PDA

View Full Version : Newbie with some Turbo 3.0 Questions



Kevs02accord
07-08-2011, 11:20 AM
Hey guys, new to the forums. Looking to get some info. I have a project in mind for a turbo 3.0, 90 lebaron coupe. I have done some research but I am basically just starting. The donor car, in theory, is an automatic. My first question, is considering this, how would you tune the car? From what I have read the SBEC still has separate controls for the engine and transmission, just integrated on one board, is that correct? To change the tables can you just flash an eprom and replace the current one? Can tuning be accomplished with an older SMEC that has separate boards for engine / transmission control? Input is appreciated. Thanks.

RoadWarrior222
07-08-2011, 11:52 AM
I was under the impression that the PCM didn't get integrated until the mid 90s... but someone else will probably chip in.

As for "can tuning be accomplished" ... sort of, it's still getting figured out.

Juggy
07-08-2011, 12:17 PM
well your just in luck

i happen to have a SOCKETED 3.0L computer board. its for 90/91 SBEC vehicles. you could get this computer off of me, find yourself a chip and eprom burner (or even ostrich emulator for fast changes....laptop required) and go hit up the 3.0 turbonator (i think thats what its called? lol) as someone on the board has recently cracked the 3.0 code, for people to modify it. altho its still setup for naturally aspirited and I dont think theres much u can do (or yet anyway) to control booost and fuel/spark under boost with the factory computer

however things like rising rate fuel pressure regulator, and a msd digital 6 would def help !

c2xejk
07-08-2011, 12:38 PM
Right now, the ability to modify the stock computer is very limited. I don't think there is an ability to change to a 2-bar MAP for turbo charging.

For a '90 with Low-impedance injectors, a Greddy e-Manage won't work.

So that leaves you with the "old fashion" ideas: Larger injectors, AFPR, and FMU.

Ed Kelly - www.kmperformance.com (http://www.kmperformance.com)

Kevs02accord
07-08-2011, 12:44 PM
well your just in luck

i happen to have a SOCKETED 3.0L computer board. its for 90/91 SBEC vehicles. you could get this computer off of me, find yourself a chip and eprom burner (or even ostrich emulator for fast changes....laptop required) and go hit up the 3.0 turbonator (i think thats what its called? lol) as someone on the board has recently cracked the 3.0 code, for people to modify it. altho its still setup for naturally aspirited and I dont think theres much u can do (or yet anyway) to control booost and fuel/spark under boost with the factory computer

however things like rising rate fuel pressure regulator, and a msd digital 6 would def help !

That is lucky, however, unlucky enough I recently became unemployed. So there isn't money for buying. Hence, I have time for some research while I hopefully look for another job. I just need some clarification, could I control boost with a chipped sbec just not a factory one? Would a bin file from a turbo 4 cyl make a good base map? What about the the transmission? If boosted will it still be able to operate normally?

---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------


Right now, the ability to modify the stock computer is very limited. I don't think there is an ability to change to a 2-bar MAP for turbo charging.

For a '90 with Low-impedance injectors, a Greddy e-Manage won't work.

So that leaves you with the "old fashion" ideas: Larger injectors, AFPR, and FMU.

Ed Kelly - www.kmperformance.com (http://www.kmperformance.com)

Didn't see your post before I posted. So a piggy back then? Any idea why its so difficult to modify? I mean these cars are 20+ years old, isn't it a matter of replacing the eprom chip with a modified one?

Juggy
07-08-2011, 12:47 PM
you can replace the eprom with a modified one, but the computer can and will only read 1 bar, and will not recognize boost.

Kevs02accord
07-08-2011, 12:55 PM
Gotcha. Is it a matter of having a 2 bar sensor, or is that sensor integrated into the computer module? I was reading here;http://hhscott.com/93tmv/3-bar_map.htm about using 2 and 3 bar sensors for boost.

Juggy
07-08-2011, 01:01 PM
Gotcha. Is it a matter of having a 2 bar sensor, or is that sensor integrated into the computer module? I was reading here;http://hhscott.com/93tmv/3-bar_map.htm about using 2 and 3 bar sensors for boost.

the computer just doesnt have the proper hardware built into the SBEC to handle it, or even have it incorporated.

Kevs02accord
07-08-2011, 01:05 PM
Bummer, so back to, what about using a turbo sbec, wouldnt that have a 2 bar map already built in?

Juggy
07-08-2011, 01:08 PM
Bummer, so back to, what about using a turbo sbec, wouldnt that have a 2 bar map already built in?

yes, you could actually control and fire fuel with all 6 sillies with older electronics such as smec, as they have batch fire. but I do not know how you would be able to get spark to all 6 cylinders or even control spark period.

c2xejk
07-08-2011, 06:25 PM
Swapping to the an SBEC (and add a e-Manage or similar piggy-back) or a Mega-Squirt are the only electronic ways to do it.

For my turbo car I went the SBEC II w/e-Manage route. For my normally-aspirated car I went with a MS-2. The e-Manage is definitely a shorter learning curve...

Ed Kelly - www.kmperformance.com

turbovanmanČ
07-08-2011, 06:31 PM
For a crude setup, you can use the stock 1 bar setup but really, you need to run an aftermarket standalone, IE Megasquirt, Fast, Microtech etc.

The auto does have its own computer so your in luck there, I believe the code is cracked so you can modify it BUT standalones can control the trans and they do a better job. To retain the OE trans computer, you need a few basic inputs, IE TPS, Speed and MAP IIRC.


Right now, the ability to modify the stock computer is very limited. I don't think there is an ability to change to a 2-bar MAP for turbo charging.

For a '90 with Low-impedance injectors, a Greddy e-Manage won't work.

So that leaves you with the "old fashion" ideas: Larger injectors, AFPR, and FMU.

Ed Kelly - www.kmperformance.com (http://www.kmperformance.com)

Change the injectors, :p

Vigo
07-09-2011, 03:20 AM
Holy crap. This thread needs to hop in the way-back machine and START OVER.

The transmission controller is not built into the SBEC. It is a separate, smaller controller and for all intents and purposes there is not much reason to mess with it.

The SBEC stands for single board engine controller. The SMEC used two boards. That, in itself, doesnt mean anything functionally. There is *no reason* to swap backwards to SMEC. The 3.0 calibration changes that are possible are not significantly different between SMEC and SBEC as far as i know.

A recalibrated 3.0 SBEC will not run any kind of boost control. It can not be calibrated to use a 2 or 3 bar map sensor. These things may change in the future, but as of right now it is not possible.

There is still much benefit to a recalibrated 3.0 computer, such as altering the rev limiter, fueling, and ignition timing. Keep in mind that since the computer is reading a 1bar map sensor, it will only adjust fuel and timing up to 0psi. Once the engine goes above 0psi and into boost, the computer will not be able to make any adjustments to compensate for the changing fuel and timing needs.

Piggy-backs and standalone engine controls were mentioned.. I'd like to point out that the AEM FIC doesn't have the limitations of the e-manage regarding low-impedance injectors. It has it's own on-board injector drivers which will control low-impedance injectors. It also has an onboard 3bar map. A piggyback like the AEM FIC will intercept and modify signals going to and from the stock computer and can do all your fuel and timing control in boost, along with allowing you to run larger injectors with the stock computer (although a modified 3.0 cal can also be calibrated for larger injectors). It also has nice graphical interfaces and may be easier to understand than some other systems.

Realistically, if you want to have GOOD monitoring and control, you will need to spend a few hundred each on a wideband o2 sensor and a piggyback or standalone. You will also need to throw down some money for injectors, as the stockers will not support much boost at stock fuel pressure.

If you want to keep the project under the $1-2k range and forgo the expensive engine controllers and big injectors, it's certainly POSSIBLE to build a setup that will not blow up with a rising rate fuel pressure regulator and smaller injectors, but this is nowhere near as easy or accurate to tune with, and places greater strain on your fuel pump. Even running that kind of setup without a wideband o2 sensor is likely to end up costing you money in broken parts, so remember that you will have to spend the money on the wideband either way.

turbovanmanČ
07-09-2011, 03:56 AM
Holy crap. This thread needs to hop in the way-back machine and START OVER.

The transmission controller is not built into the SBEC. It is a separate, smaller controller and for all intents and purposes there is not much reason to mess with it.

.

Already said that, :p

There is reason to touch it, Chrysler's shifting is designed for grandma, not for HP use, so it needs to be altered or thrown away.

Kevs02accord
07-09-2011, 03:41 PM
Wow guys, I really appreciate that info, it was very concise and informative. From looking at info for my other project I found most standalones cant control the transmission, things like ame ems, FAST, ms, unless you go 2x ms. If I did get a unit to replace the SBEC engine fxn, but retained the SBEC for transmission control, is it possible to integrate those two systems together, how complex of a task is that? Would you only be concerned about feeding sensors that the transmission needs?

Ondonti
07-09-2011, 03:58 PM
There is a nice $750 dollars transmission controller if you ever get that job. The auto trans route is definitely something that will take more money and create more complication. I would probably write up a budget so you don't run into costs that you did not expect. I mean a really really detailed budget. Sometimes I start talking about things without realizing its out of my price range. I was looking at GM powerglides with lock up converters last night, until i saw a 10k+ price for trans and converter BLAH!

ShelGame
07-09-2011, 04:13 PM
the computer just doesnt have the proper hardware built into the SBEC to handle it, or even have it incorporated.

No, it can handle the hardware. But the software is hard-coded for a 1-bar MAP. It's not a simple task to convert it to 2-bar+...

RoadWarrior222
07-09-2011, 04:24 PM
There is a nice $750 dollars transmission controller if you ever get that job. The auto trans route is definitely something that will take more money and create more complication.

You mean the A604 route... if it's swapped to a 3 speed A670, all the well known and tested Turbo A413 upgrades apply, many of them inexpensive.

Kevs02accord
07-09-2011, 04:55 PM
I agree, it is expensive. I am familiar with the 750 transmission controller, it is very expensive, but the only product I found that could do it. Right now, I am just theory crafting. If its too difficult or not even plausible I might just scrap the whole idea. It seems like since the trans controller is separate it should be able to operate independently of the engine control, however, i would have to be sure that the signals it was looking for where there, which the sensors would be, but I don't know what, if any signals are sent to the trans controller from the engine computer, any idea on that?

For swapping the tranny, would it be a bolt up, or is some mod required? Are the sensors the same?

Ondonti
07-09-2011, 05:15 PM
I am throwing those things out there because he seems to be talking about using a 4 speed. If he wants to run a 3 speed, then its a different game. The 4 speed is not expensive to build if you have the initial investment of a controller or can figure out megashift.

Chris Grimm's Daytona has an a604 that takes abuse that does not have a fancy controller. Pretty sure nitrous is not a transmissions best friend. We really just hate the holding 2 gears at once thing right?

RoadWarrior222
07-09-2011, 06:14 PM
For swapping the tranny, would it be a bolt up, or is some mod required? Are the sensors the same?

Bolts to the motor, no problem, there's some potential sticking points that need investigation, though it's basically a question of which parts off which models best mix and match together. Ideally, the easiest would be to use the SBEC and underhood harness from a '90 vehicle that had an A670, then the SBEC controlled lockup works right, and there's no hacking to the NSS/Reverse switch, which are the only electronics the A670 needs. Though it would work with a manual lockup switch or no lockup and a jumpered NSS. Although I'm not entirely sure whether the current SBEC refers to the crank position sensor or not, or whether that's just for the A604s PCM. The mechanical difficulty might be the front mount, not sure which one needs to be used, whether the current one can be made to work, or it needs one off a 3.0/670 car or van. Also not sure if the starter will need to be swapped. The linkage should need the throttle body, or just the arm and linkage off a 3.0/670 for the kickdown lever, and the shifter, shifter cable and linkage can come off a A413 3 speed car, might want column parts or trim too, and possibly instrument console for indicator needle. Kickdown linkage off a A413 car won't work because of the different TB position on 2.2/2.5 motors.

I've heard of several people doing this to 3.0 minivans when they got ticked off with the A604 breaking for the 3 or 4th time, but in that situation you can get everything off one donor. With cars that didn't have them as an option at all, it needs a bit of piecing together.

Vigo
07-10-2011, 12:25 AM
The biggest issue with the 604 (4spd) is not the 604 itself, it's the TCM version you have (or dont have). Some of them are a lot less power-friendly than others in how they manage the shifting of the trans. Since the 604 is a clutch-to-clutch shifting trans, the engagement and release of the different holding elements has to be tightly controlled so that you dont get 'flare' or binding (being in 2 gears at once). The shift solenoids are modulated or pulsed to control that timing. Some TCMs are a lot faster than others. Basically, the slower the shift, the longer the various elements are slipping between being fully on and fully off, and if you put a bunch of power through the trans at those times, you will burn up the holding elements.

Some 604s shift slow and sloppy as hell. Others dont. Few enough people have ever put power through older 604 cars that there's not much info out there on which is which. Some TCM's are flashable to newer calibrations, and some are not. However, due to lack of interest, the various calibrations havent been collected or compared yet, so trying to get a 604 control scheme that will hold power using a factory TCM is shooting in the dark at this point.

The turbo PT cruiser people and a few swaps in the Neon community have demonstrated the ability of 604s to hold reasonable amounts of power with factory control schemes and lots of power with custom controls..

Anywho, there is not much to lose by running your current trans until it breaks (if ever) if you have a backup plan ready to go. The backup plans are 5spd swap, 3spd swap, or better 604 controls (by far the most difficult).


The vehicle speed sensor you currently have will swap into either of the other two 3.0 trannies. The 3spd auto and 5spd dont have anything else in the way of sensors and only require you to mess with at most 3 wires: a ground for the coil side of the starter relay, and the two wires powering the reverse lights.

Kevs02accord
07-10-2011, 02:02 AM
Yeah, I have heard the 604's are notorious for failure. That's really good to know about the 604 module control, wouldn't be much point to gambling with that. What if I took the a670, swapped in the a413 turbo parts, as suggested, and used that SBEC that came with the a670, with an FIC, or similar piggy back system? What if I used the SBEC from an a413 car?

Any guestimates what the a413, 604, 670 transmissions can handle. What about the 3.0?

I appreciate you guys letting me bounce these ideas off you.

turbovanmanČ
07-10-2011, 02:43 AM
For swapping the tranny, would it be a bolt up, or is some mod required? Are the sensors the same?

Gotta make sure you get the 3.0L trans, as each engine has a different shaped bellhousing.


Yeah, I have heard the 604's are notorious for failure. That's really good to know about the 604 module control, wouldn't be much point to gambling with that. What if I took the a670, swapped in the a413 turbo parts, as suggested, and used that SBEC that came with the a670, with an FIC, or similar piggy back system? What if I used the SBEC from an a413 car?

Any guestimates what the a413, 604, 670 transmissions can handle. What about the 3.0?

I appreciate you guys letting me bounce these ideas off you.

There is no A413 SBEC so to speak, there is slightly different programming for the auto to 5 speed cars but its mostly in the idle speeds.

A413 will take over 1000 whp with the right mods and parts, 670 is a 413 so the same, 604, no idea.

RoadWarrior222
07-10-2011, 02:57 AM
Well the A670 as is, is mostly identical internally to the turbo A413s, both in good condition, will hold into the mid 200s HP I think before the mods get necessary. However, they're faster with the shift kit mods, and extra stress due to motor upgrades on trannies nearing 200,000 miles usually has people with lower power outputs breaking or burning out something or other and hence upgrading parts with the fix.

The A604 might be more weight sensitive than power sensitive, since it seldom seems to give car owners as many problems as minivan owners. The question I always ask myself is, "WTF did/do Bell (Canada) do to their cargo vans that they've used for years, they lug weight daily, and they keep buying them, they must have a severe service package they apply or something" Though it could be that CV A604s have different programming from the outset, probably harsher apply, less "slush". Thinking that way, I might rather source even a well used A604 from a cargo van rather than say a Town and Country luxo barge. Anyhoo, that also theoretically holds into the mid 200s HP wise, having some stock applications where it held 230 or so.

---------- Post added at 02:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 AM ----------

Thinking further on that, would be interesting to know if minivans with a factory tow package had special programming.

RoadWarrior222
07-10-2011, 03:13 AM
A413 will take over 1000 whp with the right mods and parts,

I'd have said 600 "reliably" with the well known mods, minor custom work and off the shelf upgrades, and after that the parts move up into the more custom category with another zero on the price tag. Like special input shafts. Though we have some wizards putting more than 600WHP through them they don't seem to get many passes before they have to fix or rebuild it again. Having said that, at more than about 450 HP axles start to become a common problem for everybody whatever trans they are running. The best OEM axles have been known to hold to 600, the cheaper replacements and remans can be a crap shoot, and some high dollar custom axles don't seem to live up to their promise. Though also axle issues occur at lower outputs because failures are exacerbated by age, incorrect drive-line geometry, worn or incorrectly set up suspension etc etc.

Kevs02accord
07-10-2011, 02:17 PM
So the with mods the a413 seems to be the toughest, to be clear is the a413 automatic or manual? Did the a670 come on a 3.0? If the bell housing is different is there a way to make an adapter or is it too complex? From looking around it seems the newer, 92+ ish transmission controllers were better, and able to be reprogrammed, so that is also a possibility, as mentioned before. If this project comes together I would def be planning on replacing a lot of the older parts, for oem or aftermarket.

Mentioned before was that MegaS could control the transmission, do you know how this is accomplished, or did I misread that?

RoadWarrior222
07-10-2011, 02:59 PM
A413 = 3 speed FWD hydraulically actuated automatic derived from RWD torqueflite design with bellhousing that fits 2.2/2.5 TBI, carb and turbo motors, though the turbo versions have more frictions.

A670 = A413 with a bellhousing that fits a 3.0 V6, friction package similar to A413 turbo version, always has lockup TC, whereas some early A413s don't, and only late turbo versions do.

31TH = A413 for Neons, 2.0, 2.4 bellhousing, though also used to refer to the A670 for 3.0s post 1995, confusing because type number does not specify bellhousing pattern.

A604 or 41TE = 4 speed electronically actuated FWD automatic transaxle, comes with bellhousing either for 3.0, 3.3/3.8 or later 2.0 and 2.4 motors.

For different motors, typically the belhousing boltpattern, starter positioning, maybe the starter and ring gear, flex plate and torque convertor is engine type specific, from the torque convertor through to the wheels from there, everything is interchangeable.

Manuals are a whole different kettle of worms or can of fish that I don't know too much about, however, the 3.0 variants are internally similar to 2.2/2.5 versions, so whatever beef-ups are well known for those versions can be applied.

---------- Post added at 02:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

Oh, "A413" can be used to generically refer to the whole series of engine specific 3 speed autos, A404, A413, A470 A670 Neon 31TH etc... because it was the most common variant I guess.

turbovanmanČ
07-10-2011, 03:06 PM
Kev's accord, check out www.thedodgegarage.com for a break down of the manuals and what is what. The 568 is the 2.2/2.5 variant is called a an A543 for the 3.0L and worth using, its the best 5 speed Dodge made.


I'd have said 600 "reliably" with the well known mods, minor custom work and off the shelf upgrades, and after that the parts move up into the more custom category with another zero on the price tag. Like special input shafts. Though we have some wizards putting more than 600WHP through them they don't seem to get many passes before they have to fix or rebuild it again. Having said that, at more than about 450 HP axles start to become a common problem for everybody whatever trans they are running. The best OEM axles have been known to hold to 600, the cheaper replacements and remans can be a crap shoot, and some high dollar custom axles don't seem to live up to their promise. Though also axle issues occur at lower outputs because failures are exacerbated by age, incorrect drive-line geometry, worn or incorrectly set up suspension etc etc.

Yeah, but he asked how much can they take, :p

I know I abuse the living crap out of mine and it survives, I would I am putting 350-375 thru it.

RoadWarrior222
07-10-2011, 03:24 PM
Did the a670 come on a 3.0?

Yes, dunno if I confuse you more every time I try to clarify something. Yes the A670 came with the 3.0, but it does not appear to have been available in all models that used a 3.0. I see no reliable reference that J body LeBarons ever got it. As far as I know, it was available on Minivans, Dynasty, Spirit and Acclaim. It may have been a special order option on other models, but there may not be very many around, since unless the customer was adamant about wanting it, the salesman probably didn't want to give up the commission on the $100 credit or whatever over the 4 speed version :D

Ondonti
07-10-2011, 09:14 PM
What do you do about the kickdown when your throttlebody is on the wrong side of the motor?

RoadWarrior222
07-10-2011, 09:59 PM
Figure it out with a bowden cable I guess.

---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------

(Bowden cable is name for a flexible steel cable in sleeve type stuff)

bakes
07-10-2011, 10:08 PM
What do you do about the kickdown when your throttlebody is on the wrong side of the motor?
Use one from a B van

Ondonti
07-10-2011, 10:21 PM
so even heavily modified 3 speeds still need kickdown?

RoadWarrior222
07-10-2011, 10:31 PM
unless you wanna just run it on the track, and rig it so it won't change up at low throttle. Or mod the valve body for manual, or buy one.

Ondonti
07-10-2011, 10:38 PM
well how many fast 3 speeds actually shift on their own? I thought the manual valve body was a pretty standard thing.

Vigo
07-11-2011, 12:15 AM
What do you do about the kickdown when your throttlebody is on the wrong side of the motor?

EVERY other 3spd auto setup EXCEPT the 3.0 has a cable, so a cable conversion is really easy. With the way you have your cables routed under the plenum, for example, you could probably even use a stock-length cable.


RW222, i dont think there is anything different about the transmissions or controllers on the tow packages.. the biggest durability difference would be a trans cooler. As far as i can tell (including my 2 yrs in a tranny shop rebuilding 604s), if you put a good cooler on a 604 and change the fluid every once in a while, it will last forever. The one thing that the 604 has always had right is the adaptive controls. The TCM monitors how long it takes various holding elements to apply (by watching the input and output speed sensors) and uses that info to adapt to the wear of the transmission so that it always shifts right no matter how many miles are on it. That's a big deal, because the older stuff, once it starts getting sloppy, is basically wearing itself out a little more every time it tries to shift.

Ive had many 604s and there have been many in the family. Ive had original trannies go as far as 245k even in a 3800lb grand van (turned that one in on cash for clunkers, it still worked), and the only one i have ever actually BROKEN was when i burned up 4th gear clutch pack in my ~240hp intrepid. 4th gear is weak on all of them.

bakes
07-11-2011, 01:14 AM
well how many fast 3 speeds actually shift on their own? I thought the manual valve body was a pretty standard thing.
most bracket racers let the trans shift for them .

turbovanmanČ
07-11-2011, 01:18 AM
What do you do about the kickdown when your throttlebody is on the wrong side of the motor?

Not sure how much room you have but run a 2.2/2.5 throttle body, bracket and a custom length cable.


so even heavily modified 3 speeds still need kickdown?

Yep, unless you run a manual valve body.


well how many fast 3 speeds actually shift on their own? I thought the manual valve body was a pretty standard thing.

Mines fully auto, I only shift from 1-2, then let the trans shift 2-3. Of course on the street, I just let it shift, too lazy to keep moving the lever, lol.

Vigo
07-11-2011, 01:38 AM
Not sure how much room you have but run a 2.2/2.5 throttle body

Why a 2.2/2.5 tb? They're WAY too small for a 3.0, especially turbo. The 3.0 TB is pretty much exactly the same thing anyway.. if you want a 3.0 tb with the extra groove on the throttle arm for the second cable, just get a tb from a 3.0, 3.3, 3.8 car with 604. The 58mm tb from later 3.8s is the biggest 'bolt-on' tb for the 3.0 (does require porting of the plenum) and already has the groove for the cable, so it'd be the one to get for ANY trans setup on a 3.0, whether 3, 4, or 5spd. If you want a TB bigger than that you will have to be doing some extra work anyway and the TV cable would just be a part of that.

turbovanmanČ
07-11-2011, 02:14 AM
Why a 2.2/2.5 tb? They're WAY too small for a 3.0, especially turbo. The 3.0 TB is pretty much exactly the same thing anyway.. if you want a 3.0 tb with the extra groove on the throttle arm for the second cable, just get a tb from a 3.0, 3.3, 3.8 car with 604. The 58mm tb from later 3.8s is the biggest 'bolt-on' tb for the 3.0 (does require porting of the plenum) and already has the groove for the cable, so it'd be the one to get for ANY trans setup on a 3.0, whether 3, 4, or 5spd. If you want a TB bigger than that you will have to be doing some extra work anyway and the TV cable would just be a part of that.

Why, because they came with the correct arm or find a 3.0L car with the A670 if you want to get picky, :p. If you use the 58mm t/b, you have to weld the arm on as no 3speed van got the 58mm and the factory arm is riveted on, :(

Vigo
07-11-2011, 05:04 AM
But that would be if you wanted to keep the rod linkage for some reason instead of just grabbing one of the cables and bolting it on (1 bolt..). The OP doesnt have the rod linkage in the first place and i dont think he should WANT to get it, either.. :p

Ondonti
07-11-2011, 05:43 AM
I would rather superglue on the extra groove then use a 2.2/2.5 tb on a 3.0. If there are cable setups then it doesn't sound too difficult to figure out.

RoadWarrior222
07-11-2011, 09:29 AM
What about Jeep TBs that were on a torquflite-ish tranny, would they have a cable arm on already?

Does seem to make sense to use a cable setup if you're adding kickdown rather than suffering that sloppy rod.

---------- Post added at 09:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 AM ----------

I guess I wanna get the cable figured... I've got this idea bout running dual 48mms...

Vigo
07-11-2011, 11:51 AM
There's a guy on the other site running dual TBs on a 3.0.

4.0 TBs can be adapted to a 3.0 FAIRLY easily and afaik they have provisions for the TV cable as well.

turbovanmanČ
07-11-2011, 01:33 PM
But that would be if you wanted to keep the rod linkage for some reason instead of just grabbing one of the cables and bolting it on (1 bolt..). The OP doesnt have the rod linkage in the first place and i dont think he should WANT to get it, either.. :p

Correct, but if he want's to put a 3 speed in, he has to run cable hence why he has to source one from a cable equipped car/van, :p

RoadWarrior222
07-11-2011, 06:10 PM
By the way, as best I can figure, from poking around fueleconomy.gov apart from vans '87 to '2000 the only cars that had A670s in were C bodies in '87 as only auto, 88? 89??? then AA bodies got them optional in 92 up, and they were the sole auto for the final year, '95. That means if you hear of a 87 3.0 Dynasty or 95 3.0 Spirit, it's guaranteed to have one in.

Ondonti
07-12-2011, 03:39 AM
Wasn't the 1995 AA almost always a fleet vehicle?

48mmx2 is actually kinda small from what many of us have been talking about. Get some MS on there!

RoadWarrior222
07-12-2011, 10:17 AM
well, 48x2 is more than 52x1... and I've already got 'em, came with a bunch of spares I bought at a yard sale...

---------- Post added at 10:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 AM ----------

Dunno about the fleet thing for '95 but there seems to be a few around up here on kijiji classifieds.

Vigo
07-12-2011, 01:52 PM
If you want a simple dual tb setup buy it off a 1st gen 3.5 LH car (intrepid et al). They're physically almost identical to the 3.0 tbs (around 48mm but havent measured) except that have no idle motor provision and they come with a shaft setup. I modified some 52s to use the shaft setup when i had my intrepid so i had 52x2, and it made a difference on that motor.

Anyway if you use that setup you dont have to build a shaft setup or run 2 cables, but your tbs have to be parallel to each other and the shaft might need to be shortened.

RoadWarrior222
07-12-2011, 02:12 PM
I always wanted to have a really good look at that setup. Wouldn't work for how I'm contemplating a twin turbo (at some distant point in time on a vehicle I haven't got) but might work for my N/A setup. Ima thinking lazy, might put a plenum on the back, and a plenum on the front, (bolted to opposite side) with the other holes blanked...

... though I want some kind of electromechanical actuator to disengage the linkage to the front bank and let the TB close (Shadetree DOD project)

Vigo
07-12-2011, 02:18 PM
Id rather be doing that with simple switches in the injector control circuits and just not care what the air does..

Anyway, i recommend you go look up that guy on the other site that has the dual tbs and plenums like what you are imagining. I considered doing it for a long time but by the time i had a 3.0 car to play with, it had been done. Got to find some other area to wow the newbs now.

RoadWarrior222
07-12-2011, 02:27 PM
Yes, the injector switch will be done, that is aimed at improving efficiency while that bank is cut rather than the sole means to cut it.

Sundance 6g72
07-12-2011, 03:05 PM
If you want a simple dual tb setup buy it off a 1st gen 3.5 LH car (intrepid et al). They're physically almost identical to the 3.0 tbs (around 48mm but havent measured) except that have no idle motor provision.

what do you mean by no idle motor provision? is their no idle motor? i need a throttle body with the idle valve blocked off.. its making my idle go crazy (1500rpms) i like manually setting the idle with the throttle stop.

Vigo
07-12-2011, 11:44 PM
The idle motor is separate.. it screws into the intake manifold itself (on those cars).

On all my manual trans cars, i just unplug the brake booster line (major vacuum leak), wait for the rpm to go back down after shooting up (idle motor closing), and then unplug the idle motor and set idle with the set screw. Some people here have mentioned them backing out by themselves and letting air through again.. I dont think that's very likely and it's never happened to me.

If you wanted for some reason to completely get rid of the idle motor you could just fill the passages with epoxy and then sand it flat. I had to do that with my dual 52s on the intrepid because the AIS part of the TB was interfering with the valve cover and i had to saw it off, leaving those holes wide open until epoxy.:D

Sundance 6g72
07-13-2011, 12:00 AM
it does actually back out and ive tested it

the weird part is that last summer i ran 3 months with out it backing its self out. plugged it in during the winter and then once summer hit again i unplugged it and did the break booster thing and it works at first but after a hard run it backs its self out.

ill just plug it back in and have MS wired into it.. that should fix it :duh

Vigo
07-13-2011, 12:43 AM
Thats interesting considering my first 5spd swap i did that to ran for years without backing out. If i knew i was never going to run the AIS motor again, id get it where it was closed and then 'set' it there with a self-tapping sheetmetal screw, or a hammer.. or something like that. :p

bond_bbs
07-13-2011, 07:41 AM
You could always put a jam nut on it. Set it where you want it, and tighten the jam nut against the adjuster. Just enough pressure to keep it from backing out on its own, and would be reversible if needed moving / removing - instead of the hammer / sheet metal screw idea.

Sundance 6g72
07-13-2011, 10:17 AM
ive had a few ideas but the current throttle body im using has its screws stripped out from HELL

my other throttle body was given to a friend to replace his ridiculous 2.2 throttle body...

i need to get a different one though.. mine has the sensor pointing at my coolant hose (plenum plug) and i cant go any thicker on the spacers.. so theres deff some rubbing. some of the other 52mm TBs dont have there sensor pointed that way and would work way better for me

sorry for the thread jack, ill go now :P

c2xejk
07-13-2011, 12:18 PM
On the dual throttle bodies. I briefly ran dual 46's then jumped up to dual 58's. The 58's make the throttle VERY touchy. If I were to run it much longer a progressive cam linkage would be in order.

I am trying to bring down vacuum at WOT and dual 58s helped, but are not enough so I am starting to look toward dual 70's.

As for the best way, do what I did and weld a second cable linkage onto the pedal and run a second cable. That keeps your options open for which TB you run and how you position them...

Sundance, on your TB, probably going to need to drill or cut the bolt heads off. The other direction would be to find another TB, 52s tend to be fairly cheap on ebay.


Ed Kelly - www.kmperformance.com

RoadWarrior222
07-13-2011, 12:32 PM
As for the best way, do what I did and weld a second cable linkage onto the pedal and run a second cable. That keeps your options open for which TB you run and how you position them...

You dirty rotten cheat :thumb: ..... now I'm considering it, any balancing issues?

On the WOT vacuum thing... just because it's the elephant.... you are also checking vacuum behind the filter right?

bond_bbs
07-13-2011, 12:39 PM
Drill and retap the hole, and just find a larger bolt.

c2xejk
07-13-2011, 12:50 PM
You dirty rotten cheat :thumb: ..... now I'm considering it, any balancing issues?

So far no. I have a "balancing" tube between the two plenums. I slotted the TB mounting brackets so I could put the same closed TB tension on both cables.


On the WOT vacuum thing... just because it's the elephant.... you are also checking vacuum behind the filter right?

Yeah I checked there back when I was still running dual 46s, or maybe it was when I was running a single 68.

Ondonti
07-13-2011, 03:53 PM
What about a balance tube and, run one progressive TB, run one non progressive TB, and delay the normal TB. That sounds like a fun combo to get working :) Might work better then just delaying one all the way till WOT.
My new severe progressive setup has made the bottom end actually feel soggy with a little single 58mm. Running both progressive would probably work just fine on Dual 70's.

Sundance 6g72
07-13-2011, 06:48 PM
Sundance, on your TB, probably going to need to drill or cut the bolt heads off. The other direction would be to find another TB, 52s tend to be fairly cheap on ebay.


Ed Kelly - www.kmperformance.com (http://www.kmperformance.com)

im just going to get a new throttle body. My current one is a major PAIN to take off so i think what im going to do is get a different 52mm and polish up the inside real nice like and then ill find a lock nut that will fit in the idle passage and see if that keeps it in place. Once i have the new throttle body all nice like ill go ahaid and install it.


edit: also, the current one positions the idle motor in a weird way.. my idle sensor hits my coolant line and the solution is thicker plenum spacers (p body has mine maxed at .5inches) or i could get a TB that positions the sensor differently.. my friends 52mm has the position i need.. just need to find out in the yard and the owner will let it go for cheep.