Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2010, 11:31 PM   #111 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
K, I didn't get any good pics of the floor repair, but I haven't actually repaired it yet. I just slapped half a computer case down on the floor with some roof cement under it so it would pass inspection, and IT DID!

Gerald is now completely road legal. Unfortunately, I'm still only getting ~15MPG in most driving. Got to go over the front end and finish cleaning/fixing stuff, including bushings and bearings.

__________________
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 05-25-2010, 02:57 AM   #112 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
pics of hole in floor:


__________________
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 03:01 AM   #113 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
The '92 5.0 4x4 I just bought has a ZF S5-4x trans in it. That's coming out, it's going to end up in Gerald. The 5.72 1st gear will def help out when I need to pull stuff.

The power steering pump is hopefully getting replaced with an air compressor with electric clutch (eventually) and the rear tank area is charted for a manifold and 4x20lb propane cylinders for compressed air storage.

During the inspection, I had the mechanic tack weld the joints in the exhaust. There is an 18" Thrush Turbo muffler replacing the OE muffler, and the OE tail section turns out from it right in front of the forward leaf spring hanger on the pass side.

I'm going to bypass the RABS (rear ABS) solenoid, as well. It's messing up intermittently, making the brakes hit or miss while traveling. Not a safe condition if you're not familiar with the issue, especially while towing.

Still trying to determine if this truck ends up with 8 or 10 lug axles, or remains as-is in that respect. I'm seriously thinking I'd rather use a cut back van chassis for a heavy duty hauler than the truck chassis, and just continue using my truck as I do currently.

Still haven't replaced the front wheel bearings, but I'm seriously just considering swapping the whole front hub assemblies from the '92 over, even though the '92 has auto locking hubs. I suppose I can deal with it, though. I doubt my mileage will get worse with good bearings in there, no matter what hubs are on it.

So far, I'm averaging 17.5 for the last couple tanks. Need an upper intake gasket, I'm showing a bank 1 lean code (I didn't replace the gasket, I just put silicone on it and reinstalled the upper manifold when I replaced the injectors. The silicone is leaking vacuum.)

A member here sent me a turbo awhile back that came off a 6.6L Duramax Chevy... I'm thinking seriously about fitting it to Gerald. Since Gerald's engine is a low-compression (8.8:1) low-rev engine, I don't know if the turbo will actually spool. I'm going to have to look at flow maps for the engine to make sure, then decide. I may end up getting a much smaller turbo that will spool in my upper torque curve.
__________________
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"


Last edited by Christ; 05-25-2010 at 03:16 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 01:11 PM   #114 (permalink)
eco....something or other
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Colfax, WI
Posts: 714

wood hauler - '91 Ford F-250
Team Pontiac
90 day: 18.97 mpg (US)

Rav - '06 Toyota Rav4 Base
90 day: 26.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 38
Thanked 57 Times in 44 Posts
I would try the turbo and see what happens

You could probably scab a test config together to see if it will spool. If not, go smaller. You should have plenty of room for that turbo. I have been thinking of getting one in the wood hauler but have been unable to find an affordable one. It would be nice to have a few pounds of boost on tap.
__________________



1991 F-250:
4.9L, Mazda 5 speed, 4.10 10.25" rear
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2010, 11:38 PM   #115 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by IsaacCarlson View Post
You could probably scab a test config together to see if it will spool. If not, go smaller. You should have plenty of room for that turbo. I have been thinking of getting one in the wood hauler but have been unable to find an affordable one. It would be nice to have a few pounds of boost on tap.
I could possibly get an Eaton M90 off the nefarious GM 3.8 60* V6... for $50. Unfortunately, I hate superchargers. I was still considering getting it for the sheer spit of it, since it's only $50, but I'm not sure if I will or not.

I'll probably eventually tap the turbo in there anyway, since I have to replace parts of my exhaust eventually, and already have one of the pre-EFI manifolds, which I can probably bolt the turbo to. I'll mock it up on another block I have, first.

I think I may have to convert back to OBD-1, though. OBD2 emissions isn't going to like boost, I think. Good thing we don't have emissions testing around here.

EDIT - I actually think MegaSquirt or some other company makes an ECM that fits in the original case, but is custom programmable. This may also be an option, if it won't cost me an arm and a leg.
__________________
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 07:39 AM   #116 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
comptiger5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544

RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited
90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
I agree that turbo > supercharger, especially for FE. As far as the OBDI vs OBDII thing, does your truck use a MAP sensor or a MAF sensor? If it's MAP, a different sensor, bigger injectors and computer tuning will be needed. If it's MAF, bigger injectors will be needed, but it can adjust itself for mild amounts of boost (probably up to 3-5 psi). Just make sure you put the MAF sensor before the turbo. I'd check with a Ford performance forum to confirm the details.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:



Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 11:32 AM   #117 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by comptiger5000 View Post
I agree that turbo > supercharger, especially for FE. As far as the OBDI vs OBDII thing, does your truck use a MAP sensor or a MAF sensor? If it's MAP, a different sensor, bigger injectors and computer tuning will be needed. If it's MAF, bigger injectors will be needed, but it can adjust itself for mild amounts of boost (probably up to 3-5 psi).w Just make sure you put the MAF sensor before the turbo. I'd check with a Ford performance forum to confirm the details.
I forgot that I have a MAF - thank you!

I won't have to convert because of that, and solely that. I shouldn't have to increase injectors, either, because I never rev past 3500 RPM. If I need injectors, the fix is OE injectors from a Ford V8 (302/351) with an adjustable FPR. The issue with this is that heat from the manifold can vapor lock the injectors with lower pressure required for the larger injectors. It shouldn't be an issue, though. I can shield the injectors from the heat, for the most part, if it even comes down to that.

I'll probably keep the MAF in the stock location, near the driver's side inner fender attached to the airbox (which I'll also leave in the stock location.)

If I'm going to boost, it's important that I ensure as little restriction as possible ahead of the turbo to allow the fastest spool with as little energy loss as possible.

I'm looking into this for sure. As with everything else, it'll be a project on time, because that, of course, is my most limited resource, second only to money.

I'm going to have to set some kind of boost limiting, though. The Garrett turbo that I have is capable of like 20PSI... I'm not sure I can handle that much boost just yet, especially without fuel upgrades.

For the time being, I'm going to be running without an intercooler, as well. At 8.8:1 compression and low RPMs, I should have no problem handling it.
__________________
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 02:09 PM   #118 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
comptiger5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544

RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited
90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
If you step up to only somewhat larger injectors, the computer will simply learn around them and reduce the pulsewidth. It's only if you go much bigger that you have to either reduce fuel pressure for less flow, or more optimally, have a new tune written for the ECU and loaded via an SCT tuner or other flashing device. I'd definitely upgrade the injectors (unless they can already flow enough fuel), even if you don't normally run to max RPM, that way if you ever do for any reason, you're covered and won't lean out too much.

For boost control, I'd suggest starting out with a wastegate on the turbo set to 5 psi or so. At 5 psi, you should have no issue running without an intercooler, although you might need to run 89 or 93 octane gas to avoid pinging.
__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:



Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 09:34 PM   #119 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
I have 14lb/hr injectors in right now. The next size up (from the 302/351) is 18-19lb/hr.

I don't think I'd actually have to adjust the FPR because of the MAF sensor. I'm still thinking in OBD-I and OBD-0 terms, I'm not used to playing with OBD-II.
__________________
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2010, 09:46 PM   #120 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
comptiger5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 544

RaceJeep - '98 Jeep Grand Cherokee (ZJ) 5.9 Limited
90 day: 13.62 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1
Thanked 26 Times in 23 Posts
Depending on how much boost you plan to run, either the 302/351 injectors, or the Ford Racing 24lb injectors would be good. The 24lb ones would most likely need some ECU tuning, however, as I don't know if it can adjust the pulsewidth enough for those to work otherwise. With big enough injectors and tuning, you could probably run 8psi or so without an intercooler on 93 octane. If you add an intercooler, you might be able to push 10-11. I'm not sure what the limits of the engine are, however, without internal mods.

It would definitely perk the truck up a bit, and unless you get too heavy on the gas, it probably won't hurt MPG much. Of course, when you get it loaded and make it work, you can laugh at the V8 guys as you cruise right past them, and still get better mpg overall.

__________________
Call me crazy, but I actually try for mpg with this Jeep:



Typical driving: Back in Rochester for school, driving is 60 - 70% city
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com