what size injectors?....or do i need a custom cal?

[capev86]

hey gang,

having trouble finding a good write up to determine what i need on my 86 k wagon:

2.5 T1 motor (mild port/polish and valve work at most)
T2 garret turbo, i/c and plumbing
92 sbec II 5spd electronics
ported exhaust manifold
TU 3" swing valve
3" exhaust

figure with just the bigger factory turbo and i/c the electronics could probably compensate, but with the extra flow of the big exhaust also i'm thinking it might run a bit lean when i get on the throttle. if a 2.5 T1 uses the same injectors as the 2.2 T2, then my first impression is that +20's would be good on a 2.5 T2 especially with the big exhaust. but i don't want it to run pig rich under normal operation and crap everything up (and waste gas). i might go with a fwd-p stage 3 cal after a bit but i want a good (and simple) game plan in the meanwhile.

[shadow88]

The boost level will play a large factor in your decision. If you're keeping under the factory cut out, I think the stock 33 pounders would be good. Do you have an air/fuel monitor?

[Force Fed Mopar]

The T2 turbo is the same as the T1 log turbo, just has different cover and turbine housing. So it is not going to flow any more air. With what you have listed, you could run all stock components. Unless you are planning on running more than 14psi.

[cordes]

The 92 electronics are going to kill you when it comes to custom cals. I think that Rob may have something for them now, but there is not the support of even the SBEC I stuff there. It would behoove you in the long run to change a couple of pins in the harness and get a regular turbo SBEC.

[turbovanman²]

If your running the one piece intake, 12-14 psi of boost, the stock 2.5T1 injectors are fine, if your planning on going higher in boost, then get some +20's, if your planning on a bigger turbo down the road, go +40's.

[capev86]

i was thinking because the 2.5 is bigger than a 2.2 and will have much better flow thanks to my mods that it would need more fuel even under the factory boost cutoff. other than the big exhaust, i want it to look like a factory mopar setup under the hood (reason why i'm using the original t2 plumbing also). i think if i go for more power in the future, i'll just go the same route as cliff ramsdell and build a 2.5 TIII motor....i have long dreamed of doing the same thing with my k wagon. but that is a lot of $$$ so i want to get the

as for gauges.....i'm using a set of 2-1/16 vdo vision units......tach, oil press, vac/boots, and egt. will mount them in the lower dash panel on either side of the steering column. i'm really pushing for that clean factory appearance. maybe an air-fuel monitor would fit nicely in place of the gear shift indicator since i won't need that with a 5spd.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Is your computer a 2.2 computer? If so, then you will need to either socket it and run a custom cal, or get a 2.5 computer.

[capev86]

will likely be the factory 2.5 SBEC II 5spd cal since i'm currently in the works to buy the comp and harness from the gentleman on here parting the 92 Iroc. i know i wanted the high torque programming and i read somewhere that the programing of the sbec II is far more sophisticated than the sbec 1 code. so figured i'd jump on a good deal when i saw one. fwd-p carries modded cals for the sbec II cars when i'm ready to step it up. but really i figure in a car as light as a k wagon, with a 5spd, 2.5 but with the better flow of the T2 setup and with a full 3" exhaust it should be pretty spunky (around 6 sec 0-60) and still have good economy (30+ mpg).

i was thinking because the 2.5 T1 non intercooled uses the same size injectors as the 2.2 with the bigger turbo and intercooler, that a 2.5 with all those extras AND a big exhaust would run kinda lean without stepping up the calibration or injector size. it would be great if the 33pph injectors and stock programming can cover the extra flow without incident.

[turbovanman²]

As we've said earlier, the SBEC II is a b*tch to tune, I don't think Shelgame has broken the code yet, same with FWD so your going to be very limited on what you can do.

2.2 TII uses the same injectors as the 2.5T1. Those injectors will support minor mods.

If your going TIII in the future and need to buy injectors now, which if your staying stock you don't need to, then get +40's.

[capev86]

then fwd-p is lying because they are selling stage 1, 2 and 3 ecu's for sbec II.

so you are saying that the T2 setup and big exhaust fall under "minor mods" and the stock size injectors and T1 programming will support it?

i will go all out when (and if) i go to a 2.5 TIII arrangement. but for now i just want to mix and match the best of what mopar had for a clean setup (big engine, big turbo, intercooler) and just free it up on the exhaust side. my guess is 200+hp and 250+ tq....not too shabby in a 2700 pound grocery getter with a stick shift! should make for a good conversation piece at classic cars shows AND the local tuner events. be kinda funny driving my 72 Suburban C20 for Team 207 club events!

[tryingbe]

A.J. runs 17psi with his 2.5L with Garret and stock T1 injectors. Wideband says it's fine.

[turbovanman²]

then fwd-p is lying because they are selling stage 1, 2 and 3 ecu's for sbec II.

so you are saying that the T2 setup and big exhaust fall under "minor mods" and the stock size injectors and T1 programming will support it?

i will go all out when (and if) i go to a 2.5 TIII arrangement. but for now i just want to mix and match the best of what mopar had for a clean setup (big engine, big turbo, intercooler) and just free it up on the exhaust side. my guess is 200+hp and 250+ tq....not too shabby in a 2700 pound grocery getter with a stick shift! should make for a good conversation piece at classic cars shows AND the local tuner events. be kinda funny driving my 72 Suburban C20 for Team 207 club events!

Yes they do, but maybe for a 2.5 TIII or something wilder, it could be tough.
If running a TIII, you'll need a TIII computer. I would contact Cindy and ask about how far she can go on the SBEC II.

So then run the stock injectors, stock 2.5 computer, maybe a 255 fuel pump and an AFPR if you need tad more fuel and be done with until you get the bigger engine.

I would run a wideband or the Dawes AF gauge or both.

[Force Fed Mopar]

so...you don't know how much boost you want to run?

IMO, the only real mods you have listed are the exhaust parts, and those alone will not change it enough to have to worry about running out of fuel, IF you are not going beyond stock boost levels, IE 14psi. If you want to go to 18ish, then you will need at least a 3-bar map and probably +20's, to do it right. Or you could hack tune it w/ a AFPR or 5th injector :) The stock computers are rich at WOT already (probably to allow for minor mods), and the O2 feedback will take care of the idle and cruise/part-throttle.

[capev86]

yeah, i was thinking i'd stick with stock boost levels for now to get it running good. i might go with the stage 3 cal and a few other bits if i feel the need for more power. but seriously, how much power does one need in a daily driver? i have a 5 mile commute door to door for work (at 35mph and less) and sit in traffic for 10-15 minutes. but i do make occasional trips to boston or up maine and with all that low end torque i know i'm gonna want a 568/523 hybrid w/ 3.50 FD. and the 92 568's steeper first gear would make up the difference!

i will look into the afpr and definitely planning to use an in tank pump with plenty of volume to spare. would a 3 bar map work with stock sbec II electronics? i heard the sbec II was supposed be more precise and more adaptive on the fly than older ecu's due to the more advanced programming (i.e no more lookup tables). perhaps i was wrong?

[Force Fed Mopar]

SBEC II is more advanced, but Shelgame hasn't cracked all the code on it yet, which means no open source tuning options. Not sure what FWD-P does about it. 3-bar map is not compatible w/ the stock cal, it has to be rescaled for the 3-bar. Only downfall I see w/ the stock computer and map is the overboost cutout. Other than that, it'd be fine w/ 14-15 psi.

[A.J.]

I'm running a 2.5, stock T-II turbo with the .48 exhaust housing, TU 3" swing valve and exhaust, self ported head and exhaust manifold, one piece intake, Toyota Supra intercooler with 2" pipes, 19 lbs of boost (when ambient is cool enough), with stock 2.5 T-I injectors (33 pph), and my wide band doesn't read leaner than 11:1.

You really need to buy a wide band so you don't have to guess. You will not regret it and it's money well spent. I wouldn't worry about how "precise" the SBEC II is. You'd be better off running a SMEC or a SBEC because of all the support that is available for those two.

A.J

[ShelGame]

As we've said earlier, the SBEC II is a b*tch to tune, I don't think Shelgame has broken the code yet, same with FWD so your going to be very limited on what you can do.

2.2 TII uses the same injectors as the 2.5T1. Those injectors will support minor mods.

If your going TIII in the future and need to buy injectors now, which if your staying stock you don't need to, then get +40's.

I'm very close to finishing the SBECII code. It is much more sophisticated than the earler stuff. But, making a Stage.II type cal should be easy enough. The 33pph injectors will be fine for anything you can do with a 2-bar cal with either a 2.2 or 2.5. If you're going to go past 15psi (or 200hp), I would upgrade to +20's or +40's. But, it's not needed below that.

[capev86]

awesome, and awesome to know there is a cal guru out there when i'm ready to step it up a bit or even just to fine tune things to my application. never seen your website before....added it to my bookmark list!

[turbovanman²]

i will look into the afpr and definitely planning to use an in tank pump with plenty of volume to spare. would a 3 bar map work with stock sbec II electronics? i heard the sbec II was supposed be more precise and more adaptive on the fly than older ecu's due to the more advanced programming (i.e no more lookup tables). perhaps i was wrong?

3 bar won't work with stock fuel injectors but does make +40's seem like stockers but that's another discussion, just stick the 2 bar for now.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------


I'm very close to finishing the SBECII code.

Awesome, :hail:

[Directconnection]

As we've said earlier, the SBEC II is a b*tch to tune, I don't think Shelgame has broken the code yet, same with FWD so your going to be very limited on what you can do.


He wants the '92 SBEC because he thinks there's an advantage due to it dubbed the "High Torque" sbec.

I have mentioned to him in the past that it has nothing to do with the tune that nets the "high torque" thing... it's due to the fact that the boost is allowed to come on sooner due to the 568 that the car would have been equipped with. This earlier allowable boost is also had on other computers with just a simple G-valve.

[cordes]

He wants the '92 SBEC because he thinks there's an advantage due to it dubbed the "High Torque" sbec.

I have mentioned to him in the past that it has nothing to do with the tune that nets the "high torque" thing... it's due to the fact that the boost is allowed to come on sooner due to the 568 that the car would have been equipped with. This earlier allowable boost is also had on other computers with just a simple G-valve.

I thought it had a couple extra lbs. of boost too?

[turbovanman²]

He wants the '92 SBEC because he thinks there's an advantage due to it dubbed the "High Torque" sbec.

I have mentioned to him in the past that it has nothing to do with the tune that nets the "high torque" thing... it's due to the fact that the boost is allowed to come on sooner due to the 568 that the car would have been equipped with. This earlier allowable boost is also had on other computers with just a simple G-valve.

Ahhhhhhhhh, and yeah, simple MBC or an EBC will do the same.

[ShelGame]

He wants the '92 SBEC because he thinks there's an advantage due to it dubbed the "High Torque" sbec.

I have mentioned to him in the past that it has nothing to do with the tune that nets the "high torque" thing... it's due to the fact that the boost is allowed to come on sooner due to the 568 that the car would have been equipped with. This earlier allowable boost is also had on other computers with just a simple G-valve.

Yep. No difference between a HT cal and a G-Valve stock cal...

[cordes]

Thanks for the clarification on that guys. Very interesting.

[capev86]

the sbec II parts were available so i'm jumping on them. i do know that the high torque program came out in 91 on the sbec I and also that you can cheat the computer with a g-valve. but sbec II is still a newer generation operating system and therefore more sophisticated (and as i understand it, can adjust on the fly better) . i really just wanted to know if a factory 2.5 T1 cal and injectors could handle my planned mods and i thank all you guys for chiming in!

and Steve....gonna have to get up to your place in the next few months and talk ported manifolds and cylinder heads. right now i'm still having "fun" locating a rust free donor 4 door for fixing up my k wagon so the resto guy can get started!

[Force Fed Mopar]

Yep. No difference between a HT cal and a G-Valve stock cal...

So, there is a difference, but the difference does the same thing as a g-valve on a stock cal? Must be a difference in the wastegate control.

[turbovanman²]

the sbec II parts were available so i'm jumping on them. i do know that the high torque program came out in 91 on the sbec I and also that you can cheat the computer with a g-valve. but sbec II is still a newer generation operating system and therefore more sophisticated (and as i understand it, can adjust on the fly better) . i really just wanted to know if a factory 2.5 T1 cal and injectors could handle my planned mods and i thank all you guys for chiming in!

and Steve....gonna have to get up to your place in the next few months and talk ported manifolds and cylinder heads. right now i'm still having "fun" locating a rust free donor 4 door for fixing up my k wagon so the resto guy can get started!

Agreed, not sure its worth any power though but with Rob cracking the code, and if the price is right, go for it, :nod:

[Force Fed Mopar]

SBEC-II does have sequential injection at least, so it may get slightly better mileage.

[Directconnection]

and Steve....gonna have to get up to your place in the next few months and talk ported manifolds and cylinder heads. right now i'm still having "fun" locating a rust free donor 4 door for fixing up my k wagon so the resto guy can get started!

No problemo. I can do it for you, or I can show you how to do it yourself.

As for the more sophisticated SBEC II stuff, it may be true.... but remember how dated these engines are. From what I have been told years ago, a basic T-I SMEC has far more capability than anything aftermarket *if* you delve deep enough and know how to use it. In other words: the T-I SMEC's full potential probably hasn't even been tapped by us, yet there are numerous cals out there now that will out perform the later '92+ stuff (they are more tried and true) and are making 300, 400, and 500whp.

So don't get me wrong, out of all the turbo SBECs and SMECs I've had and sold in year's past, the '92 T-I SBEC I currently have still gets me wet in the pantz when I pull it down from the shelf because of it's rarity (and it probably is better...)

But I think you need to understand something since you've mentioned "on the fly" tuning or what I believe it is properly called: "Adaptives" (someone correct me if I'm wrong....) Adaptives are really only happening in closed loop. WOT becomes open loop and ignores sensor data, therefore WOT (and cold start conditions) are set in stone in your calibration (factory as well) or "look up tables" I've heard people refer to them before. So, there are no WOT adaptives happening that I am aware of, hence no real significant advantage from a performance point of view. And, I'm not really sure you want an adaptive to learn WOT fueling and timing on the fly, especially with a turbo. (can't imagine it can respond fast enough) There is a fuel/spark controller on the market that claims this in a recent Hot Rod magazine....

FWIW: my custom cal VNT computer *seemed* like it had WOT adaptives, as the car ran stronger every day until after the 4th or 5th day since unplugging the battery. VNT control adaptives at wot keeping the vanes in optimum position over time?

I know this turned into something other than a fuel injector recommendation (sorry).

If it were me, I'd go with a 3 bar calibration and probably get +40s. But it's really dependent on what boost and power level you want to run.

[Force Fed Mopar]

No problemo. I can do it for you, or I can show you how to do it yourself.

As for the more sophisticated SBEC II stuff, it may be true.... but remember how dated these engines are. From what I have been told years ago, a basic T-I SMEC has far more capability than anything aftermarket *if* you delve deep enough and know how to use it. In other words: the T-I SMEC's full potential probably hasn't even been tapped by us, yet there are numerous cals out there now that will out perform the later '92+ stuff and are making 300, 400, and 500whp.

So don't get me wrong, out of all the turbo SBECs and SMECs I've had and sold in year's ast, the '92 T-I SBEC I currently have still gets me wet in the pantz when I pull it down from the shelf.

But I think you need to understand something since you've mentioned "on the fly" tuning or what I believe it is properly called: "Adaptives" (someone correct me if I'm wrong....) Adaptives are really only happening in closed loop. WOT becomes open loop and ignores sensor data, therefore WOT (and cold start conditions) are set in stone in your calibration (factory as well) or "look up tables" I've heard people refer to them before. So, there are no WOT adaptives happening that I am aware of, hence no real significant advantage from a performance point of view. And, I'm not really sure you want an adaptive to learn WOT fueling and timing on the fly, especially with a turbo. (can't imagine it can respond fast enough) There is a fuel/spark controller on the market that claims this in a recent Hot Rod magazine....

I know this turned into something other than a fuel injector recommendation (sorry).

If it were me, I'd go with a 3 bar calibration and probably get +40s. But it's really dependent on what boost and power level you want to run.

This is pretty much correct. Although, by that reasoning, the SBEC's should have even more potential, as I am sure Chrysler wouldn't go backwards in computing power. But as you say, it hasn't really been cracked yet. The SMEC has been out longer, and used by more people, as the code was probably easier to break than the SBEC and the LM's don't have the computing power (although they still work well). So I think the SBEC will eventually be the cat's meow for these cars, once Rob get's the code figured out and people start playing around with it.

[turbovanman²]

SBEC-II does have sequential injection at least, so it may get slightly better mileage.

SBEC is sequential.

[Force Fed Mopar]

SBEC is sequential.

Yeah I couldn't remember the difference between SBEC and SBEC-II.

[tryingbe]

Sequential suppose to offer 1mpg advantage over batch firing.

[turbovanman²]

Sequential suppose to offer 1mpg advantage over batch firing.

And a smoother idle.

[ShelGame]

FWIW: my custom cal VNT computer *seemed* like it had WOT adaptives, as the car ran stronger every day until after the 4th or 5th day since unplugging the battery. VNT control adaptives at wot keeping the vanes in optimum position over time?

Yes, the boost control has adaptives, too. For the VNT I can believe this would result in more performance over time...

[ShelGame]

FWIW, I'm making daily progress on the code. I hope to have the disassy done this week.

[A.J.]

FWIW, I'm making daily progress on the code. I hope to have the disassy done this week.

Does that mean you'll have something on the 92-95 V-8 Magnum cals done soon. *crossing fingers*

A.J.

[ShelGame]

Does that mean you'll have something on the 92-95 V-8 Magnum cals done soon. *crossing fingers*

A.J.

Probably not. It's SBECII, but the code is a whole different animal...

[A.J.]

Probably not. It's SBECII, but the code is a whole different animal...

Oh. Poopy.

A.J.

[Murphy]

I'm getting into this a bit late, but I would think the easiest option of a cal would be to do a t2 conversion on your current harness and use an 87 LM scaled for a 2.5. Converting over to a 92 harness and getting it to work with your dash harness sounds like a pain.

[A.J.]

I'm getting into this a bit late, but I would think the easiest option of a cal would be to do a t2 conversion on your current harness and use an 87 LM scaled for a 2.5. Converting over to a 92 harness and getting it to work with your dash harness sounds like a pain.

Or he could do this and run a SMEC: http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?41973-LM-PM-to-SMEC-conversion-w-o-rewiring-the-car&highlight=

A.J.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Does that mean you'll have something on the 92-95 V-8 Magnum cals done soon. *crossing fingers*

A.J.


Probably not. It's SBECII, but the code is a whole different animal...


Oh. Poopy.

A.J.

My words exactly lol, I have a '93 Ram w/ a 5.2 5-spd I'm itching to tune :)