Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I have just started research for a new engine build for me torana, this is the only forum I am a member of and most of you guys know a lot about forced induction so why I'm asking here. The plan so far is stroked 186 < 234, efi and supercharging it.

How I want to do it:

Pod>throttlebody>supercharger>2.5 inch pipe>400x200x50 intercooler>2.5 pipe>manifold/injectors>engine>3 inch exhaust

Now I read its not worth running a intercooler with this kind of set up, anyone confirm? I'm hoping to run between 10-15psi

Ecu is another thing I need advice on? And what other sensors should I add in?

Is there some formula to work out injectors and throttle body sizes?

I'm hoping for around 350hp does this seem achievable? I know its going to cost a lot, and the actual build is probably 6 months away, I just want to be prepared.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/367527-new-engine-build-idea/
Share on other sites

attempting to get that sort of power out of a stroked 186 is going to take a reasonable amount of work. personally i'd just put in a modern engine with a turbo already bolted to it and then work from there.

as for running an intercooler, as long as it is a supercharger that doesn't just sit on top of the manifold then you will definately gain power from putting one on there.

So 234 is about 4lt..?

Could you get the injection manifold off a vk modified to suit.?

Have a look here.

http://forum.ejehclubqld.com/ehclub/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8246

Look at the pics at the bottom of the page

Maybe add in a water/meth injection kit as they are cheap from the states at the moment

Edited by WHITER33GTS-T

you running a centrifigal supercharger I imagine cause I have no idea how you would intercool a roots type blower.

Centrifigal chargers are rubbish and you would be better off running a turbo than one of these..fitting a roots type blower will yield better results and is much easier to setup. Just get a 4 barrel holley manifold stick a blower on top with an injector plate on top or below that.The most I have seen is about 350hp from one of these and its a lot of work to get there when you could throw an RB engine in there and easily have a more reliable and user friendly 400 plus hp for the same outlay and if the engine goes bang simply buy another. Add to this the epa and engineering will be much more friendly with a new tech engine than an old one.. You can just get a conversion kit from CRS to bolt it all in could cost less than 5k if your smart and can make 500hp before you even need to open the engine.. Not doing it is crazy..

But yeah if you insist on a centrifigal then yeah use a VK injection inlet manifold, for 350hp just go 500cc plus injectors should cover it, maybe bigger to be safe, probably something like an old wolf 3d or similar should work for an ecu and shouldnt the TB go after the charger, just leave it in its original spot on the manifold

I thought about the rb option but doesn't apeal to me as much. I guess I want to keep the nostalgia feel to the car. The blower I am thinking of using is a harrop htv 1320. I planned to run it on the opposite side to the intake and run a pipe from under the charger around the front to the intercooler then to a custom plenum? I'm a fitter/machinist and have access to a miller and lathe so I planned on doing the custom stuff myself.

meh dont waste your time with an intercooler ,as I said get an old redline torker manifold or similar then maybe stick either stick 4 big injectors in a base plate made to mount the supercharger on the manifold or fab some injector holes into each individual intake runner. just use a water/meth setup if it gets too hot. Will be much neater setup this way :thumbsup:

meh dont waste your time with an intercooler ,as I said get an old redline torker manifold or similar then maybe stick either stick 4 big injectors in a base plate made to mount the supercharger on the manifold or fab some injector holes into each individual intake runner. just use a water/meth setup if it gets too hot. Will be much neater setup this way :thumbsup:

Yeh alright this sounds the best way, cheers mate.

Nothing wrong with centrifugal blowers.

Friend i have has one in a Camaro that drives to the track, runs 9s, drives home on the same tyres.

1000rwhp of no problem!

look on a v8 anything will work because the v8 is doing half the work already..A well built camaro big block can do 9s without a charger

put twin turbos on the v8 it will go harder.. ;)

yes i thought you were running a different style of SC .i reckon a late falcon TB would do the job. Its 80mm I think....

here..about halfway down the page is a good manifold..

http://www.aussiespeed.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=40

it is designed for carb but you could easily replace that with some form of injection, a top of the the line yella terra head and your stroker block. should go hard..

yes i thought you were running a different style of SC .i reckon a late falcon TB would do the job. Its 80mm I think....

here..about halfway down the page is a good manifold..

http://www.aussiespeed.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9&Itemid=40

it is designed for carb but you could easily replace that with some form of injection, a top of the the line yella terra head and your stroker block. should go hard..

Yeah ill be adding one of them to the list, thanks for your help Arthur.

I joined the turbo202 forums and asked a couple questions, but they are a bit slow to respond so ill ask here to. Any benefits of running twin 38mm throttle bodys over a single 80mm?

And benefits of running say a 3-4inch spacer between the charger and intake manifold, like a tunnel ram sort of system?

I'd say no and no...

when you go about seeting up something custom like this your best bet I think is to keep things as simple as possible. it makes faults easier to find come tuning time. I would even consider using a carby it will be a zillion times easier.. though an injection systaem should yeild better results. i will look into some injection setups when i get home..

this sort of setup is what I was thinking.

post-65674-0-13595500-1308046459_thumb.jpg

its neat and reasonably simple but has no IC and the hardest bit would be setting up injection..

Alternatively i guess you could run a centrifugal charger look at these Raptor kits, then you can just use Vk injection setup and IC cool it..

http://www.raptorsc.com.au/kits.php?id=55

Im starting to think this may be an easier way and probably just as powerful but I like the first way better..

but shit man, 3200$ is more than I would want to spend on a red 6 you could buy a used rb25t for that and still have change..

stick with the rb ive done the red motor bit and the rb is leap yrs ahead . i used to race a turbo 186 with falcon 221 crank and a phill irvin alloy head using mechanical methanol injection and with all of that it just made 350 hp and only got a dozen or so meetings out of it without a freshen up .

it used to pop the welsh plugs out of the block till we made screw in ones . the block was o ringed it run carrillo alloy rods and aries forged pistons and cost a shitload to develop and maintain.

the rb is a proven product will make more power for half the head aches .

cheers dean

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...