading them enough times that you get to the "I remember this part and am gonna skip it" stage. There is way, way more information in these books than you'll digest in a single reading. Don't try to grasp it all on the first read-through. If you want to know this stuff, you'll read them again and again. I have... in fact, I still am.
There are literally no "how to build exactly the combo you want" books out there, so you have to grasp the concepts and work from there after deciding what you really want. Both books will help you in that respect.
Also, though it's main subject matter is on EFI, Designing and Tuning High-Performance Fuel Injection Systems by Greg Banish has some great basic ideas about things like spark advance and air-fuel ratios, though you will have to read through the process of working with EFI to fish them out. It does deal with things like tuning for boost or nitrous, too. You just need to sort of interpolate the ideas into terms of jetting rather than keystrokes if you're going to build a blow-through system. In my case, this book was invaluable, since my goal is to have daily driveability and (hopefully) economy as similar as possible to a new car, all while making maximum power under boost. That ain't gonna happen with a carb and distributor, which is why I've spend so much time on research.
Feets is on both Moparts and Theturboforums, and used to post here as well. Rather than contact him straightaway, I'd suggest you read through any threads he's posted about his build if you want to attempt to duplicate it. As I recall, his car ran 10s. It was featured in an issue of Mopar Muscle several years ago.
I wouldn't contact anyone until you've learned a lot more on the subject and have some kind of combination other than "I want to run nines with a turbocharged big-block" in mind. Broad, generalized questions like that usually remain unanswered or draw the ire of people who could potentially be of big help to you. Figure out a general idea of what you need to achieve your goals. Is a stroker engine actually necessary, or are those cubic dollars better spent elsewhere? I think you'll find the latter to be the case. Consider this: Figuratively speaking, a 440-cubic-inch engine at 15PSI of boost is ingesting as much air as an 800-cube NA engine. After you've done some reading, you'll understand why that's not literally true, because you'll understand things like pressure and airmass ratios and total airflow in regards to VE, all of which are critical to realizing your goal. They're what horsepower is all about. Remember that boost, by its very definition, is a measure of your engine's resistance to airflow. Twice as much boost does not equal twice as much airflow; boost is a scale of diminishing returns based on the engine's naturally-aspirated volumetric efficiency... so maybe there's more gain to be had by upsizing the valves your 452s, and then attacking them with the die grinder than there is in a $2,000+ rotating assembly.
Read the books. You'll start to use your head rather than your wallet.
71ChargerRT
Well-known member
Log onto moparts.com and talk to a guy named feets.
He had a 65 Satellite with a big block and turbo set-up. He could give you some good first-hand do's and don't, and he's in Texas.
I'm not sure he ever ran the car down the strip but still...
I actually saw Feets' Satellite about 12 years ago, he stopped into my Dad's shop to see about getting some exhaust work done. I was clueless back then, practically to the point I'm borderline genius nowadays, hell I had a 1970 Mustang and an 80-something Suburban then :toot:.
Hey Doc, thanks for the advice, I'll pick up those books and read up.
I know what I want in the short block, short of the camshaft. As far as the top end I have an idea of what I want, but I really need to do a lot of research. Induction, EFI all the way, no way I'm doing a blow through carb, I'll just end up redoing everything to upgrade to where I should've started. From what I've read Ford and Chevy LS ignitions are popular, once again no actual research done, just following other's builds. I'm not looking to reinvent the wheel, I just want to build a fast Mopar. Really fast, with hair dryers.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
If you're into the EFI and distributorless idea, you absolutely, positively need to pick up Designing and Tuning High-Performance Fuel Injection Systems by Greg Banish.He's worked for both Ford and GM in that area; there is no resource more definitive. You should also seriously consider Performance Fuel Injection Systems by Matt Cramer and Jerry Hoffman. It's a great overview of the various systems, how they work, and what's needed in terms of implementing them on an engine.
You will probably read the Banish book several times and bring it with you when you tune the engine. I would not even attempt to run the engine hard, particularly under boost, unless it's been on a load-bearing dyno for tuning. Banish's book includes a number of solid ideas on how to effectively tune while cutting down on expensive dyno time, including being prepared before you get there. Excellent stuff. I can't recommend this book highly enough.
In terms of simplicity and cost, Ford's EDIS-8 system is probably the easiest to implement. Being waste-fire rather than true sequential, it doesn't require a camshaft position sensor. You need a 36-1 crank trigger wheel, the physical EDIS bits, and not much more. The EDIS module itself is expensive new, but they're very rugged and picking one from a junkyard is actually the preferred method of obtaining one. Davis Unified Ignition makes relatively-inexpensive, double-throw-down coils for the EDIS-8 application.
You will probably read the Banish book several times and bring it with you when you tune the engine. I would not even attempt to run the engine hard, particularly under boost, unless it's been on a load-bearing dyno for tuning. Banish's book includes a number of solid ideas on how to effectively tune while cutting down on expensive dyno time, including being prepared before you get there. Excellent stuff. I can't recommend this book highly enough.
In terms of simplicity and cost, Ford's EDIS-8 system is probably the easiest to implement. Being waste-fire rather than true sequential, it doesn't require a camshaft position sensor. You need a 36-1 crank trigger wheel, the physical EDIS bits, and not much more. The EDIS module itself is expensive new, but they're very rugged and picking one from a junkyard is actually the preferred method of obtaining one. Davis Unified Ignition makes relatively-inexpensive, double-throw-down coils for the EDIS-8 application.
71ChargerRT
Well-known member
Waste fire?
Loading bearing dyno? Tire driven correct?
Loading bearing dyno? Tire driven correct?
Last edited:
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
"Waste-fire" ignition is semi-sequential. It uses 1 coil for two cylinders 360° out of phase and fires each coil once per crank revolution. The coil fires one plug on the compression stroke to start the power stroke while the other plug's cylinder is on the exhaust stroke (that spark is "wasted" although it can improve emissions a bit). So on a Mopar V8, your four coils would be wired to 1&6, 8&5, 4&7, and 3&2. When #1 is firing for the power stroke #6 is firing on the exhaust. With a manual-transmission turbo car, if combined with a two-step spark-based rev limiter, waste-fire can create boost in a hurry with the clutch depressed at the starting line. That's very hard on the turbo(s), though, since you're firing a complete combustion charge across the turbine impeller. Waste-fire is an extremely-common ignition configuration; Chrysler's 3.3 and 3.8 V6 engines were waste-fired until their demise at the end of 2010. Ford's EDIS waste-fire system is among the best in terms of spark output, as well as being one of the easiest to adapt since it uses an external module rather than being 100% PCM-controlled. It's sorta the go-to MegaSquirt distributorless system.
There are two types of chassis (wheel) dynamometers: Inertial and load-bearing.
Inertial dynos are like the ones you see on PowerBlock or at the county fair, which are simply comprised of a huge, heavy roller (or rollers) with a speed sensor. They measure the acceleration of the roller(s) and use the formula F=ma to create a power curve. There is no control of the roller(s) by anything other than their own mass and the tires' input. If you increase throttle input, the drum will accelerate. Inertial dynos are not particularly accurate, the numbers are easily fudged by messing with correction factors, and they're completely useless for tuning an EFI system as there's no such thing as steady-state wheel speed. What they are good for includes tuning carbureted cars with distributors to see if your new jetting or spark advance setting works, or as a comparator between two vehicles (assuming no one fucks with the corrections between tests). I can't remember which brand inertial dyno offhand, but one is known to have a built-in 15%-18% "generosity" error, meaning reduce your wheel horsepower reading by at least that much across the board before you decide to race someone for pink slips based on it.
Load-bearing dynos (also called steady-state) have their roller(s) connected to a computer-controlled braking system, usually provided by an eddy-current arrangement or a water brake. Some really-cool ones even have hubs that replace your rear wheels to eliminate traction issues. On a load-bearing dyno, steady-state numbers can be taken while tuning to instantaneously see results. At 2,000RPM (or any other reading) an engine's demand is very different at light throttle inputs than it is at wide-open throttle. Fuel and spark need to be adjusted accordingly, usually by using intake-manifold absolute pressure (MAP), most often in terms of kilopascals (kPa) to determine engine load. Rather than "inches of vacuum" or "pounds per square inch" which don't directly correlate to one another without mathematic conversion, kPa is a measure of pressure where zero represents an absolute vacuum, and 100 represents air pressure at sea level (14.7PSI). 15PSI of boost is about 205kPa. The entire load v. RPM map can be populated, because if you set the dyno for 2,000RPM, the engine will be limited to 2,000RPM no matter what you do with the throttle, from zero pedal input (which would have the engine in a vacuum situation at that speed) through full throttle without boost (100kPa, intake fully open to atmospheric pressure) all the way to the maximum boost the engine can generate at that speed, which on a dyno may well be the boost limit (in this example, 205kPa/15PSI). You map all these areas by holding the throttle open until the manifold pressure steadies as close as possible to the desired level while the dyno limits the engine to the fixed engine speed. You can literally be sitting at say, 3,800RPM and 70kPa, punch in two degrees of spark timing, and instantly see if it helped power output. The dyno graph will change with the timing, based on how much braking it had to do to keep the engine at that speed. Cool, huh?
Buy and read Designing and Tuning High-Performance Fuel Injection Systems before you spend another dime on parts. It's very detailed on the whole dyno-tuning thing. Street Turbocharging is less detailed since tuning isn't its only subject, but it does cover some very good ground as well.
Simply put, there is no way to avoid the load-bearing dyno when tuning a custom ECM and MPFI, particularly for a driver. You can't do it correctly on the street, especially not for full power and doubly so with forced induction. If you want it to run right and not break, budget for a dyno-tuning day.
There are two types of chassis (wheel) dynamometers: Inertial and load-bearing.
Inertial dynos are like the ones you see on PowerBlock or at the county fair, which are simply comprised of a huge, heavy roller (or rollers) with a speed sensor. They measure the acceleration of the roller(s) and use the formula F=ma to create a power curve. There is no control of the roller(s) by anything other than their own mass and the tires' input. If you increase throttle input, the drum will accelerate. Inertial dynos are not particularly accurate, the numbers are easily fudged by messing with correction factors, and they're completely useless for tuning an EFI system as there's no such thing as steady-state wheel speed. What they are good for includes tuning carbureted cars with distributors to see if your new jetting or spark advance setting works, or as a comparator between two vehicles (assuming no one fucks with the corrections between tests). I can't remember which brand inertial dyno offhand, but one is known to have a built-in 15%-18% "generosity" error, meaning reduce your wheel horsepower reading by at least that much across the board before you decide to race someone for pink slips based on it.
Load-bearing dynos (also called steady-state) have their roller(s) connected to a computer-controlled braking system, usually provided by an eddy-current arrangement or a water brake. Some really-cool ones even have hubs that replace your rear wheels to eliminate traction issues. On a load-bearing dyno, steady-state numbers can be taken while tuning to instantaneously see results. At 2,000RPM (or any other reading) an engine's demand is very different at light throttle inputs than it is at wide-open throttle. Fuel and spark need to be adjusted accordingly, usually by using intake-manifold absolute pressure (MAP), most often in terms of kilopascals (kPa) to determine engine load. Rather than "inches of vacuum" or "pounds per square inch" which don't directly correlate to one another without mathematic conversion, kPa is a measure of pressure where zero represents an absolute vacuum, and 100 represents air pressure at sea level (14.7PSI). 15PSI of boost is about 205kPa. The entire load v. RPM map can be populated, because if you set the dyno for 2,000RPM, the engine will be limited to 2,000RPM no matter what you do with the throttle, from zero pedal input (which would have the engine in a vacuum situation at that speed) through full throttle without boost (100kPa, intake fully open to atmospheric pressure) all the way to the maximum boost the engine can generate at that speed, which on a dyno may well be the boost limit (in this example, 205kPa/15PSI). You map all these areas by holding the throttle open until the manifold pressure steadies as close as possible to the desired level while the dyno limits the engine to the fixed engine speed. You can literally be sitting at say, 3,800RPM and 70kPa, punch in two degrees of spark timing, and instantly see if it helped power output. The dyno graph will change with the timing, based on how much braking it had to do to keep the engine at that speed. Cool, huh?
Buy and read Designing and Tuning High-Performance Fuel Injection Systems before you spend another dime on parts. It's very detailed on the whole dyno-tuning thing. Street Turbocharging is less detailed since tuning isn't its only subject, but it does cover some very good ground as well.
Simply put, there is no way to avoid the load-bearing dyno when tuning a custom ECM and MPFI, particularly for a driver. You can't do it correctly on the street, especially not for full power and doubly so with forced induction. If you want it to run right and not break, budget for a dyno-tuning day.
69.5CUDA
Blah Blah Blah
well doc you just cleared up my dyno question....since i swapped in aftermarket brains on my alfas theyve run ok...ive done street tuning to get them "closer" but your right..you just cant dial it in..and now i know what kind of dyno shop im actualy looking for to get it right
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
Fun facts about dyno numbers:
Inertial dynos are known to be inaccurate: One brand, I can't recall which at the moment, is known to have a built-in 15-18% "generosity" factor. In other words, if they tell you it made 400HP at the wheels, 340 is a more accurate number to use. Portable dynos, not surprisingly, are the worst of the bunch. Big numbers sell tickets to put cars up there.
Correction factors are bunk: Seeing your "corrected" horsepower is great, because unless you tuned in Death Valley or some other below-sea-level area, they'll likely be higher than reality. There are two kinds of corrections: STP (standard temperature and pressure) and sea level. STP is, for all intents and purposes, a comparison standard that can only be duplicated in a lab. If you ever find yourself racing in STP conditions, expect to win the PowerBall during the Second Coming. STP conditions in nature are only slightly more rare than that happening, but those county-fair and car-show guys will often set the dyno to automatically correct to STP, again for the big numbers. Sea-level correction is great if you live and race at sea level. Not many do. I live at an elevation hundreds of feet above sea level, so sea-level numbers are meaningless here. I'm not making that much power at home.
There is no "correction factor" for flywheel horsepower based on wheel-dyno results: You can't add 20%, or 15%, or whatever number to your wheel-dyno sheet and tell people "I'm making xxxHP at the flywheel". You're bullshitting both them and yourself. Transmissions in particular vary widely in the power they consume, as do axles. A stock Ford C6 has been proven to require almost 70HP to turn, while an A904 is closer to half that number (or less). A Dana 60 requires more power to spin than a GM 10-bolt. The only reasonably-accurate way to measure flywheel horsepower is to pull the rest of your drivetrain and perform coast-down dyno testing on each part: transmission, driveshaft, and rear axle. Flywheel horsepower is for dick measurers anyhow. All that matters is what makes it to the wheels.
To put all of this in one neat, easy package: One of our customers at the diesel shop took his 6.4L Ford F250 to a nearby car show and ran it on the portable dyno that's there every year. His corrected numbers showed him around 435RWHP, which of course because it was a wheel dyno means he's got 560-600HP at the flywheel, based on the "typical 25%" drivetrain loss. The truck weighed 7,800lb (occupied) on the scale at the track, which combined with his 94MPH trap speed accurately indicates his average flywheel horsepower at just a hair over 500. Doesn't matter; he's got a dyno sheet and the "standard 25%" as definitive proof, never mind the actual performance.
For shits and giggles, I'd really like to take my car to that same show after tuning, just to see what their RWHP numbers are in comparison to an accurate, proven, far-more-expensive load-bearing dyno. They'll probably be higher than my actual flywheel numbers could possibly be.
Inertial dynos are known to be inaccurate: One brand, I can't recall which at the moment, is known to have a built-in 15-18% "generosity" factor. In other words, if they tell you it made 400HP at the wheels, 340 is a more accurate number to use. Portable dynos, not surprisingly, are the worst of the bunch. Big numbers sell tickets to put cars up there.
Correction factors are bunk: Seeing your "corrected" horsepower is great, because unless you tuned in Death Valley or some other below-sea-level area, they'll likely be higher than reality. There are two kinds of corrections: STP (standard temperature and pressure) and sea level. STP is, for all intents and purposes, a comparison standard that can only be duplicated in a lab. If you ever find yourself racing in STP conditions, expect to win the PowerBall during the Second Coming. STP conditions in nature are only slightly more rare than that happening, but those county-fair and car-show guys will often set the dyno to automatically correct to STP, again for the big numbers. Sea-level correction is great if you live and race at sea level. Not many do. I live at an elevation hundreds of feet above sea level, so sea-level numbers are meaningless here. I'm not making that much power at home.
There is no "correction factor" for flywheel horsepower based on wheel-dyno results: You can't add 20%, or 15%, or whatever number to your wheel-dyno sheet and tell people "I'm making xxxHP at the flywheel". You're bullshitting both them and yourself. Transmissions in particular vary widely in the power they consume, as do axles. A stock Ford C6 has been proven to require almost 70HP to turn, while an A904 is closer to half that number (or less). A Dana 60 requires more power to spin than a GM 10-bolt. The only reasonably-accurate way to measure flywheel horsepower is to pull the rest of your drivetrain and perform coast-down dyno testing on each part: transmission, driveshaft, and rear axle. Flywheel horsepower is for dick measurers anyhow. All that matters is what makes it to the wheels.
To put all of this in one neat, easy package: One of our customers at the diesel shop took his 6.4L Ford F250 to a nearby car show and ran it on the portable dyno that's there every year. His corrected numbers showed him around 435RWHP, which of course because it was a wheel dyno means he's got 560-600HP at the flywheel, based on the "typical 25%" drivetrain loss. The truck weighed 7,800lb (occupied) on the scale at the track, which combined with his 94MPH trap speed accurately indicates his average flywheel horsepower at just a hair over 500. Doesn't matter; he's got a dyno sheet and the "standard 25%" as definitive proof, never mind the actual performance.
For shits and giggles, I'd really like to take my car to that same show after tuning, just to see what their RWHP numbers are in comparison to an accurate, proven, far-more-expensive load-bearing dyno. They'll probably be higher than my actual flywheel numbers could possibly be.
Dr.Jass
Pastor of Muppets
I was really hoping you'd read that and understand why it's been giving you trouble. You just don't have the tools available to get it right, either at home or on the street. Very few do.
71ChargerRT
Well-known member
I'm not ordering any parts for this engine until I nail down the combination that I plan on running, at least 90% anyway.
Books and knowledge are what I'm looking at first. I'm not looking to be the guy up your way with the Nova.
Books and knowledge are what I'm looking at first. I'm not looking to be the guy up your way with the Nova.
71ChargerRT
Well-known member
Thanks for the info Doc!
71ChargerRT
Well-known member
I am, but I'm merely at the mechanical phase of the short block minus the camshaft. I know stroker is completely unnecessary, but that's the way I'm going. Heads I'm going to save my pennies and hope that a great deal, Eddy Victor-Indy 440-1-Koffel B-1, comes across when I have enough saved. When I get to the cam selection phase I hope to be able to sit down with someone to describe my plans and my goals as well as the present combination and buy a totally superfluous, hydraulic roller cam. :dgt:
The biggest things going for me with this is it's not going to have to be daily driven, but I'll be able to drive it on the street once in a while. It's not going to have to run on the swill they pass off as gasoline at the pump, it would be nice if it could. And it's completely ridiculous! :giggedy:
71ChargerRT
Well-known member
I was not aware, thank you for that bit of info.