New items at FWD-P

[glhs727]

We have added a lot of products over the last year, too many to list here...but here are some more items we will be adding this week:

CB/T3 water diverters $22
Billet gauge holders for spirit/acclaim (may fit more, just have had time to test fit other cars, will not work on 87/88 shelbyz, tried that LOL) $59
Cometic head gaskets for SRT-4 neon, 10 thou. thicker than stock....$99
T1 to T2 turbo adapter $69
Various DIY TB flanges $22 each to go along with our other great DIY pieces.

[1BADVAN]

looks good do you offer a swingvalve flange like to make your own down pipe

[BadAssPerformance]

What does this do?

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17676&d=1254362348

[86Shelby]

It directs coolant to flow across the front of the cylinder block.

[bakes]

mmmm 60m 4.ol HO jeep TB flange the evil ideas it gives me!!!!!!!

[BadAssPerformance]

It directs coolant to flow across the front of the cylinder block.

Interesting... not familiar with T-III's, they came with these?

[Turbo3Iroc]

Yes they came with these and they are a hard piece to come by if you are building a motor from scratch.

[turbovanman²]

Interesting... not familiar with T-III's, they came with these?

Yes, I guess its to direct the coolant to the back of the engine so it can move with more force????????
Its on Gary's site, if removed, funky sh*t happens.


Yes they came with these and they are a hard piece to come by if you are building a motor from scratch.

No kidding, :o

[mopar-tech]

Yes, I guess its to direct the coolant to the back of the engine so it can move with more force????????


From the factory the 2.2/2.5 engines coolant flow is biased towards the rear of the engine (easy enough to see if you look in the block inlet and how it shoots around cylinder one towards the rear)

This device deflects some of the flow across the front of the motor to even the flow out.

On dyno testing the T3 package stateside detonation was noted in cyl #3, this piece was developed by Chrysler Co. engineers, not the tools over at Lotus who did'nt even notice the motor was rattling.

If you consider using it, be aware you have to add a spacer to the bottom of the water pump too.

[BadAssPerformance]

From the factory the 2.2/2.5 engines coolant flow is biased towards the rear of the engine (easy enough to see if you look in the block inlet and how it shoots around cylinder one towards the rear)

This device deflects some of the flow across the front of the motor to even the flow out.

On dyno testing the T3 package stateside detonation was noted in cyl #3, this piece was developed by Chrysler Co. engineers, not the tools over at Lotus who did'nt even notice the motor was rattling.

If you consider using it, be aware you have to add a spacer to the bottom of the water pump too.

Interesting. Good explanation. So the T-III cars came with these and the spacer?

[mopar-tech]

So the T-III cars came with these and the spacer?

Every T3 I took apart did.

[BadAssPerformance]

Every T3 I took apart did.

Cool.

[Mario]

Sent you a PM a few days ago Cindy. Better if I just call?

[Mario]

I'll call later I guess.

[Skibbe]

From the factory the 2.2/2.5 engines coolant flow is biased towards the rear of the engine (easy enough to see if you look in the block inlet and how it shoots around cylinder one towards the rear)

This device deflects some of the flow across the front of the motor to even the flow out.

On dyno testing the T3 package stateside detonation was noted in cyl #3, this piece was developed by Chrysler Co. engineers, not the tools over at Lotus who did'nt even notice the motor was rattling.

If you consider using it, be aware you have to add a spacer to the bottom of the water pump too.

So would you consider using it on an 8V headed engine? In other words, did the detonation start because the 16V head changed the coolant flow properties in the block, or just because they were now pushing 224 HP through the common block with the TIII package?

[glhs727]

yes, call us or PM your phone number and I'll call you.

[glhs727]

So would you consider using it on an 8V headed engine? In other words, did the detonation start because the 16V head changed the coolant flow properties in the block, or just because they were now pushing 224 HP through the common block with the TIII package?

I think it is the combination of several factors including head design/water box location and flow properties, plus added horspower. Although we have not done any testing, I believe it would be benificial to 8v's as well.

[turbovanman²]

So would you consider using it on an 8V headed engine? In other words, did the detonation start because the 16V head changed the coolant flow properties in the block, or just because they were now pushing 224 HP through the common block with the TIII package?

I don't think an 8 valve would like it unless you move the thermostat to the end of the head, like the TIII.


From the factory the 2.2/2.5 engines coolant flow is biased towards the rear of the engine (easy enough to see if you look in the block inlet and how it shoots around cylinder one towards the rear)

This device deflects some of the flow across the front of the motor to even the flow out.

On dyno testing the T3 package stateside detonation was noted in cyl #3, this piece was developed by Chrysler Co. engineers, not the tools over at Lotus who did'nt even notice the motor was rattling.

If you consider using it, be aware you have to add a spacer to the bottom of the water pump too.

Yeah, I saw that on your site eons ago. So yeah, it shoots it more towards the back, :thumb:

[contraption22]

The Guage holder I assume replaces the cubby in the dash? Nifty!

[glhs727]

it replaces the traveller. I'll post a picture soon.

[sdac guy]

So would you consider using it on an 8V headed engine? In other words, did the detonation start because the 16V head changed the coolant flow properties in the block, or just because they were now pushing 224 HP through the common block with the TIII package?

Back in the days of Ed Peters, he said ALL 2.2 / 2.5 motors would benefit from it. He considered it one of his "tricks" when building motors back then. I think he used to sell them too, about 10 years ago or so.

Barry

[turbovanman²]

Back in the days of Ed Peters, he said ALL 2.2 / 2.5 motors would benefit from it. He considered it one of his "tricks" when building motors back then. I think he used to sell them too, about 10 years ago or so.

Barry

Very interesting, so if they worked, how come they didn't go into production?

[glhs727]

that's funny:lol:

there are a lot of reasons.....why does Chrysler do or don't do anything rarely makes sense! Just like the stupid turbofold on the srt-4, charging $14 for a stud but only $3 for an intake gasket, or any of a million things they have done over the years. But likely they didn't realize it made a difference until the lotus motors came out, and they had been producing so many 2.2/2.5 8v's without it that they decided it wasn't worth the effort.

[BadAssPerformance]

Back in the days of Ed Peters, he said ALL 2.2 / 2.5 motors would benefit from it. He considered it one of his "tricks" when building motors back then. I think he used to sell them too, about 10 years ago or so.

Barry

Did he have any wild HP gain estimates like his other stuff? ;)


that's funny:lol:

there are a lot of reasons.....why does Chrysler do or don't do anything rarely makes sense! Just like the stupid turbofold on the srt-4, charging $14 for a stud but only $3 for an intake gasket, or any of a million things they have done over the years.

Maybe cuz stuff that makes sense for production (turbofold) seems like it doesnt for service/aftermarket? Like 2.2L MP headbolts that are cheap and look strangely familiar to the bolts they use by the millions for every Chrysler V6? Hmmm....


But likely they didn't realize it made a difference until the lotus motors came out, and they had been producing so many 2.2/2.5 8v's without it that they decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I'd believe this... didnt see a need until they pushed the limits with the Lotus... So what are the measured benefits on an 8V?

[mopar-tech]

Very interesting, so if they worked, how come they didn't go into production?

Was not an issue on a 174 hp TII.

I'd suggest caution before using one on a SOHC application, the thermostat location and headgasket is different than a DOHC.

Its not a bad idea, just something to consider.

Water flow and pressure managment was something that became an issue on the Reliant as the power level rose, some interesting results during dyno testing.

[turbovanman²]

Was not an issue on a 174 hp TII.

I'd suggest caution before using one on a SOHC application, the thermostat location and headgasket is different than a DOHC.

Its not a bad idea, just something to consider.

Water flow and pressure managment was something that became an issue on the Reliant as the power level rose, some interesting results during dyno testing.

I agree on using it on a 8 valve.

What did you find out during testing? :eyebrows:



that's funny :lol:

there are a lot of reasons.....why does Chrysler do or don't do anything rarely makes sense! Just like the stupid turbofold on the srt-4, charging $14 for a stud but only $3 for an intake gasket, or any of a million things they have done over the years. But likely they didn't realize it made a difference until the lotus motors came out, and they had been producing so many 2.2/2.5 8v's without it that they decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I know, I am here all week, lol.

I realize they do dumb and smart things, its the way the car world works, :banghead:

[mopar-tech]

What did you find out during testing? :eyebrows:



Even flow became critical around the bores and pressure helps suppress air pockets that can lead to detonation.

Learned that tidbit from the Dodge prostock guys at the time, there were having issues with crappy castings.

[Skibbe]

So in theory if you moved the thermostat to the #4 end of the head where the freeze plug is, and installed this flow director, you should have reasonable flow through an 8V head? When you mention pressure, are you just making sure the stock cap is good, or are you actually increasing the coolant pressure to mitigate problems?

[minigts]

I may have missed it in the thread, but has anyone considered or tried welding a t-stat housing on the end of the head next to cylinder 4?

[turbovanman²]

I may have missed it in the thread, but has anyone considered or tried welding a t-stat housing on the end of the head next to cylinder 4?

Its been done, but no need to weld, search Rbryant, :eyebrows:

[mopar-tech]

I may have missed it in the thread, but has anyone considered or tried welding a t-stat housing on the end of the head next to cylinder 4?

The Reliant has an outlet there.

[moparman76_69]

Billet gauge holders for spirit/acclaim (may fit more, just have had time to test fit other cars, will not work on 87/88 shelbyz, tried that LOL) $59


Any chance of getting these for the G/J bodies?

[neongary]

Any chance of getting these for the G/J bodies?
I thought it was odd to make a fancy gauge holder for one of the less common cars out there, rather than a L or G body first.

[135sohc]

It is nice to see products for other cars and not just the favorites :p

[neongary]

It is nice to see products for other cars and not just the favorites :p
True, although the standard procedure seems to be the popular ones first, then the others later. When is the gauge holder coming out for the C bodies?:D

[mopar-tech]

When you mention pressure, are you just making sure the stock cap is good, or are you actually increasing the coolant pressure to mitigate problems?

Pressure increased in areas, not just a higher cap.

[Skibbe]

So higher in the block and less in the head? Restrictors installed in the passages between the two?

Edit: Actually, that doesn't seem possible to do...

[Vigo]

I may have missed it in the thread, but has anyone considered or tried welding a t-stat housing on the end of the head next to cylinder 4?

this is at the heart of the "cyl 4 coolant mod" that was talked about a lot some time ago. You will probably get more results searching for that term.

[turbovanman²]

The #4 coolant mod is an easier route than moving the thermostat, but not as effective I would believe. ;)

Cindy, where does that billet gauge mount actually go?

[glhs727]

the gauge mount replaces the traveller in a spirit

[turbovanman²]

the gauge mount replaces the traveller in a spirit

Ahh, thanks. If I keep mine, would be a nice addition. :thumb:

[minigts]

The #4 coolant mod is an easier route than moving the thermostat, but not as effective I would believe. ;)

Cindy, where does that billet gauge mount actually go?

Well that is what I was thinking. I've seen the coolant mod, but I was referring to relocating the t-stat mount entirely so it would flow from top to bottom and across completely, not just between 3 and 4.

[Vigo]

do you mean bottom to top?

[minigts]

do you mean bottom to top?

Please don't get technical. ;) Yes.

[Vigo]

hehe :p I was just thinking if you were engineering a reverse-flow setup... i would run it :)