HEAD vs HEAD 2.2 turbo = stock vs Ed Peters

[Johnny]

Took a photo of a head that Ed Peters did for me 20 years ago and a stock head.
Ed's on the left.

[tryingbe]

My "presumed" FM head looks a lot like it.

http://thelostartof.net/tryingbe/dodge/omniproject/2016/headblock/IMG_9279.jpg

[Johnny]

Back cut from the valves...right. I think also he softened the edge on the ridge on the lower side.

[shackwrrr]

Looks the same as my FM head, I recognize the exhaust valve. Should also have the little wear caps that go on the valve tip.

[black86glhs]

That is exactly how I cleaned up the chamber on both of my heads. Great minds think alike!!

[wheming]

Thanks for these pics, i don't think I've seen them all side by side before. That helps, understand what is done to the swirl head chambers anyway.

[Vigo]

Sharp angles = hot spots. Get rid of them. What is everyone else seeing?

[Johnny]

That, plus un-shrouding the valves.

[mopar-tech]

"laying back" the chamber softens the pressure rise inherent in the fast burn head making it more resistant to knock.

[shadow88]

"laying back" the chamber softens the pressure rise inherent in the fast burn head making it more resistant to knock.

Wouldn't the smaller quench pad do the opposite?

[Johnny]

Wouldn't it also open up the area for the gases to get in and out?

[Vigo]

Wouldn't the smaller quench pad do the opposite?

I'm not sure if the 'quench pad' area of a 782 pad actually does any quenching with the stock piston-to-head clearance being so large?

[mopar-tech]

Wouldn't it also open up the area for the gases to get in and out?

It does that as well.

[zin]

Looks like something is going on next to the spark plug (6 O'clockish) to the intake valve on the FM head... or is it just me /the angle?

Mike

[5DIGITS]

A few thoughts...
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59734&stc=1

[Force Fed Mopar]

A few thoughts...
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59734&stc=1

By fill in, I assume you mean weld up and grind/machine to desired contour

[5DIGITS]

By fill in, I assume you mean weld up and grind/machine to desired contour

Correct.
The long side corner (as the intake charge exits from the bowl into the chamber) is too sharp of a turn.
At that point, the charge becomes disrupted and is a significant contributor to fuel washing on the cylinder wall.
Additionally, it is lacks any contribution to squish for knock suppression and/or centralized burn within the chamber.

[Johnny]

So the left side should kind of match the right side.... right? (lower part of the photo)

[5DIGITS]

So the left side should kind of match the right side.... right? (lower part of the photo)

Somewhat - yes.
Here's a decent reference chamber.
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59738&stc=1
Also worth noting... The intake valve is flat which is indicative of a 'nail-head' valve - great for intake flow but horrific for the exhaust.
On the other hand, the exhaust valve is relieved in support of a high tulip - great for the exhaust but horrific for the intake.
Also notice the exhaust valve sits higher relative to the intake valve - low margin is needed for the intake while a wider than normal margin is appreciated on the exhaust.
In fact, the MP exhaust valves fall far shy of what's needed regarding a high tulip valve - this alone is worth 12-15cfm @ 25" on the exhaust side.
This along with serious porting effort on the exhaust is the only way to achieve 200cfm @25" flow through the exhaust vs the typical 170-175cfm on most ported heads.

[OmniLuvr]

Somewhat - yes.
Here's a decent reference chamber.
Also worth noting... The intake valve is flat which is indicative of a 'nail-head' valve - great for intake flow but horrific for the exhaust.
On the other hand, the exhaust valve is relieved in support of a high tulip - great for the exhaust but horrific for the intake.
In fact, the MP exhaust valves fall far shy of what's needed regarding a high tulip valve - this alone is worth 12-15cfm @ 25" on the exhaust side.
This along with serious porting effort on the exhaust is the only way to achieve 200cfm @25" flow through the exhaust vs the typical 170-175cfm on most ported heads.

nice info...


I'm not sure if the 'quench pad' area of a 782 pad actually does any quenching with the stock piston-to-head clearance being so large?

^I believe this, plus the shape of both 2.2 and 2.5 "turbo" pistons have very little area to work with the quench pad (is this what you meant, or are you talking about "squish" distance from top of piston to quench pad?)

[5DIGITS]

nice info...
I believe this, plus the shape of both 2.2 and 2.5 "turbo" pistons have very little area to work with the quench pad (is this what you meant, or are you talking about "squish" distance from top of piston to quench pad?)

Yes - with little area to work with, whatever can be achieved becomes critical.
Already knowing the excessive thickness of our head gaskets, anything that can be done to improve these areas provides significant return on investment.

[Force Fed Mopar]

So basically, the ideal head might look like a bathtub head on one side and a modded swirl on the other?

[wheming]

So basically, the ideal head might look like a bathtub head on one side and a modded swirl on the other?

I'm glad someone else thought it looked like a bathtub style chamber! I was thinking the same thing.
I'm sure there is much more to it though!

[OmniLuvr]

I'm glad someone else thought it looked like a bathtub style chamber! I was thinking the same thing.
I'm sure there is much more to it though!

or not that much more to it ;)

[shackwrrr]

Here is the FM head that is on my van.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=59769&stc=1

[Johnny]

Re-post the photo.....

[Force Fed Mopar]

I'm glad someone else thought it looked like a bathtub style chamber! I was thinking the same thing.
I'm sure there is much more to it though!

Actually now that I think about it more, it'd probably look more like an old wedge on the plug side, and the modded swirl on the other. Look at the FM head just posted and imagine the bevel on the exhaust side continued over to the intake side. I'd probably fill in the top of that side to where it would be flush with the head deck surface for quench purposes. Or maybe with a slight angle towards the center.

[5DIGITS]

It is much like starting with a 'G' or bathtub chamber but one item that is beneficial on the FB is the shallower chamber.
This provides an improvement on the short side turn due to the seat rings being further into the chamber and the gain on the port radius.
It's minimal but every little bit counts.

[Warren Stramer]

It is much like starting with a 'G' or bathtub chamber but one item that is beneficial on the FB is the shallower chamber.
This provides an improvement on the short side turn due to the seat rings being further into the chamber and the gain on the port radius.
It's minimal but every little bit counts.

I will have to agree with everything you have posted in this thread. The best 8V head for performance would have had attributes from both castings.
I have found the G head to be easier to make close to right. The next head I do will be a Swirl, but not for me, for a friend.

The best performing chamber I have done ended up like this.............

[83scamp]

I will have to agree with everything you have posted in this thread. The best 8V head for performance would have had attributes from both castings.
I have found the G head to be easier to make close to right. The next head I do will be a Swirl, but not for me, for a friend.

The best performing chamber I have done ended up like this.............


Warren,

Everything you do is pure art. I wish I had the skills and talent to do what you do.

I am soaking up everything in this thread. The timing couldn't be more perfect, as I'm preparing to get started on my latest motor build. This information is priceless.

I do have a question for all you guru's though. I know we are talking about theoretical best chambers, but if you guys are suggesting filling in the chambers for better quench, what do you do about compression ratio? Doing that is going to raise it tremendously correct? And if so, how do you compensate? Larger dish in the piston? If so, doesn't that negate the squish you are trying to create by modifying the chamber?

Sorry for the newby type questions, just hoping to expand my knowledge of combustion chambers...:)

[Johnny]

^^^^^^ good question!!!

[zin]

Shape the dish in the piston to mirror the chamber, set the pin height to achieve proper quench with the gasket you'll be using while setting the depth of the dish to achieve the desired compression ratio.

Yep, custom pistons are a must if we hope to get real benefits.

Mike

[83scamp]

Shape the dish in the piston to mirror the chamber, set the pin height to achieve proper quench with the gasket you'll be using while setting the depth of the dish to achieve the desired compression ratio.

Yep, custom pistons are a must if we hope to get real benefits.

Mike

That's basically the answer I was figuring I would get. That's going to be one heck of a hole in the middle of the piston...

[OmniLuvr]

I do have a question for all you guru's though. I know we are talking about theoretical best chambers, but if you guys are suggesting filling in the chambers for better quench, what do you do about compression ratio? Doing that is going to raise it tremendously correct? And if so, how do you compensate? Larger dish in the piston? If so, doesn't that negate the squish you are trying to create by modifying the chamber?


if there is also material taken out to deshroud the valves I think its kind of a wash. Plus, with better tuning abilities now and "other" fuels, I don't think compression is that big of a deal? especially when changing the camber design, that is what is trying to be accomplished, a chamber that is less detonation prone and better flowing, win win! ive also ran g-head pistons with a swirl head up to 18 psi, I'm sure I could have taken it farther but wanted to be "safe" on lw rods.

I think with a tighter squish and larger quench area, this would also negate the "extra" compression if there ended up being any after the rest of chamber work was done. I still think a better piston design would help much more, but that equals way more $ for custom pistons than most would want to spend... maybe one day...

[5DIGITS]

I will have to agree with everything you have posted in this thread. The best 8V head for performance would have had attributes from both castings.
I have found the G head to be easier to make close to right. The next head I do will be a Swirl, but not for me, for a friend.

The best performing chamber I have done ended up like this.............

Warren... Nice work - beautiful.
As far as compression, yes... what is done "here" offsets what needs to be done "there".
Basically, robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

[Vigo]

I would say that if you're willing to use custom pistons and chamber modifications then you're probably also willing to tune for the new ignition requirements/knock characteristics and probably willing to tune for a higher octane fuel like e85. But yes it seems like by the time you bring the piston anywhere close to the 'squish pads' you'd need a pretty big hole in the middle to keep similar compression ratio.

[Warren Stramer]

I'm of the opinion that chamber and piston design is totally dependent on intended application.
If we are talking about a moderately boosted street engine, on pump gas, then squish becomes a desirable design
consideration.
On the other hand, an all out turbo race engine, on good race gasoline or Meth, squish and quench can be unnecessary or even counter productive, especially with a small bore engine like our 2.2L. The pressure differential between the intake port, and chamber is so high at the moment of valve opening, that mixture motion and charge homogenization are pretty much guaranteed.
I have essentially no squish in my race engine and it has a wide and forgiving tuning window. I don't know, maybe I got it all wrong, but it works for me.

[Force Fed Mopar]

It's one of those things where you either build for it, or stay way away from it. Flattop pistons and compression benefit from quench more than a low compression engine w/ dished pistons would. I have heard the theory that for high boost, lower compression and .060" or more clearance to the head works good because of the increased volume of air/fuel mixture.

I have a set of Venolia flat tops that I've been hanging onto for a high compression turbo street engine build. Planned on milling block until piston deck height is set to have .035 or .030" quench w/ a standard FelPro gasket. Not sure which head yet.

[5DIGITS]

I would say that if you're willing to use custom pistons and chamber modifications then you're probably also willing to tune for the new ignition requirements/knock characteristics and probably willing to tune for a higher octane fuel like e85. But yes it seems like by the time you bring the piston anywhere close to the 'squish pads' you'd need a pretty big hole in the middle to keep similar compression ratio.

Not necessarily..
The benefits from a tight squish band can actually support higher spark advance, with the increase in compression and the absence of added chamber size.

[tryingbe]

Now, who has access to a CNC machine and can make copies of all these heads easily and reliably?

[5DIGITS]

I'm of the opinion that chamber and piston design is totally dependent on intended application.
If we are talking about a moderately boosted street engine, on pump gas, then squish becomes a desirable design
consideration.
On the other hand, an all out turbo race engine, on good race gasoline or Meth, squish and quench can be unnecessary or even counter productive, especially with a small bore engine like our 2.2L. The pressure differential between the intake port, and chamber is so high at the moment of valve opening, that mixture motion and charge homogenization are pretty much guaranteed.
I have essentially no squish in my race engine and it has a wide and forgiving tuning window. I don't know, maybe I got it all wrong, but it works for me.

I agree to a point...
Where race applications benefit from whatever octane level is needed to support the task, it's supplementing and somewhat band-aiding the short comings of improper combustion chamber design and much needed squish with the use of fuel that would otherwise not be required to keep the components in one piece. When one can make equivalent power at a much lower boost level - case in point, our last dyno day that came with 300+HP @ 17psi versus the closest performer at 275HP @ 25PSI. It's the difference between making all the parts work together, as you mentioned, versus simply blowing hard on poorly matched hardware to accomplish sub-standard numbers.
It's not that anyone always gets it right, it's that someone occasionally does.

[glhs875]

I agree to a point...
Where race applications benefit from whatever octane level is needed to support the task, it's supplementing and somewhat band-aiding the short comings of improper combustion chamber design and much needed squish with the use of fuel that would otherwise not be required to keep the components in one piece. When one can make equivalent power at a much lower boost level - case in point, our last dyno day that came with 300+HP @ 17psi versus the closest performer at 275HP @ 25PSI. It's the difference between making all the parts work together, as you mentioned, versus simply blowing hard on poorly matched hardware to accomplish sub-standard numbers.
It's not that anyone always gets it right, it's that someone occasionally does.


Not trying to start an argument and that your post won't hold true, but you have left alot of things in question about the combos from the two different HP levels made. Like intake/exhaust flow of the heads, intercooler differences, any camshaft differences, size (HP rating) of the turbos used between the two, exhaust pipe diameter,etc.

[83scamp]

Not trying to start an argument and that your post won't hold true, but you have left alot of things in question about the combos from the two different HP levels made. Like intake/exhaust flow of the heads, intercooler differences, any camshaft differences, size (HP rating) of the turbos used between the two, exhaust pipe diameter,etc.


I think you guys are saying about the same thing. 5Digits references the hardware working together. It's the total combination, not just the chamber design, it's not just the porting, it's how the entire system works together to make power. It's why a guy can make 300+ hp on 17 psi, and the next guy can't do it on 25 psi... Just pushing harder on the turbo doesn't get you more power. Everything has to work together for it to work efficiently.

Like 5Digits said, it may not be that one guy gets it right all the time. Sometimes you just luck into a combo that works efficiently. There isn't one formula that works to make big power. Obviously there are some basics to making power, and those are pretty well documented. But once in a while somebody hits a combo that works that nobody really thought of...

[glhs875]

I think you guys are saying about the same thing. 5Digits references the hardware working together. It's the total combination, not just the chamber design, it's not just the porting, it's how the entire system works together to make power. It's why a guy can make 300+ hp on 17 psi, and the next guy can't do it on 25 psi... Just pushing harder on the turbo doesn't get you more power. Everything has to work together for it to work efficiently.

Like 5Digits said, it may not be that one guy gets it right all the time. Sometimes you just luck into a combo that works efficiently. There isn't one formula that works to make big power. Obviously there are some basics to making power, and those are pretty well documented. But once in a while somebody hits a combo that works that nobody really thought of...


I guess we are basically saying the same thing. I feel it would be educational for everyone to know what the differences are between the two combos mentioned. That is the main reason behind my comment to 5Digits post.

[83scamp]

I guess we are basically saying the same thing. I feel it would be educational for everyone to know what the differences are between the two combos mentioned. That is the main reason behind my comment to 5Digits post.

Yes, it would be an interesting comparison. If all the details are known.:)

[Shadow]

On the other hand, an all out turbo race engine, on good race gasoline or Meth, squish and quench can be unnecessary or even counter productive, especially with a small bore engine like our 2.2L. The pressure differential between the intake port, and chamber is so high at the moment of valve opening, that mixture motion and charge homogenization are pretty much guaranteed.
I have essentially no squish in my race engine and it has a wide and forgiving tuning window. I don't know, maybe I got it all wrong, but it works for me.

I would have to agree with this 100%!

We have gone in the opposite direction regarding Squish/ quench from the gitgo and I believe it has everything to do with not only the repeated success we have had, but also the longevity............(ie. Wide and Forgiving tuning window ;))

[Dr. Johny Dodge]

interesting thread .. especially as I scored two ported heads just last week from a local shop that's closed
one G , one F-B

I'll have to wash up the F-B head and compare it to the pics but I think it may be a long way off from what I'm seeing here
from the quick look I had I think it hasn't been much more than smoothed

anyone have some good G head combustion chamber pics ?? - something from a known good performing head as that's something that could really help if I had something to
work from / copy /compare

[83scamp]

anyone have some good G head combustion chamber pics ?? - something from a known good performing head as that's something that could really help if I had something to
work from / copy /compare

See Warren's picture above. Doesn't get any better than that... :thumb:

[glhs875]

See Warren's picture above. Doesn't get any better than that... :thumb:


What he said!!!

[Shadow]

anyone have some good G head combustion chamber pics ?? - something from a known good performing head as that's something that could really help if I had something to
work from / copy /compare

I could show you pics of the G-head that's on the Charger IF I could find them. lol

G-head is easy though, for some simple basic flow........

Upon first glance they would appear Almost stock looking. At closer glance you would notice that the chambers have been enlarged to the size of the ID of the H/G firing ring and the "sides" of the "bathtub" have been laid back and opened up to promote flow. No where near the extent of Warrens head, hence the "stock" (albeit Larger dimensions) appearance.

[glhs875]

I could show you pics of the G-head that's on the Charger IF I could find them. lol

G-head is easy though, for some simple basic flow........

Upon first glance they would appear Almost stock looking. At closer glance you would notice that the chambers have been enlarged to the size of the ID of the H/G firing ring and the "sides" of the "bathtub" have been laid back and opened up to promote flow. No where near the extent of Warrens head, hence the "stock" (albeit Larger dimensions) appearance.


It would be interesting to see pictures of the heads being used by members.

[glhs875]

Here is a picture of mine. This head has been an experimental project and has lived a rough life!! LOL The head makes great power! Makes way way more power at higher boost levels than the 20psi max that was used for the time slip of my signature! If I were to ever build a new head I would want the combustion chambers to be more like Warrens.

[2.216VTurbo]

It would be interesting to see pictures of the heads being used by members.

I have a +1 swirl head at the shop right now that I will have back in a couple days. I'll take some pics next week. It started life as a TVL head that I had on Woody a couple years now it's finding a home on SmokeBox I mean RedBox:lol: I've done some reshaping of the chambers and ports after Tyler finished with it. To me it has *too much* removed from the chambers but he does great work so it's more cost/time effective than starting from scratch with a stock head. Im having new, valves, guides, and springs installed and I touched up the ports a little.

[OmniLuvr]

so alan, where did he take "too much" away from the chambers? I'm sure we will have pics soon, but I hate waiting...

[Dr. Johny Dodge]

thanks
Warren's head looks different enough I wasn't really sure what the heck I was looking at lol

it started with FB heads .. but the raised boss around the spark plug hole was making me think MAYBE it was a G head
the dimple opposite the plug had me wondering too

I guess that's where we get to the looks like half of each style

[Force Fed Mopar]

I've only ever run swirl heads, and stock ones at that with stock Garretts. But, I've had good luck with them so far, and have helped a couple others tune theirs with good results.

I've discussed it with 5DIGITS at length before, and my consensus is that when you start getting higher than 14 psi on a FB head, the swirl it induces is so fast that it starts becoming counterproductive. You end up having to pull more and more timing. Whether it's because the efficiency goes up and needs less timing, or the sharp edges of the chamber cause knock, or the heat of the charge goes up, or whatever, I'm not sure. I know that at around 20psi and up on my best tune, the timing drops to 1 degree total timing at spool-up and ramps back up pretty quickly after 4500, which is where the pumping efficiency starts to drop off. I have run up to 25psi on a stock FB with a stock Garrett and a awic system, but that is pretty much the useful limit of pump 93 octane IMO. I ended up going just as fast at 20psi as it did at 25 with some tuning, so 20-22 is pretty much where I'd stop on that combo.

Also, mileage was about 26-28mpg in normal country/town driving, and 34-35mpg on the interstate on a 2.5 in the Lebaron.

[5DIGITS]

I've only ever run swirl heads, and stock ones at that with stock Garretts. But, I've had good luck with them so far, and have helped a couple others tune theirs with good results.

I've discussed it with 5DIGITS at length before, and my consensus is that when you start getting higher than 14 psi on a FB head, the swirl it induces is so fast that it starts becoming counterproductive. You end up having to pull more and more timing. Whether it's because the efficiency goes up and needs less timing, or the sharp edges of the chamber cause knock, or the heat of the charge goes up, or whatever, I'm not sure. I know that at around 20psi and up on my best tune, the timing drops to 1 degree total timing at spool-up and ramps back up pretty quickly after 4500, which is where the pumping efficiency starts to drop off. I have run up to 25psi on a stock FB with a stock Garrett and a awic system, but that is pretty much the useful limit of pump 93 octane IMO. I ended up going just as fast at 20psi as it did at 25 with some tuning, so 20-22 is pretty much where I'd stop on that combo.

Also, mileage was about 26-28mpg in normal country/town driving, and 34-35mpg on the interstate on a 2.5 in the Lebaron.

Well said !!

[Shadow]

Here is a picture of mine. This head has been an experimental project and has lived a rough life!! LOL The head makes great power! Makes way way more power at higher boost levels than the 20psi max that was used for the time slip of my signature! If I were to ever build a new head I would want the combustion chambers to be more like Warrens.

Even your chamber is more extensively done than the Chargers. Although it's hard to tell if you got everything out around the tight sides where the firing ring of H/G meets the chamber walls.

Didn't take too many pics back when we did the head for the Charger and we have always kept things pretty simple. I did find this pic though, when I blew the H/G I snapped a couple pics and this was one of them.

[Shadow]

I've only ever run swirl heads, and stock ones at that with stock Garretts. But, I've had good luck with them so far, and have helped a couple others tune theirs with good results.

I've discussed it with 5DIGITS at length before, and my consensus is that when you start getting higher than 14 psi on a FB head, the swirl it induces is so fast that it starts becoming counterproductive. You end up having to pull more and more timing. Whether it's because the efficiency goes up and needs less timing, or the sharp edges of the chamber cause knock, or the heat of the charge goes up, or whatever, I'm not sure. I know that at around 20psi and up on my best tune, the timing drops to 1 degree total timing at spool-up and ramps back up pretty quickly after 4500, which is where the pumping efficiency starts to drop off. I have run up to 25psi on a stock FB with a stock Garrett and a awic system, but that is pretty much the useful limit of pump 93 octane IMO. I ended up going just as fast at 20psi as it did at 25 with some tuning, so 20-22 is pretty much where I'd stop on that combo.

Also, mileage was about 26-28mpg in normal country/town driving, and 34-35mpg on the interstate on a 2.5 in the Lebaron.

I agree with everything your saying and can concur that any larger turbo build than S-60 seemed to suffer greatly trying to make power at higher boost and the amount of tuning, or more accurately, Detuning, was ridiculous to say the least on the FB heads. (I've had several people insist on staying with the FB head because of what they read on the internet lol)

I have used stock FB heads with no larger than S-60 turbos up to 27psi and made power all the way up, but on race gas as they would never support that on pump. (full bodied 1990-91 Daytona 108mph trap speed)

Anything I would consider "built" we always went straight to the G-head because of flow and just a way more simple platform to work with.

Just like the 2 piece vs one piece intakes, we would pick up several hundred RPM of PB, just swapping out a stock FB for a stock G-head.(all about Flow)

This was with the understanding that we wanted to Increase the PB, knowing that, ultimately, it would be the Easiest route to making Big Power ;)

So it all depends on what your objectives are.

What really makes things interesting, is the resent offering by 5DIGITS. At first I had thought that maybe Ken had figured out a way to get New code into the old system. (ie. Our modules, with features like Command AFR's where the O2 remains in the loop even under WOT conditions)

Looking at the direction of this thread makes me realize that IF your intention is to follow the Squish/quench way of thinking, well then I can clearly see why the need for Greater fuel and spark control above 54-5800rpm. (I did not see this because I have experienced no need in the case of the Charger)

As the tuning "window" becomes narrower, finite Control becomes much more crucial.

I have seen more people burn themselves down and/ or utterly Fail in a build by setting a low boost goal with ridiculous timing ect in an attempt to reach that goal. Maybe Kens new cal templates with birth a new era in the development of that ideology!

Or maybe I have No clue and just shooting in the dark! lol

Guess we will wait and see :)

[glhs875]

Even your chamber is more extensively done than the Chargers. Although it's hard to tell if you got everything out around the tight sides where the firing ring of H/G meets the chamber walls.

Didn't take too many pics back when we did the head for the Charger and we have always kept things pretty simple. I did find this pic though, when I blew the H/G I snapped a couple pics and this was one of them.


Yes, the sides of my chambers are worked all the way to the H/G area. I think our chambers look similar to one another. I prefer a G casting head for what goals I had. It would be neat to have a new casting made up from scratch that offers some of my ideas as well as the ideas from others as improvements!!!!

[Dr. Johny Dodge]

in my "limited' builds of the past I never got much more than a MP/DC lm or smec a 314 cam and a little help with things here and there

I had 6 85 G head motors in as many years and Idono , 4 or 5 later motors with the FB head

never got clean plugs out of a FB head yet - always very black and ugly

my G head motors always gave me nice clean very lightly tan coloured plugs (almost dusty looking)- includeing the one rebuilt 85 motor with the 86 style dish (which drove with no notable difference)

(I was doing this way back before A/F widebands .. or web sites lol)

I did have one FB head that ran reasonably clean .. for about three weeks
it was the 86 LW rod motor with a large can TII conversion that didn't work so well as the wastegate would not open (non rebuilt used motor)
that ran on overboost shutdown until it broke - that head ended up still clean, with pink and white valves but no notable piston top damage - something died deeper inside it

of my 3 or 4 LW rod motors that was the only one that failed - all my 85's spun the rod bearings in 6 months
and my one & only roller cam motor failed in the valve train it seems

10 years after it died , a "new cryco parts counter 2.5" / TII conversion in an 87 shelby z I bought , I pulled the head to find a chunk of piston top from below the exhaust valve , stuck in the valve , a roller follower sitting between the springs and a lifter that would not compress ten years after it had last run - all the other lifters would compress but that one wouldn't budge even when smacked with my framing hammer on the bench vice
- that ran for the two years I had it and the time the guy I bought it from had it with the stock TII tuning
that head did not run cleanly either

I have to say I do find posts saying don't even start a 2.5 with a 2.2 LM funny as hell though

I've read that tuning a 2.5 with a G head can be an issue - I'd think maybe it has to do with the very large piston dish vs the G head chamber and the much smaller dish of the 84/5 motors

that large dish , small rim edge also makes me think the 2.5 piston might be weaker above the top ring too

but back to the heads..

I have a couple of questions with regard to the G head
I've read the port roof as it enters the valve bowel is ever so slightly higher in a 655 head - true ?
- measureable ?
I have a 655 head and this "ported" G head I just got so I don't have o-e ports to compare

and , at the manifold surface , exactly what is inside the head just above the intake bolts and the top row of exhaust studs ?

meaning what would I be drilling into if I were to raise the intake bolts by the difference in port height of the regular port vs the 655 port

I was planing to mod the intake for a 655 head so adding weld behind the valve cover rail wouldn't be a streach , thus putting the 655 modded intake on the small port G head with the height differance now being at the top .. and bolt bungs on the intake that still haven't been tampered with so they might not break off

and again for the top row of exhaust studs ? - with the intent to take the downward hook at the opening of the exhaust port , plus some away

I will not be useing the stock exhaust manifold that imediately turns the exhaust flow downward so I don't need the head to be the early start to that change in flow direction

I look at the exhaust ports and see the same change in direction my 460 ford exhaust ports had
- the floors of the 460 port are ramped down so much the bottom of the port looks more like a suggestion of a port

the fix is a Trick Flow head - they raise the stock 460 ex port 3/8 inch

I guess I ask from the viewpoint of a couple of gone over the hill big block . raised port dodge / ford projects and little chance of scoring one of those isma heads lol

I do however already have everything to build an isma valve /pt/beehive/S60 cam, G head

and as I think of it , can I fix the cam center - due to a lack of caps on both the heads I got last week by machining it to take bearing shells ?

if so I have a pair of semi ported heads .. if not , a nice thump in the scrap bin ..

[Force Fed Mopar]

in my "limited' builds of the past I never got much more than a MP/DC lm or smec a 314 cam and a little help with things here and there

I had 6 85 G head motors in as many years and Idono , 4 or 5 later motors with the FB head

never got clean plugs out of a FB head yet - always very black and ugly



See, I've never gotten a dirty plug out of a swirl head, unless it was oil fouling from a guide/seal issue. But, every one I've had has been run on either a factory swirl cal, or based on a factory swirl cal.

[thedon809]

Somewhat related. I was told it was better to run a swirl head with this style piston, is that true? I plan on cleaning up the ports and deshrouding the valves a little bit.
http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj197/thedon809/IMG_20161213_201103_zpso0lyy6pn.jpg (http://s272.photobucket.com/user/thedon809/media/IMG_20161213_201103_zpso0lyy6pn.jpg.html)

[GLHS60]

That looks like a swirl piston.

Many high boost types run a G head on that style to lower the compression ratio.

Thanks
Randy

[thedon809]

That looks like a swirl piston.

Many high boost types run a G head on that style to lower the compression ratio.

Thanks
RandySince all my heads are borderline junk I was trying to figure out which would be best. Overall goal is 350whp with an hy35 or he341.

[GLHS60]

Weight of the car and its use has some bearing on which head in my opinion.

G head looses a bit of "off idle" response so you would be softer off the line.

EG: Very noticeable with an automatic minivan, slightly noticeable with an Omni.

However, the loss in compression ratio is more than compensated for with the fact you can run more boost, all else equal.

For me a G head is the only choice as its less detonation prone than a swirl, all else equal.

If I remember correctly, Shadow, Reeves and Warren all run G heads.

Whats your setup??

Thanks
Randy

[glhs875]

Weight of the car and its use has some bearing on which head in my opinion.

G head looses a bit of "off idle" response so you would be softer off the line.

EG: Very noticeable with an automatic minivan, slightly noticeable with an Omni.

However, the loss in compression ratio is more than compensated for with the fact you can run more boost, all else equal.

For me a G head is the only choice as its less detonation prone than a swirl, all else equal.

If I remember correctly, Shadow, Reeves and Warren all run G heads.

Whats your setup??

Thanks
Randy


This photo is of a late model 5.7 Hemi combustion chamber. Looks similar to a G-head combustion chamber to me! I ran a G-head in my Glhs Charger with an auto. I consider my build as being street/strip, as I would drive it to the drag strip to make runs. My combo could easily pull 1.9's on street radials for the 60' launching under part throttle 3000 RPM to 3500 RPM and with no boost built up, although I could easily build up to at least 15 psi for a launch if I wanted. When the light turned green I would let off the brake pedal and roll into the throttle. My point is if a G-head combo is set up properly, low end response loss if any over a Swirl head is not missed in my opinion.

[thedon809]

Weight of the car and its use has some bearing on which head in my opinion.

G head looses a bit of "off idle" response so you would be softer off the line.

EG: Very noticeable with an automatic minivan, slightly noticeable with an Omni.

However, the loss in compression ratio is more than compensated for with the fact you can run more boost, all else equal.

For me a G head is the only choice as its less detonation prone than a swirl, all else equal.

If I remember correctly, Shadow, Reeves and Warren all run G heads.

Whats your setup??

Thanks
Randy5 speed omni converted to smec. Phase one is with stock turbo until I learn how to tune and get bugs ironed out. It's a 2.2 with 2 piece, +40, 3bar, boostbutton cal, fmic, shadow 3" swing valve to 3" side exit. I initially had a g head on it and it seemed to run fine. Until the guides like to sink down and I had oil pressure problems.

[Shadow]

Phase one is with stock turbo until I learn how to tune and get bugs ironed out.

Brilliant!

IF I could give any advise, This is what I've been trying to pass on from the beginning.............That you have to learn to Walk Before you Fly!

I hate to say it, but I have not seen One 2.2/2.5 TD come into the shop that was either build by owner or built somewhere else that didn't have issues :(

Most of the issues; mistakes made while putting it back together from lack of experience Or lack of attention to detail.(or Brutal machine shop work)

Everyone wants to Feel the Boost Sooner rather than later, and this desire leads to more failures than anything. Need to get ducks in a row First, on low boost while monitoring everything before taking the next step.

Unfortunately, very few have the patience for this. So instead they just keep building over and over again, usually making the same mistakes until they give up, giving these mtrs a Bad reputation. :(

Nice to see that there Are some individuals out there who are Getting it! :nod:

[Shadow]

On the G vs FB head debate;

On mild builds (up to 350WHP) we will use either head depending on future goals, but with a little work to combustion chamber and some "clean up" to the ports, the FB works fine at these levels and isn't too much more work than G-head.

It's when you start to look at making 400+WHP that the time/ expense of Properly doing a FB head really makes the choice for you. I have always stuck to just the +1mm valves because the amount of work is at least 50% Less than going Big valve, (again....Properly) and IF it's not done Properly, the +1mm head will out perform the big valve head ;)

Every major build we have done, 2.2 or 2.5 (doesn't matter) has been G-head. It's just Way closer to the goal from the beginning. Swirl is just way more work, and what are you really doing with the swirl? Trying to make it work like a modded G-head.............

I have never seen a significant difference one head vs the other on different weight vehicles, but I do make mtr decisions based on vehicle weight. (2.2 vs 2.5)

On a heavier vehicle, and street driven, I choose the 2.5, but with the understanding, that when it's done, it will act more like a Torky 2.2 ;)

[Vigo]

Everyone wants to Feel the Boost Sooner rather than later, and this desire leads to more failures than anything. Need to get ducks in a row First, on low boost while monitoring everything before taking the next step.

I think the age that these cars are at is making the legwork harder and harder before you can get to the fun part. I think i put 10-20 hours of diag/labor into my fuel system on my minivan before i was able to have fun with the boost.


On a heavier vehicle, and street driven, I choose the 2.5, but with the understanding, that when it's done, it will act more like a Torky 2.2

I think 5spd vs auto makes a big difference as well. I.e. on my minivan i have a 2.5 with the cam retarded 6 degrees which is analogous to a 'torquey 2.2' but if the van were auto that low end torque would be sorely missed!

[thedon809]

Think I will go with a swirl and just deshroud the valves a little and smooth the combustion chamber out along with the ports. Nothing too crazy. Have a junk head to practice on. I would like to see what I can accomplish with a stock turbo first once i learn to tune.

[Vigo]

Mid-12s @ ~110 or thereabouts. Plenty fast, the variable being for how long, i suppose.

As i understand it the fastest car with a stock fast burn cylinder head was Lugert's stripped out shadow which went ~11.5. Pat recently said in one of his threads that his shadow ran 12.1s with a completely stock FB top end. So the potential to go fast with near-stock cylinder heads is definitely there. I would hate to think that anyone is discouraged from shooting for quick times over lack of head modifying skills/resources.

[MILKCARTON]

My gutted Shadow went 11.68 @115 with the 2.5 with untouched FB head(88 tbi cam), then it went 11.32 @118 with the same head on an 2.2

[83scamp]

On the G vs FB head debate;

On mild builds (up to 350WHP) we will use either head depending on future goals, but with a little work to combustion chamber and some "clean up" to the ports, the FB works fine at these levels and isn't too much more work than G-head.

It's when you start to look at making 400+WHP that the time/ expense of Properly doing a FB head really makes the choice for you. I have always stuck to just the +1mm valves because the amount of work is at least 50% Less than going Big valve, (again....Properly) and IF it's not done Properly, the +1mm head will out perform the big valve head ;)

Every major build we have done, 2.2 or 2.5 (doesn't matter) has been G-head. It's just Way closer to the goal from the beginning. Swirl is just way more work, and what are you really doing with the swirl? Trying to make it work like a modded G-head.............

I have never seen a significant difference one head vs the other on different weight vehicles, but I do make mtr decisions based on vehicle weight. (2.2 vs 2.5)

On a heavier vehicle, and street driven, I choose the 2.5, but with the understanding, that when it's done, it will act more like a Torky 2.2 ;)

Rob, this has got me very curious. I've had several folks suggest that I put turbo exhaust valves in my ported G head that is currently on the N/A 2.2 in my Scamp, and run that on the 2.5 turbo motor I'm building this winter. From what you are saying, it sound like a good idea. I'm not going for extreme hp here, my goal is about 300 hp. Now, one issue I am concerned about, I had the head cut .015" originally to get the compression up for the N/A motor. Do you see any issue with that in a turbo application? I do have a stock FB head sitting here as well. I just bought +1mm valves for it, and was planning on sending it to the machine shop after the first of the year. But I could be persuaded to change direction... Where is a good source for +1mm valves for a G head? My current head has stock valves that have been back cut.

I'm thinking along the same lines as you are. I'm building the motor for 20 psi, but plan to start at stock levels and tune from there. This is going to be a street cruiser/weekend fun machine, not a drag racer. I just want to be able to really screw with the mustang/camaro guys and ricer wanna-bees...

I'd love to hear your thoughts on a propper setup for what I'm planning.:)

[glhs875]

My gutted Shadow went 11.68 @115 with the 2.5 with untouched FB head(88 tbi cam), then it went 11.32 @118 with the same head on an 2.2



That's impressive! Any spray involved with those times!

[MILKCARTON]

That's impressive! Any spray involved with those times!

Yes, 80 shot, and it weighs 2330 with me in it, there are too many variables for a stock head record statement IMO...


I would really like to have a nice head, and would pay good $ for one, FB or G

[Vigo]

there are too many variables for a stock head record statement IMO...


Well nitrous is definitely a big variable...

I just wanted to get it out there that the choice of heads is not so much a limit as a tuning preference, at least up until high power like ~400hp as Shadow suggested where i could see the proper tuning window being so narrow that you would always take the head that was easier to make live, given that they have similar flow potential anyway.

[MILKCARTON]

Well nitrous is definitely a big variable...

I just wanted to get it out there that the choice of heads is not so much a limit as a tuning preference, at least up until high power like ~400hp as Shadow suggested where i could see the proper tuning window being so narrow that you would always take the head that was easier to make live, given that they have similar flow potential anyway.

I agree totally, hopefully now I will actually be able to tune once the van is together ,the shadow never was.....

[Pat]

Mid-12s @ ~110 or thereabouts. Plenty fast, the variable being for how long, i suppose.

As i understand it the fastest car with a stock fast burn cylinder head was Lugert's stripped out shadow which went ~11.5. Pat recently said in one of his threads that his shadow ran 12.1s with a completely stock FB top end. So the potential to go fast with near-stock cylinder heads is definitely there. I would hate to think that anyone is discouraged from shooting for quick times over lack of head modifying skills/resources.

11.75. :-)

[cordes]

I could have sworn that Stephane used a FB head on his car back when. IIRC he stated that he had to pull less timing per degree of boost with the FB vs the G head.

[cordes]

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?1491-287-or-782-head-on-GLHS&p=15476&viewfull=1#post15476

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?1491-287-or-782-head-on-GLHS&p=15452&viewfull=1#post15452

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?1491-287-or-782-head-on-GLHS&p=15847&viewfull=1#post15847

[Shadow]

My gutted Shadow went 11.68 @115 with the 2.5 with untouched FB head(88 tbi cam), then it went 11.32 @118 with the same head on an 2.2

Interesting;

20+ years ago, when I was first looking into how far I wanted to go on this platform, decisions were much easier and I really didn't take any of the variable that are floating around today into consideration.

I felt that to Max out one of these 8v mtrs, the Head Would ultimately be the limiting factor. Believing that, and having the 2.2 or 2.5 to choose from, it only made sense that the head would choke the 2.5 Faster as the 2.2 could use the head more Efficiently at higher RPM. That along with the fact that the I/C'd 2.2's came with some serious hardware like Forged Steel cranks ect, and the choice was made.

So for me, it all came down to Flow;

The 2.2 could take better advantage of the limited flow of the 8v heads, and the G-head, flowed Better right out of the box than the FB head. KISS!

Did I really have any idea how far the Charger would go on so little............Nope. If anyone would have told me that I would be running 9's on a stock ported exhaust mani I would have told them Not likely. (and that way After I made the statement that the stock ported piece would support 500WHP) lol

So the Q is; Did you swap everything over to 2.2 and all other things being equal, realize all gains from 2.2 vs 2.5 alone? Or were there other variables, like bigger shot of N2O or other pieces changed at same time?

Cause your statement almost makes it look like the 2.5 was already being choked from the stock FB head and the 2.2 used the restriction more efficiently ;)


Rob, this has got me very curious. I've had several folks suggest that I put turbo exhaust valves in my ported G head that is currently on the N/A 2.2 in my Scamp, and run that on the 2.5 turbo motor I'm building this winter. From what you are saying, it sound like a good idea. I'm not going for extreme hp here, my goal is about 300 hp. Now, one issue I am concerned about, I had the head cut .015" originally to get the compression up for the N/A motor. Do you see any issue with that in a turbo application? I do have a stock FB head sitting here as well. I just bought +1mm valves for it, and was planning on sending it to the machine shop after the first of the year. But I could be persuaded to change direction... Where is a good source for +1mm valves for a G head? My current head has stock valves that have been back cut.

I'm thinking along the same lines as you are. I'm building the motor for 20 psi, but plan to start at stock levels and tune from there. This is going to be a street cruiser/weekend fun machine, not a drag racer. I just want to be able to really screw with the mustang/camaro guys and ricer wanna-bees...

I'd love to hear your thoughts on a propper setup for what I'm planning.:)

I've purchased +1mm G-head valves from Cindy as recently as last summer, but IMS she only had intakes. I don't see the .015" being an issue and a properly ported stock valve head is plenty for only 300hp. Are you Sure you are going to be happy staying there?

So were does your experience lie? Have you run a G-head 2.5 combo before, or is all of your experiences with FB heads?

IF you are set up for success with FB heads as far as ECU and fuel/spark goes as well as having the most success/ experience with running them, then I would say stick to that, because your HP goals are really not head limited.

Having said that, the G-head with .015" removed may be an almost "drop in" to run on higher boost/ pump gas.

I would need to know more about your set-up; What turbo your planning to run, what electronics ect.


I could have sworn that Stephane used a FB head on his car back when. IIRC he stated that he had to pull less timing per degree of boost with the FB vs the G head.

Stephane was running Pure Alcohol and a head that was so modded that I really don't think it can be used as a comparo in this discussion.

Something significant to keep in mind;(I can't speak for Reeves, cause I don't know)

Aside from larger vales and hardware, both Warren and myself are running Stock ported heads with No welding or filling done to them...........

[glhs875]

Stephane was running Pure Alcohol and a head that was so modded that I really don't think it can be used as a comparo in this discussion.

Something significant to keep in mind;(I can't speak for Reeves, cause I don't know)

Aside from larger vales and hardware, both Warren and myself are running Stock ported heads with No welding or filling done to them...........

:) I can remember some of those old posts!

[mopar-tech]

Run both the bathtub and swirl head on the Reliant, didn't see a huge difference between the two performance wise.

FYI- The 440+ dyno pull with the Reliant was done with a swirl head.

I'm more concerned with lifting the front of the chamber than which casting to run based on my experiences.

Gary

[MILKCARTON]

SHADOW, now you made me really think about it...engine/nos wise everything was the same. The only thing I did change was the final drive from 3.02 to 3.50, I thought I might need to help out the 2.2 with a 26" slick..

[83scamp]

I've purchased +1mm G-head valves from Cindy as recently as last summer, but IMS she only had intakes. I don't see the .015" being an issue and a properly ported stock valve head is plenty for only 300hp. Are you Sure you are going to be happy staying there?

So were does your experience lie? Have you run a G-head 2.5 combo before, or is all of your experiences with FB heads?

IF you are set up for success with FB heads as far as ECU and fuel/spark goes as well as having the most success/ experience with running them, then I would say stick to that, because your HP goals are really not head limited.

Having said that, the G-head with .015" removed may be an almost "drop in" to run on higher boost/ pump gas.

I would need to know more about your set-up; What turbo your planning to run, what electronics ect.



We can go to PM if it keeps the clutter out of this thread, but here are the basics I've planned on, based on information I've garnered from here & turboDodge.com:

2.5 common block
I can go either a G head or FB, either one mildly ported with +1mm valves
88tbi roller cam
2 piece intake w/52mm TB
ported stock exhaust mani
+20 injectors
89 SMEC electronics from a Shadow
Turbo, I have a TII garret at home, but I am considering the S50 package from FWP.
5 speed trans behind it.

As far as my experience, I'm a total newby to tuning, I was hoping to get a pre-made tune from Boost Button, but looks like that may not happen now with Rob's impending retirement, unless somebody else picks it up. So I may go with a FWP stage 5 tune. I would like to make my SMEC flashable so I can learn to tune over time.

As far as my hp goals, yeah, I think 300 will be fine for me. This truck is going to be a good weather driver, not a drag strip terror. I'm going to have enough trouble getting traction with 300 hp, I don't think I'll need more...:)

[chromguy]

We can go to PM if it keeps the clutter out of this thread,

I find this topic tres interesting, so my vote is keep the clutter...PLEASE!:cool:

[83scamp]

I find this topic tres interesting, so my vote is keep the clutter...PLEASE!:cool:

I'm OK with that too. It is an interesting thread. It's gotten way off base from the original post, but the information presented here is awesome!!!

I know I'm asking some totally newby questions, but I do want to learn more a programing and how to best build the new motor for my Scamp...

The contributors to this thread are some of the greatest minds in the T-M world. They have built amazing rides, and I hope to learn a lot from them.

[Force Fed Mopar]

Rob, this has got me very curious. I've had several folks suggest that I put turbo exhaust valves in my ported G head that is currently on the N/A 2.2 in my Scamp, and run that on the 2.5 turbo motor I'm building this winter. From what you are saying, it sound like a good idea. I'm not going for extreme hp here, my goal is about 300 hp. Now, one issue I am concerned about, I had the head cut .015" originally to get the compression up for the N/A motor. Do you see any issue with that in a turbo application? I do have a stock FB head sitting here as well. I just bought +1mm valves for it, and was planning on sending it to the machine shop after the first of the year. But I could be persuaded to change direction... Where is a good source for +1mm valves for a G head? My current head has stock valves that have been back cut.

I'm thinking along the same lines as you are. I'm building the motor for 20 psi, but plan to start at stock levels and tune from there. This is going to be a street cruiser/weekend fun machine, not a drag racer. I just want to be able to really screw with the mustang/camaro guys and ricer wanna-bees...

I'd love to hear your thoughts on a propper setup for what I'm planning.:)

I would absolutely run a FB head in your application. Better efficiency and will work fine on pump gas up to your 20psi goal. It was good enough to hustle my fat J-body to 80mph in the 8th on 22+psi on a stock Garrett ;) And I had full boost by 3k, no matter what I had it set at. Shifted my 2.5 at 5k, but the same head on a 2.2 @ 17psi would pull to 6k easily in my Daytona.

[OmniLuvr]

Aside from larger vales and hardware, both Warren and myself are running Stock ported heads with No welding or filling done to them

well, warren did do a little something different, but may not pertain to this matter. I think he added a stud in front of the spark plug hole (if I remember correctly)

I believe he welded a nut or something into the "open deck" part of the block between the outside of the block and cylinder, then installed a stud, and drilled a hole in the head with accompanying nut boss to be able to add more "clamping" force to the front of the chamber in hopes of not lifting the head as easily....

^

I'm more concerned with lifting the front of the chamber than which casting to run based on my experiences

[mopar-tech]

well, warren did do a little something different, but may not pertain to this matter. I think he added a stud in front of the spark plug hole (if I remember correctly)


I went a different direction, had the chamber welded up at the sand casting "half moon"

[OmniLuvr]

I went a different direction, had the chamber welded up at the sand casting "half moon"

that sounds interesting...

[mopar-tech]

that sounds interesting...

Creates its own problems, had to align bore the cam towers after. Aluminum moves around a lot when its heated.

[Shadow]

Run both the bathtub and swirl head on the Reliant, didn't see a huge difference between the two performance wise.

FYI- The 440+ dyno pull with the Reliant was done with a swirl head.

I'm more concerned with lifting the front of the chamber than which casting to run based on my experiences.

Gary

Just to be as clear as possible here; I'm not saying that either head can't be made to perform as well as the other. An experienced head porter, or Better yet, Someone who simply Knows what they're doing! lol can take their pick, as they will be able to do what is needed in Both the porting department and the tuning/ other supporting attributes department. (+ there are many ways to skin a cat as we have all seen over the years ;))

All I'm saying is that in My experience, the G-head is much closer to the goal and needs way Less work done to get it to perform to the same level as a FB 782 with a lot more hrs put into it. If you are not one to count your time, the point is prob moot.

I'm also saying that for someone with little to no experience, the G-head is more forgiving. Has a much wider tuning window from stock vs stock, and responds better to mild modding as a result.

A good and simple eg. of this is the area that 5DIGITS highlighted on the FB head chamber earlier in this thread. Doing any sig amount of porting Without addressing this area of the chamber, specially around the Intake valve, and your leaving Sig flow behind. So G-head valves are Less shrouded right off the batt.

Another eg. is the port roof above the valve (guide area). First time I really took a good look at a G-head vs FB I thought I was looking at a Ported head vs non ported! The FB is Flat, almost ridiculously. While the G-head is Raised and has Much better entry to the valve. By the time I remove enough material out of the roof area of a FB head to Equal a G-head, I would almost be finished the runners on the G-head.

Who knows, maybe it's just me :) We all have our preferences and experience in what has worked for Us and we all seem to be able to get results in the end. Just my .02$


We can go to PM if it keeps the clutter out of this thread, but here are the basics I've planned on, based on information I've garnered from here & turboDodge.com:

2.5 common block
I can go either a G head or FB, either one mildly ported with +1mm valves
88tbi roller cam
2 piece intake w/52mm TB
ported stock exhaust mani
+20 injectors
89 SMEC electronics from a Shadow
Turbo, I have a TII garret at home, but I am considering the S50 package from FWP.
5 speed trans behind it.

As far as my experience, I'm a total newby to tuning, I was hoping to get a pre-made tune from Boost Button, but looks like that may not happen now with Rob's impending retirement, unless somebody else picks it up. So I may go with a FWP stage 5 tune. I would like to make my SMEC flashable so I can learn to tune over time.

As far as my hp goals, yeah, I think 300 will be fine for me. This truck is going to be a good weather driver, not a drag strip terror. I'm going to have enough trouble getting traction with 300 hp, I don't think I'll need more...:)

We could go to PM's if this is bothering anyone. I've never shy'd away from off topic Q's because the only importance to me is the forum. (ie. IF you have the audience, highly viewed topic, then prob best avenue to ask Q's and get solid answers)

And there are more than enough with experience here to answer pretty well any Q you have. (although most aren't going to want to Tell you What to do. That is best left to You)

First thing that sticks out to me; S50 is a Big turbo for a Max goal of only 300hp. You would be giving up a lot of trans response and Great drivability vs say a 46 trim stage 1 which is fully capable of making 300hp at 17-20psi.

2nd would be electronics; If you were going to stick with stock cal I would suggest running the FB head because you will have a better match and I'm not sure you have the experience to set up a G-head on a 2.5 optimally using stock cals.

IF you really want to use the G-head, I would def say Get the stage 5 cal. I have never run anything less.(except when we ran the MP S60 cals before the vendors existed) In the early days I never was interested in Stage 1/2/3 ect. I wanted the most aggressive cal I could get, and then I would fit the rest of the pieces of the puzzle together. Most back then said "you can't do that, it won't work", just like the techs at MP who told one of our customers he couldn't run the S-60 fuel pump/SMEC, +40's and 3 bar map on a TII SMEC based, otherwise Stock car. "It won't work unless you run Everything in the pkg"! lol


well, warren did do a little something different, but may not pertain to this matter. I think he added a stud in front of the spark plug hole (if I remember correctly)

I believe he welded a nut or something into the "open deck" part of the block between the outside of the block and cylinder, then installed a stud, and drilled a hole in the head with accompanying nut boss to be able to add more "clamping" force to the front of the chamber in hopes of not lifting the head as easily....

^

Yes, he added clamping nuts and bolts to the front of the head to address the lifting issue, but I don't believe he welded anything on either block Or head and I was referring to porting/chamber work when I made that statement ;)


Creates its own problems, had to align bore the cam towers after. Aluminum moves around a lot when its heated.

Just one of the reasons some prefer not to do any welding on components like cyl heads. Again, to each there own and hopefully Success to ALL! :thumb:

[Warren Stramer]

Imho, In order to make a FB head into a max effort, high flow, high rpm capable head, you end up changing everything that made it "fast burn" to begin with.
You completely change and enlarge the intake port, you completely change the chamber, (especially if you fill with weld).
Also, the one remaining advantage the FB has, shallower chamber, comes with minor drawback of longer heavier valves, not a big deal until you start turning high rpm.
This is why I always just used the G head. If I wanted to run pump gas at only around the 300HP level, I would probably stick with the Fast burn head. Somewhere around the 450+ HP level with serious head mods use whatever is the easiest to reach your goal.
I do not like to weld on these heads. Like Gary said, they move around. They also get soft from welding, and they are pretty soft to begin with stock. I would never heat one above 275 degrees for very long without re-heat treating.
as an example of the material I would have to remove from a FB head to get the same area and flow as my race head check out these photos........one is a 782 head, the other is a G head intake (sorry for the 782 photo poor quality)

[glhs875]

Imho, In order to make a FB head into a max effort, high flow, high rpm capable head, you end up changing everything that made it "fast burn" to begin with.
You completely change and enlarge the intake port, you completely change the chamber, (especially if you fill with weld).
Also, the one remaining advantage the FB has, shallower chamber, comes with minor drawback of longer heavier valves, not a big deal until you start turning high rpm.
This is why I always just used the G head. If I wanted to run pump gas at only around the 300HP level, I would probably stick with the Fast burn head. Somewhere around the 450+ HP level with serious head mods use whatever is the easiest to reach your goal.
I do not like to weld on these heads. Like Gary said, they move around. They also get soft from welding, and they are pretty soft to begin with stock. I would never heat one above 275 degrees for very long without re-heat treating.
as an example of the material I would have to remove from a FB head to get the same area and flow as my race head check out these photos........one is a 782 head, the other is a G head intake (sorry for the 782 photo poor quality)


You bringing up the possible quest of making HP at a higher RPM than the norm. What I have discovered is that unless a much larger than stock camshaft is used, the HP peak of these heads will still be in the 6K or a little over range even in ported form on a 2.2, with an even lower RPM HP peak for a 2.5. And even with a larger than stock camshaft the area of the stock intake ports will still be a limiting factor. The factory designed (area) of the intake ports vs. engine size/design (stroke of engine and rod to stroke ratio plays huge role) hits mach speed and chokes out in the RPM range that is the norm for these engines, unless the area of the intake ports is increased a lot. A person would have to break out some measuring tools and a calculator after their peak RPM goal is decided for them to see just how much the area of the intake ports would need to be increased over stock for the airflow to stay out the choke speed point.

[Shadow]

You bringing up the Reality of making HP at a higher RPM than the norm..

Fixed it for ya! :eyebrows:

[glhs875]

Fixed it for ya! :eyebrows:

Do tell!!! Do you mean how you reworded my post, or something else? :)

[Shadow]

Do tell!!! Do you mean how you reworded my post, or something else? :)

You said "possible Quest", I corrected it to "Reality" because it has already been done and I had thought by now it was common knowledge.

I agree with the "around 6000RPM Max for Peak power on the stock cam, as way back when the Charger was only making 450ish WHP (Mustang dyno) it was making peak power around 5900rpm. Now, having said that, it would only lose something like 7WHP by 6500rpm, still we're talking peak #'s here.

I searched and search and couldn't find a single 2.2 8v dyno sheet that was higher with stock cam. (this was on the 88 turbo roller)

When I swapped out the little 57 trim for the Holset HE351, I was in fact "testing" the cam in the sense that I Knew the larger exhaust side of the turbo and Much larger compressor, should allow the peak HP #'s to go up IF the mtr could breath it.

When I went back and dyno'd 480WHP, peak TQ had gone up something like 500rpm, but peak HP hardly moved. That's when I knew the cam was done (or I was floating valves or both) While almost everyone else cried "the ported stocker exhaust mani is the Cork" (which at that point, Could have been true)

Long story short and I swapped in the F4 cam on the Good word of one Warren Stramer, who was also Famously Known back then for Proving the Taft S3 cam in his own set-up. Results are well known as the Charger has peak #'s in the 6700rpm range now and with only a decently ported G-head with +1mm valves.

Of course, this is small potatoes compared to what I was Really talking about, which also coincides with much of your post;

Warren's set-up IS running much larger than average ports And a Much Larger cam than any other turbo 8v I'm aware of and, according to his project log, Pulls Hard past 8000rpm ;)

I thought this also would be common knowledge by now, never the less, it is the reason I corrected your quote.

It is No longer a possible Quest to make peak power well above 6000rpm, it is in Fact a Reality.............

[glhs875]

You said "possible Quest", I corrected it to "Reality" because it has already been done and I had thought by now it was common knowledge.

I agree with the "around 6000RPM Max for Peak power on the stock cam, as way back when the Charger was only making 450ish WHP (Mustang dyno) it was making peak power around 5900rpm. Now, having said that, it would only lose something like 7WHP by 6500rpm, still we're talking peak #'s here.

I searched and search and couldn't find a single 2.2 8v dyno sheet that was higher with stock cam. (this was on the 88 turbo roller)

When I swapped out the little 57 trim for the Holset HE351, I was in fact "testing" the cam in the sense that I Knew the larger exhaust side of the turbo and Much larger compressor, should allow the peak HP #'s to go up IF the mtr could breath it.

When I went back and dyno'd 480WHP, peak TQ had gone up something like 500rpm, but peak HP hardly moved. That's when I knew the cam was done (or I was floating valves or both) While almost everyone else cried "the ported stocker exhaust mani is the Cork" (which at that point, Could have been true)

Long story short and I swapped in the F4 cam on the Good word of one Warren Stramer, who was also Famously Known back then for Proving the Taft S3 cam in his own set-up. Results are well known as the Charger has peak #'s in the 6700rpm range now and with only a decently ported G-head with +1mm valves.

Of course, this is small potatoes compared to what I was Really talking about, which also coincides with much of your post;

Warren's set-up IS running much larger than average ports And a Much Larger cam than any other turbo 8v I'm aware of and, according to his project log, Pulls Hard past 8000rpm ;)

I thought this also would be common knowledge by now, never the less, it is the reason I corrected your quote.

It is No longer a possible Quest to make peak power well above 6000rpm, it is in Fact a Reality.............

Good post! Thanks for the correction and for the clarification of my post! Not so sure on this subject being common knowledge though! :D BTW not saying that my #655 casting sized ports of my #445 head are the best idea in the way I achieved the size, but my combo pulled very hard to 7K RPM (that is where I would shift at) with a 89 T1 cam and pulled hard to over 7500 rpm the point at which my valve springs were becoming an issue when using a Taft S3 cam!

[glhs875]

Imho, In order to make a FB head into a max effort, high flow, high rpm capable head, you end up changing everything that made it "fast burn" to begin with.
You completely change and enlarge the intake port, you completely change the chamber, (especially if you fill with weld).
Also, the one remaining advantage the FB has, shallower chamber, comes with minor drawback of longer heavier valves, not a big deal until you start turning high rpm.
This is why I always just used the G head. If I wanted to run pump gas at only around the 300HP level, I would probably stick with the Fast burn head. Somewhere around the 450+ HP level with serious head mods use whatever is the easiest to reach your goal.
I do not like to weld on these heads. Like Gary said, they move around. They also get soft from welding, and they are pretty soft to begin with stock. I would never heat one above 275 degrees for very long without re-heat treating.
as an example of the material I would have to remove from a FB head to get the same area and flow as my race head check out these photos........one is a 782 head, the other is a G head intake (sorry for the 782 photo poor quality)


Here is a better photo of a 782 casting intake port Warren!

[Shadow]

Good post! Thanks for the correction and for the clarification of my post! Not so sure on this subject being common knowledge though! :D BTW not saying that my #655 casting sized ports of my #445 head are the best idea in the way I achieved the size, but my combo pulled very hard to 7K RPM (that is where I would shift at) with a 89 T1 cam and pulled hard to over 7500 rpm the point at which my valve springs were becoming an issue when using a Taft S3 cam!

Makes sense; When I was making peak HP @ 59XX rpm on the stock 88 turbo roller, the cam was installed @ 115deg. I never retarded it or played with cam timing because the Charger was Always making serious MPH on the high end of the track. So I'm sure I could have fudged the #'s by retarding cam to show peak power at say 61-6200rpm IF I was that kind of person.

I shifted around 7000rpm first two gears on slicks at the track with that set-up. When the F4 went in, I left my limiter at 74-7500rpm because I didn't want to raise it and overspin something. Remember, this is all on the non CB mtr that was only supposed to be in the Charger for the first year lol.

Last couple of times out I was shifting first gear right off the limiter and second pretty darn close, so pretty sure she'd spin to 8000 easy IF I let it.

Like I said; small potatoes compared to Warrens set-up. Pretty sure 8000 is like the old 6000 for him.........

[Shadow]

Here is a better photo of a 782 casting intake port Warren!

Picture is worth a thousand words. Shocks me that after all this time people aren't more familiar with the simple differences in our stock parts.

And yeah, when I said "thought this would be common knowledge" I meant for those who follow this kind of stuff, but I have found that most remain in a state of constant confusion from all of the misinformation and so they forget the Real Meat and Potatoes stuff :(

[chromguy]

Picture is worth a thousand words. Shocks me that after all this time people aren't more familiar with the simple differences in our stock parts.

And yeah, when I said "thought this would be common knowledge" I meant for those who follow this kind of stuff, but I have found that most remain in a state of constant confusion from all of the misinformation and so they forget the Real Meat and Potatoes stuff :(

This sort of stuff happens in every topic area.
For example there are lots of beer drinkers out there and very, very few know the real difference between lager and ale.
For a good Canadian lager and ale song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTkUm1oGZEE

[glhs875]

Makes sense; When I was making peak HP @ 59XX rpm on the stock 88 turbo roller, the cam was installed @ 115deg. I never retarded it or played with cam timing because the Charger was Always making serious MPH on the high end of the track. So I'm sure I could have fudged the #'s by retarding cam to show peak power at say 61-6200rpm IF I was that kind of person.


I wouldn't look down of someone at all by retarding their camshaft to move the HP curve up in the R's along with the possibility of making the peak HP # higher. Especially if it were to lead to a better ET and higher traps speeds. To me it depends on the total combo of the vehicle involved if a person should do it or not.

[tryingbe]

I cleaned up my head a little before bolting it back on the block.

http://www.thelostartof.net/tryingbe/dodge/omniproject/2016/headblock/IMG_9279.jpg

This is the dyno from this cylinder head, on E85.

http://www.thelostartof.net/tryingbe/dodge/omniproject/2015build/dyno1.jpg

boost level and afr.
http://www.thelostartof.net/tryingbe/dodge/omniproject/2015build/dyno2.jpg

[83scamp]

We could go to PM's if this is bothering anyone. I've never shy'd away from off topic Q's because the only importance to me is the forum. (ie. IF you have the audience, highly viewed topic, then prob best avenue to ask Q's and get solid answers)

And there are more than enough with experience here to answer pretty well any Q you have. (although most aren't going to want to Tell you What to do. That is best left to You)

First thing that sticks out to me; S50 is a Big turbo for a Max goal of only 300hp. You would be giving up a lot of trans response and Great drivability vs say a 46 trim stage 1 which is fully capable of making 300hp at 17-20psi.

2nd would be electronics; If you were going to stick with stock cal I would suggest running the FB head because you will have a better match and I'm not sure you have the experience to set up a G-head on a 2.5 optimally using stock cals.

IF you really want to use the G-head, I would def say Get the stage 5 cal. I have never run anything less.(except when we ran the MP S60 cals before the vendors existed) In the early days I never was interested in Stage 1/2/3 ect. I wanted the most aggressive cal I could get, and then I would fit the rest of the pieces of the puzzle together. Most back then said "you can't do that, it won't work", just like the techs at MP who told one of our customers he couldn't run the S-60 fuel pump/SMEC, +40's and 3 bar map on a TII SMEC based, otherwise Stock car. "It won't work unless you run Everything in the pkg"! lol


Trying to post this for the 5th time.... Grrr... Don't know what's going on with this site, but has me frustrated....:banghead:


I'm really interested in your opinion on my build, and hope to learn from some of the best.

My theory on using the S50 turbo for my build was that since I was using a 2.5 in an L-body, the slower boost build of the larger turbo may help me get some traction. But you mentioned drivability issues, which I may not have considered. I'm open to any and all suggestions. You mentioned the S46 trim may be better.

As far as electronics, I'm converting the engine bay to 89 SMEC from a Shadow. I have a stock SMEC, but was going to use it as a core exchange for either a Boost Button tune, or a FWP stage 5. I know you mentioned the FWP stage 5. I was planning on using +20 injectors, because I felt they were more than capable of meeting my hp goals, but the stage 5 is listed as using +40's. Is that just something I need to tell Cindy when I order it? I really don't think I need the fuel of +40's.

I am planning on running a TU fuel rail and AFPR. 3 bar MAP, and wideband. Which I know I need.

I'm probably going to use the FB head, since I already have +1mm valves for it, and you stated that it wouldn't be a bottleneck for my hp goals. I can save the G head for another project...

Thanks again for being willing to help a newby get started...

[Shadow]

I wouldn't look down of someone at all by retarding their camshaft to move the HP curve up in the R's along with the possibility of making the peak HP # higher. Especially if it were to lead to a better ET and higher traps speeds. To me it depends on the total combo of the vehicle involved if a person should do it or not.

What I Meant was that I was not going to do it just for bragging rights ;) The Charger was working well at the track and I was not ready to change anything, just to get a #, then change it back. For a matter of fact, I have Never changed anything while on a dyno. All tuning and changes Real World with REAL load, then see what things look like on dyno if I get the chance.

Practically Every high HP local car that has tuned on dyno, has burnt down in the Real world at the track. This is what happens when you fail to understand the difference between "THE REAL" and chasing a #!


Trying to post this for the 5th time.... Grrr... Don't know what's going on with this site, but has me frustrated....:banghead:


I'm really interested in your opinion on my build, and hope to learn from some of the best.

My theory on using the S50 turbo for my build was that since I was using a 2.5 in an L-body, the slower boost build of the larger turbo may help me get some traction. But you mentioned drivability issues, which I may not have considered. I'm open to any and all suggestions. You mentioned the S46 trim may be better.

As far as electronics, I'm converting the engine bay to 89 SMEC from a Shadow. I have a stock SMEC, but was going to use it as a core exchange for either a Boost Button tune, or a FWP stage 5. I know you mentioned the FWP stage 5. I was planning on using +20 injectors, because I felt they were more than capable of meeting my hp goals, but the stage 5 is listed as using +40's. Is that just something I need to tell Cindy when I order it? I really don't think I need the fuel of +40's.

I am planning on running a TU fuel rail and AFPR. 3 bar MAP, and wideband. Which I know I need.

I'm probably going to use the FB head, since I already have +1mm valves for it, and you stated that it wouldn't be a bottleneck for my hp goals. I can save the G head for another project...

Thanks again for being willing to help a newby get started...

First off; IF your already concerned about traction, Why run the 2.5l over the 2.2l in an L-body? You will be fighting a Brutal TQ curve that, while Beneficial in a Heavier car, can become a liability in a lighter car like an L-body. Unless your objective is 90% part throttle "Cruising around" drivability, vs 10% step on it and impress?

On the Turbo choice; What you are attempting to do, IMO, is much like those who say "I'm going to make X amount of HP @ X amount of boost", on an unknown set-up. This hss always ended up in a recipe for disaster. IF there is enough Factual evidence (ie. results posted by Reliable sources) of multiple builds running multiple turbo set-ups where you can clearly see, "If I run This turbo with These supporting pieces I Should be able to make This HP @ about This amount of boost". Then fine. Otherwise you would need to have a Vast experience with turbo sizing in order for it not to end in failure. (failure being that it Could have been done Better with another turbo configuration)

How many builds have we seen where someone picks a Way oversized turbo, so they can make some ridiculous amount of power on Lower boost with Jacked Timing? Everyone jumps on the bandwagon and thinks it's going to be Insane once the boost is turned up, and it Never is........

You end up with a Laggy Brutal build that gets retired or sold because Nothing works Together. All in the Name of what Many view as Efficiency! lmao!!!!! (actually, really sad :()

Rule #1. RESPECT the ENVIRONMENT!

Understand that as displacement Changes, so does the turbo configuration because the Restriction in Front of it has changed.

So, basing your turbo choice on a traction controlling Hope, is just Not what you want to be doing. IF you want control over traction issues due to excessive HP on the street, buy a Good EBC.

What you Do want, is to chose the Best suited turbo for your goals based on your budget. (budget meaning are you ready to shell out for a BB unit, or are you looking for the best journal bearing turbo that will do the job)

The further you stray from this, the Worse your transient response will become, and the more your set-up will become like an on/off switch. (Lag/ Full power vs Nice linier Pull)

There is no better journal bearing turbo out there for our mtrs than the 46 trim stage 1 for initial upgrade and too the 325-350WHP mark. When I first got into these mtrs, it was believed (and I'm sure it still is in places) that the S60 was The Go To Turbo for an initial upgrade. Very small change in compressor, slightly larger exhaust flow, biggest Plus being a direct bolt-on. Back in 1998-2000 (before I was even on the IN) I was looking for a compressor upgrade that would take Better advantage of the stage 1 .63 A/R turbine housing. Understanding that Chrysler chose to increase the A/R to .63 in an attempt to "Band-Aid" the poor flow from the stock S/V, I Knew that with a Better S/V design, a Large compressor could be run, and at even Lower drive pressure that the S60 with stock S/V.

For years, I struggled to find any build that ran better #'s with a comparatively sized turbo and such a Simple build. This, before we had even gotten our feet wet and Before I even had a clue about driving a big HP FWD at the track!

Since then I have seen that the 46 trim works well even With the restrictive stock S/V (boost levels of 20psi or below) and even on Stock long block configurations. It is a Very Forgiving turbo! (You almost Can't scew up your build no matter what supporting mods you have)

In 2004, when I first got on the net, it was just me saying this. Now, all these years later, there Are others who have listened and can Confirm what I'm saying here.

So; IF you wanted 350-400WHP (or slightly more) I would say by all means, run the 50 trim, but since you are Sure that 300hp is the Max limit that you will be Happy with, the 50 trim becomes a wasted venture, and the ability to "tune it" to a linier PB becomes much more difficult.

Keep in mind; this is just My opinion, others will vary ;)

[83scamp]

First off; IF your already concerned about traction, Why run the 2.5l over the 2.2l in an L-body? You will be fighting a Brutal TQ curve that, while Beneficial in a Heavier car, can become a liability in a lighter car like an L-body. Unless your objective is 90% part throttle "Cruising around" drivability, vs 10% step on it and impress?

On the Turbo choice; What you are attempting to do, IMO, is much like those who say "I'm going to make X amount of HP @ X amount of boost", on an unknown set-up. This hss always ended up in a recipe for disaster. IF there is enough Factual evidence (ie. results posted by Reliable sources) of multiple builds running multiple turbo set-ups where you can clearly see, "If I run This turbo with These supporting pieces I Should be able to make This HP @ about This amount of boost". Then fine. Otherwise you would need to have a Vast experience with turbo sizing in order for it not to end in failure. (failure being that it Could have been done Better with another turbo configuration)

How many builds have we seen where someone picks a Way oversized turbo, so they can make some ridiculous amount of power on Lower boost with Jacked Timing? Everyone jumps on the bandwagon and thinks it's going to be Insane once the boost is turned up, and it Never is........

You end up with a Laggy Brutal build that gets retired or sold because Nothing works Together. All in the Name of what Many view as Efficiency! lmao!!!!! (actually, really sad :()

Rule #1. RESPECT the ENVIRONMENT!

Understand that as displacement Changes, so does the turbo configuration because the Restriction in Front of it has changed.

So, basing your turbo choice on a traction controlling Hope, is just Not what you want to be doing. IF you want control over traction issues due to excessive HP on the street, buy a Good EBC.

What you Do want, is to chose the Best suited turbo for your goals based on your budget. (budget meaning are you ready to shell out for a BB unit, or are you looking for the best journal bearing turbo that will do the job)

The further you stray from this, the Worse your transient response will become, and the more your set-up will become like an on/off switch. (Lag/ Full power vs Nice linier Pull)

There is no better journal bearing turbo out there for our mtrs than the 46 trim stage 1 for initial upgrade and too the 325-350WHP mark. When I first got into these mtrs, it was believed (and I'm sure it still is in places) that the S60 was The Go To Turbo for an initial upgrade. Very small change in compressor, slightly larger exhaust flow, biggest Plus being a direct bolt-on. Back in 1998-2000 (before I was even on the IN) I was looking for a compressor upgrade that would take Better advantage of the stage 1 .63 A/R turbine housing. Understanding that Chrysler chose to increase the A/R to .63 in an attempt to "Band-Aid" the poor flow from the stock S/V, I Knew that with a Better S/V design, a Large compressor could be run, and at even Lower drive pressure that the S60 with stock S/V.

For years, I struggled to find any build that ran better #'s with a comparatively sized turbo and such a Simple build. This, before we had even gotten our feet wet and Before I even had a clue about driving a big HP FWD at the track!

Since then I have seen that the 46 trim works well even With the restrictive stock S/V (boost levels of 20psi or below) and even on Stock long block configurations. It is a Very Forgiving turbo! (You almost Can't scew up your build no matter what supporting mods you have)

In 2004, when I first got on the net, it was just me saying this. Now, all these years later, there Are others who have listened and can Confirm what I'm saying here.

So; IF you wanted 350-400WHP (or slightly more) I would say by all means, run the 50 trim, but since you are Sure that 300hp is the Max limit that you will be Happy with, the 50 trim becomes a wasted venture, and the ability to "tune it" to a linier PB becomes much more difficult.

Keep in mind; this is just My opinion, others will vary ;)

Awesome information. You pointed out a lot of things I hadn't considered, thank you!

As far as the 2.5 vs 2.2, I just lucked into a really nice 2.5 short block assembly this summer from a friend of mine. That was the deciding factor, nothing more, nothing less.

Since I'm still in the "gathering parts" phase, I am fully able to switch gears, and go with parts recommended. That's why I'm asking questions now, instead of regretting later. So please, keep the information coming, I'm like a dry sponge trying to soak up all this knowledge. I'm the kind of guy who like to research a project like this for quite a while before diving in. I obviously didn't consider a lot of negatives of running an S50 turbo. From your description it most certainly sounds like an S46 is a much better fit for my build. I've even considered running the stock garrett I have, but would really like to use that as an upgrade on my TI Daytona next year to replace the mitsu.

I've read through "The Pope's" stage I thread, and your stage II thread over on turbododge.com, and I think at this point, a stage I build will suffice for me. Like I said before, I'm not trying to build a drag strip terror, but a fun summer driver for the street, with some occasional drag strip runs. I really don't see myself going past 20 psi, because from what I've read, that gets into the breaking parts stage, and I really want to avoid that...

[Shadow]

Awesome information. You pointed out a lot of things I hadn't considered, thank you!

As far as the 2.5 vs 2.2, I just lucked into a really nice 2.5 short block assembly this summer from a friend of mine. That was the deciding factor, nothing more, nothing less.

Since I'm still in the "gathering parts" phase, I am fully able to switch gears, and go with parts recommended. That's why I'm asking questions now, instead of regretting later. So please, keep the information coming, I'm like a dry sponge trying to soak up all this knowledge. I'm the kind of guy who like to research a project like this for quite a while before diving in. I obviously didn't consider a lot of negatives of running an S50 turbo. From your description it most certainly sounds like an S46 is a much better fit for my build. I've even considered running the stock garrett I have, but would really like to use that as an upgrade on my TI Daytona next year to replace the mitsu.

I've read through "The Pope's" stage I thread, and your stage II thread over on turbododge.com, and I think at this point, a stage I build will suffice for me. Like I said before, I'm not trying to build a drag strip terror, but a fun summer driver for the street, with some occasional drag strip runs. I really don't see myself going past 20 psi, because from what I've read, that gets into the breaking parts stage, and I really want to avoid that...

I hope what I'm about to post is not offensive to you, as my only intent is to Help in any way I can. I am in no way trying to single you out, but there is an opportunity here to clear up some "confusion" when it comes to figuring out the Right pieces of the puzzle.

Running the 2.5 is fine since you already have it. You can compensate with cam timing if needed.

Now, you said;

"I think at this point, a stage 1 build will suffice for me"

" I've even considered running the stock garrett I have"

"I was planning on using +20 injectors, because I felt they were more than capable of meeting my hp goals"

"My theory on using the S50 turbo for my build was that since I was using a 2.5 in an L-body, the slower boost build of the larger turbo may help me get some traction"

Three of these trains of thought are Consistent, one of them is Not.

IF you were at all considering using the Stock Garrett turbo, an S50 should have Never entered the equation. We're talking a World apart in response and performance from those two turbos. The only real choice if you were already thinking of staying with the stock Garrett, Should have been an S60 or 60 trim T3, for a Slight upgrade.

So the Q is; What did you read/research that would lead you to almost two completely different ends of the scale when it comes to turbo selection?

Again, this is Not a shot at you, I'm just trying to clarify where individuals can go way Wrong on their builds be reading the Wrong info on the net, and then try to incorporate it into their builds.

Also, in speaking with me, it's neither here nor there, because I Still would have suggested the 46 trim To4e over the S60 for your goals of 300HP anyways. Why? Simple, the 46 trim will get you there with as much or More transient response, because it is a Dynamic turbo combo. To get the same level of Dynamics out of the S60 you need to run the .48 A/R housing in a typical Average build. As well as the Fact that the 46 trim will do it on much lower boost and with pump gas :)

On the +20 inj's, I've never run them and never will. They were from another era when a little more fuel on stock ECU's was required. When you go to a 3 bar map ECU, the +40's become part of the pkg and it's always nice to have More fuel than you need, rather than Not enough. Remember, MP switched from the +20's on an S60 set-up, because they found that it was slightly Under fuel'd. So really, for anything larger, best to go with the +40's as I believe the price is about the same ;)

[83scamp]

I hope what I'm about to post is not offensive to you, as my only intent is to Help in any way I can. I am in no way trying to single you out, but there is an opportunity here to clear up some "confusion" when it comes to figuring out the Right pieces of the puzzle.

Running the 2.5 is fine since you already have it. You can compensate with cam timing if needed.

Now, you said;

"I think at this point, a stage 1 build will suffice for me"

" I've even considered running the stock garrett I have"

"I was planning on using +20 injectors, because I felt they were more than capable of meeting my hp goals"

"My theory on using the S50 turbo for my build was that since I was using a 2.5 in an L-body, the slower boost build of the larger turbo may help me get some traction"

Three of these trains of thought are Consistent, one of them is Not.

IF you were at all considering using the Stock Garrett turbo, an S50 should have Never entered the equation. We're talking a World apart in response and performance from those two turbos. The only real choice if you were already thinking of staying with the stock Garrett, Should have been an S60 or 60 trim T3, for a Slight upgrade.

So the Q is; What did you read/research that would lead you to almost two completely different ends of the scale when it comes to turbo selection?

Again, this is Not a shot at you, I'm just trying to clarify where individuals can go way Wrong on their builds be reading the Wrong info on the net, and then try to incorporate it into their builds.

Also, in speaking with me, it's neither here nor there, because I Still would have suggested the 46 trim To4e over the S60 for your goals of 300HP anyways. Why? Simple, the 46 trim will get you there with as much or More transient response, because it is a Dynamic turbo combo. To get the same level of Dynamics out of the S60 you need to run the .48 A/R housing in a typical Average build. As well as the Fact that the 46 trim will do it on much lower boost and with pump gas :)

On the +20 inj's, I've never run them and never will. They were from another era when a little more fuel on stock ECU's was required. When you go to a 3 bar map ECU, the +40's become part of the pkg and it's always nice to have More fuel than you need, rather than Not enough. Remember, MP switched from the +20's on an S60 set-up, because they found that it was slightly Under fuel'd. So really, for anything larger, best to go with the +40's as I believe the price is about the same ;)

I don't find your post offensive at all. In fact, I was hoping you would be very honest and blow holes in my setup if I had it wrong. It's how we all learn. Like I said before, I really have no experience doing a build up like this. I just keep reading more and more info hoping to become more knowledgeable. But reading only gets you so far. It's real world experience like you have that separates the truth from the BS. That's what I'm looking for.

I'd much rather have a guy like you blow holes in my theory than buy a bunch of parts, and find out later they don't work together. Doing it right once, is far cheaper than doing it twice wrong...:)

Part of the draw to the S50 was that FWP offers it in a nice package deal. turbo, S/V, lines, waste gate can, etc. In my minds eye, that made me think it's a popular package. Obviously, somewhere along the line, I missed something in my research to tell me that was way too big of a turbo. Just to be clear: at no point did I talk to anybody at FWP about this combo, nor did they suggest it to me. I came up with this idea on my own. I just don't want somebody thinking one of our good vendors tried to steer me wrong. FWP has been great to me in my dealings with them.

I'm sure if I give Cindy a call, we can work out a similar combo for an S46. Which seems to be the way to go.

Looking them up, the +40's are about 60% more than the +20's, but in the grand scheme of a motor build, that's not bad for peace of mind.

So to recap, a better balance combo for my goals would be:

2.5 turbo motor
2 piece intake w/52mm TB
ported exhaust mani
S46 turbo
+40 injectors
AFPR
FB head with +1mm valves & mild port job
Stage 5 ECU(or similar)
3 bar MAP
Wideband O2

[wheming]

I'll just interject a quick comment/observation...
Good on both of you for the dialog and information without drama. I appreciate reading stuff like this where the information is genuine and helpful, as well as the explaining of certain component selection reasons.
As well as the information originally posted and developed from the initial part of the thread. It'll be a good reference thread for the ages!

[Force Fed Mopar]

FWIW, my stock 2.5 swirl w/ a stock Garrett on 20+psi made roughly 240+ at the wheels and would blow the 17's off in the 1st 2 gears, and slightly haze them in 3rd from a roll at 3k rpm. This is why I pretty much always recommend the 2.2 for L-bodies, same as Shadow. 2.5 torque comes on like a light switch at 3k or 3500 (depending on turbo). DodgeZ had a big 57 or some such trim on a 2.5 in a gutted GLHS Omni, it spooled at like 4k and would spin drag radials on the hwy at 70mph. Although I have seen/ridden 2.2 Omnis that did the same...

If I was building a Rampage or Charger DD, I'd run a swirl head 2.2 w/ a 50 trim, like this one:

https://www.fwdperformance.com/Store/Product.asp?IDCatalog=63&ProductID=448

and a boost controller capable of boost by gear (ie, speed dependent), or utilize MP Tune and Turbonator to do so. 2-pc, 3-bar, +40's and ported exhaust mani assumed, would make good power even on a stock head (I'd guess 300 easily), should pull from 3kish to 6k which a good powerband, controllable in lower gears and hang with most any average weight 400hp rwd muscle/sports car. Ported head would enhance all this. Good intercooler is a must-have.

My .02 worth :nod:

[83scamp]

I'll just interject a quick comment/observation...
Good on both of you for the dialog and information without drama. I appreciate reading stuff like this where the information is genuine and helpful, as well as the explaining of certain component selection reasons.
As well as the information originally posted and developed from the initial part of the thread. It'll be a good reference thread for the ages!

Thank you for the comments. I know Rob is a no BS kind of guy. Sometimes his posts are taken wrong, and that is sad, because he is only trying to help. Never had the pleasure of meeting him in person, but he seems a lot like myself, a very analytical, straight to the point guy. I like that.

Like I said, that's what I want. Somebody who isn't afraid to blow holes in my theory and tell me it won't work, and why. The why is important to me. I like to know the reasons. Don't just tell me no, explain why. He did exactly that, and I see his point. There was stuff I never considered, and he showed me the right direction. That kind of info is invaluable to someone like me.


FWIW, my stock 2.5 swirl w/ a stock Garrett on 20+psi made roughly 240+ at the wheels and would blow the 17's off in the 1st 2 gears, and slightly haze them in 3rd from a roll at 3k rpm. This is why I pretty much always recommend the 2.2 for L-bodies, same as Shadow. 2.5 torque comes on like a light switch at 3k or 3500 (depending on turbo). DodgeZ had a big 57 or some such trim on a 2.5 in a gutted GLHS Omni, it spooled at like 4k and would spin drag radials on the hwy at 70mph. Although I have seen/ridden 2.2 Omnis that did the same...

If I was building a Rampage or Charger DD, I'd run a swirl head 2.2 w/ a 50 trim, like this one:

https://www.fwdperformance.com/Store/Product.asp?IDCatalog=63&ProductID=448

and a boost controller capable of boost by gear (ie, speed dependent), or utilize MP Tune and Turbonator to do so. 2-pc, 3-bar, +40's and ported exhaust mani assumed, would make good power even on a stock head (I'd guess 300 easily), should pull from 3kish to 6k which a good powerband, controllable in lower gears and hang with most any average weight 400hp rwd muscle/sports car. Ported head would enhance all this. Good intercooler is a must-have.

My .02 worth :nod:

All good info to have. Thank you for sharing your experience as well. I catalog all of this in the back of my mind. There may come a day when I decide to build an all-out 2.2 for the Scamp. If I do, this info will help.

I know I'm "going against the grain", so to speak with a 2.5, but it's what fell into my lap, and I'm going to run with it for now. Maybe I will need an EBC to make it all work on the street, I guess I'll find that out eventually.

With the suggestions and help I've been given in this thread, I think I have a much better handle now on which direction I need to go. Hopefully you guys will get to see a transformed Scamp at SDAC-27 next year!!!!:)

[glhs875]

FWIW, my stock 2.5 swirl w/ a stock Garrett on 20+psi made roughly 240+ at the wheels and would blow the 17's off in the 1st 2 gears, and slightly haze them in 3rd from a roll at 3k rpm. This is why I pretty much always recommend the 2.2 for L-bodies, same as Shadow. 2.5 torque comes on like a light switch at 3k or 3500 (depending on turbo). DodgeZ had a big 57 or some such trim on a 2.5 in a gutted GLHS Omni, it spooled at like 4k and would spin drag radials on the hwy at 70mph. Although I have seen/ridden 2.2 Omnis that did the same...

If I was building a Rampage or Charger DD, I'd run a swirl head 2.2 w/ a 50 trim, like this one:

https://www.fwdperformance.com/Store/Product.asp?IDCatalog=63&ProductID=448

and a boost controller capable of boost by gear (ie, speed dependent), or utilize MP Tune and Turbonator to do so. 2-pc, 3-bar, +40's and ported exhaust mani assumed, would make good power even on a stock head (I'd guess 300 easily), should pull from 3kish to 6k which a good powerband, controllable in lower gears and hang with most any average weight 400hp rwd muscle/sports car. Ported head would enhance all this. Good intercooler is a must-have.

My .02 worth :nod:

I am a big fan of a boost controller!!!! Had a home made adjustable speed based setup on my combo! It had 3 stages of boost control. Designed and installed it personally. Made a huge difference in lowering the ET's!!!! I never realized the full potential of it on my GLHS though. There is no doubt in my mind that my combo would have run deep in the 7's and cracked the 100 mph range (1/8th mile) on the street radials by running more boost for each stage. But life got in the way! :nod:

[Shadow]

Looking them up, the +40's are about 60% more than the +20's, but in the grand scheme of a motor build, that's not bad for peace of mind.

Wow! I had not noticed that +40's became so much more expensive. I was still under the impression they were around 50.00 each.....



So to recap, a better balance combo for my goals would be:

2.5 turbo motor
2 piece intake w/52mm TB
ported exhaust mani
S46 turbo
+40 injectors
AFPR
FB head with +1mm valves & mild port job
Stage 5 ECU(or similar)
3 bar MAP
Wideband O2

I have never seen an S46 (To4e) compressor wheel, but I'm aware of the S50. Larger Major which gives it a Higher PR and capable of sustaining Higher boost pressures, albeit at the cost of a slightly heavier comp wheel.

You are not looking to exceed the PR of a normal 46 trim To4e,(ie, your only looking to run around 20psi or less) so there is no need to drag the extra weight of a heavier comp wheel if you don't have to ;)


I never realized the full potential of it on my GLHS though. There is no doubt in my mind that my combo would have run deep in the 7's and cracked the 100 mph range (1/8th mile) on the street radials by running more boost for each stage. But life got in the way! :nod:

No doubt at all as you had the Right turbo for the job And running a Proven Performer when it comes to the Taft S3 cam. :nod:

[Shadow]

I cleaned up my head a little before bolting it back on the block.

http://www.thelostartof.net/tryingbe/dodge/omniproject/2016/headblock/IMG_9279.jpg

This is the dyno from this cylinder head, on E85.

http://www.thelostartof.net/tryingbe/dodge/omniproject/2015build/dyno1.jpg

boost level and afr.
http://www.thelostartof.net/tryingbe/dodge/omniproject/2015build/dyno2.jpg

I kind of floated right by this; Were you looking for critique on the chamber? Or just posting for comparo purposes?

[glhs875]

I kind of floated right by this; Were you looking for critique on the chamber? Or just posting for comparo purposes?


I was going to get around and say That I thought "tryinbe" has a good looking torque/HP curve going on! Curious of the combo.

[2.216VTurbo]

So the head I had that I *thought* was fully prepped by a known Cylinder Head Porter in this community was either:

1)An 'Off' day for the guy doing the work

2) A rush job

3) Not from that guy at all, I bought it used 2-3 years ago maybe it was misrepresented by the seller, Can't imagine such marginal product came from someone with such a good name.

I thought it was going to be bolt on and go as I bought it advertised as a +1 low mileage head(I did just bolt it onto Woody my turbo Mini about 5K miles ago but as you may have seen in another thread that motor grenaded) but thought I'd better have my cylinder head shop check it out. After taking one look at the dissasembled head I just couldn't run it on RedBox like that so I ordered some new +1 swirl valves from FWD (turns out the NOS +1's I'd been saving a few years are shorter G head valves:o) and put about 15 hours of grinding/porting/polishing into it over one full Saturday and two half days. I'm taking it back to the shop in a few minutes for seat touch up, decking, cleaning and reassembly(they already installed new EX guides and opened up the seats for me).

A few teaser pics till I get it back then I'll put up the rest:nod:

[crusty shadow]

I've been following this thread , just reading and comparing others experiences with similar prepped heads, thought i'd drop my personal experience as a confirmation/comparison to the other info i've seen posted so far.

i am running the ill-fated 655 head with porting and very big valves, along with an 89 N/A cam.
44 mm intake 37.6 exhaust with oversized interlocking valve seats. The quench area was reduced and "laid back" like the pics earlier in the thread. 2.2 with stock turbo and fairly large intercooler with 2.5" pipe. very aware that i need to change a few things, but project has been on the back burner for a while and i put it together just to get it running.

yes it does suck at low rpm before anybody asks, lol but its in a gutted p-body and will be running a high stall converter mainly track use so around town driveability is not a concern.

The thing i noticed that others are reporting is this engine really comes alive above 4000 rpm. With the turbo spooled its like hitting a switch at about 4000-4500 and pulls harder the more rpms its allowed to run- there is no drop off where it feels like its running out of breath at 5500 like my 782 head would do at the same boost. it pulls HARD all the way up to 7000 and would definitely do more if i keep my foot in it.

i havent been able to mess with it since spring as i grenaded the trans and i ended up buying a vintage jeep aka 4 wheel drive money pit over the summer, but i wanted to share my experience here as this thread seems to be comparing the differences between heavily modified bathtub and swirl heads. i figured since my head is at the far end of the spectrum being discussed it would be appropriate to drop my experiences here.

[wheming]

I've been following this thread , just reading and comparing others experiences with similar prepped heads, thought i'd drop my personal experience as a confirmation/comparison to the other info i've seen posted so far.

i am running the ill-fated 655 head with porting and very big valves, along with an 89 N/A cam.
44 mm intake 37.6 exhaust with oversized interlocking valve seats. The quench area was reduced and "laid back" like the pics earlier in the thread. ....

Any pics of your chambers with said very big valves?
Would love a look for comparisons.

[cordes]

I've been following this thread , just reading and comparing others experiences with similar prepped heads, thought i'd drop my personal experience as a confirmation/comparison to the other info i've seen posted so far.

i am running the ill-fated 655 head with porting and very big valves, along with an 89 N/A cam.
44 mm intake 37.6 exhaust with oversized interlocking valve seats. The quench area was reduced and "laid back" like the pics earlier in the thread. 2.2 with stock turbo and fairly large intercooler with 2.5" pipe. very aware that i need to change a few things, but project has been on the back burner for a while and i put it together just to get it running.

yes it does suck at low rpm before anybody asks, lol but its in a gutted p-body and will be running a high stall converter mainly track use so around town driveability is not a concern.

The thing i noticed that others are reporting is this engine really comes alive above 4000 rpm. With the turbo spooled its like hitting a switch at about 4000-4500 and pulls harder the more rpms its allowed to run- there is no drop off where it feels like its running out of breath at 5500 like my 782 head would do at the same boost. it pulls HARD all the way up to 7000 and would definitely do more if i keep my foot in it.

i havent been able to mess with it since spring as i grenaded the trans and i ended up buying a vintage jeep aka 4 wheel drive money pit over the summer, but i wanted to share my experience here as this thread seems to be comparing the differences between heavily modified bathtub and swirl heads. i figured since my head is at the far end of the spectrum being discussed it would be appropriate to drop my experiences here.

When does boost come on? I would think it to be nearly instantaneous with the stock turbo.

[MILKCARTON]

I am a big fan of a boost controller!!!! Had a home made adjustable speed based setup on my combo! It had 3 stages of boost control. Designed and installed it personally. Made a huge difference in lowering the ET's!!!! I never realized the full potential of it on my GLHS though. There is no doubt in my mind that my combo would have run deep in the 7's and cracked the 100 mph range (1/8th mile) on the street radials by running more boost for each stage. But life got in the way! :nod:

What did it run?

[glhs875]

What did it run?

The time is in my sig! 8.33@ 89+mph w/1.96 60'. That was on street radials so I had to launch very easy (no boost) and the boost limit was set at 15 psi in 1st gear, 18 psi in second gear, and 20 psi in 3rd. I never ran it at the track with more boost than 20psi max. Although I did discover that the street tires would hold a lot more boost in 3rd gear than 20 psi. Not sure exactly how much more though! And maybe maintain traction with a good bit more boost than 15 psi for 1 st gear and 18 psi for 2nd gear as well. When making runs I was in 3rd gear just shortly after half track (1/8th). All I can say is when I drove it with a higher boost level than 20 psi in 3rd gear, the difference in acceleration was like WOW! But I as I said, life got in the way and the car is no longer around! I do still have all the go-fast goodies that was on it though! I never made runs while on slicks or even drag radials. I was trying to see just how quick I could go on ordinary street tires! Runs were made using a 89 T1 cam also.

[DaveSkrab]

Another turbo option thought, in a budget friendly scramble to get a our Spirit RT together for Hot Rod Drag Week. I ended up with a 50trim in an E housing, and a stock exhaust wheel, in a .63 housing. This turbo has very good street manners, target boost is in the 3500rpm range, and at 20psi on 93 octane trapped between 109 and 110, in a car that has a 3200lb race weight. Makes for over 300WHP. We also have not tapped into the calibration, yet.
I feel like a 2.5 with a good flowing head would run really well with this turbo.
Just a thought.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[MILKCARTON]

The time is in my sig! 8.33@ 89+mph w/1.96 60'. That was on street radials so I had to launch very easy (no boost) and the boost limit was set at 15 psi in 1st gear, 18 psi in second gear, and 20 psi in 3rd. I never ran it at the track with more boost than 20psi max. Although I did discover that the street tires would hold a lot more boost in 3rd gear than 20 psi. Not sure exactly how much more though! And maybe maintain traction with a good bit more boost than 15 psi for 1 st gear and 18 psi for 2nd gear as well. When making runs I was in 3rd gear just shortly after half track (1/8th). All I can say is when I drove it with a higher boost level than 20 psi in 3rd gear, the difference in acceleration was like WOW! But I as I said, life got in the way and the car is no longer around! I do still have all the go-fast goodies that was on it though! I never made runs while on slicks or even drag radials. I was trying to see just how quick I could go on ordinary street tires! Runs were made using a 89 T1 cam also.

Oh..... Big difference between 8.33@89 mph and "DEEP" into the 7's or let alone 100 mph in the 1/8. Most calculators say you would need another 85+ HP....

[glhs875]

Oh..... Big difference between 8.33@89 mph and "DEEP" into the 7's or let alone 100 mph in the 1/8. Most calculators say you would need another 85+ HP....

Don't think that 85+ more HP would be a problem with at least 15 psi left in the SC6152 turbo and that would have the turbo pushing 35 psi max. You also have to take in consideration the lower than 20 psi boost levels for the first two gears and whatever increase in boost that I could of dialed in for those gears as well! At only 7 HP per pound of boost, adding 15 psi would be +105 HP, I stand by my claim!

[crusty shadow]

The Garrett spools every bit as quick as a mitsu- right around 2200.

here's the chamber. wasn't modified as much as the other bathtub head in this thread, mainly just deshrouding the valves.

[Shadow]

Don't think that 85+ more HP would be a problem with at least 15 psi left in the SC6152 turbo and that would have the turbo pushing 35 psi max. You also have to take in consideration the lower than 20 psi boost levels for the first two gears and whatever increase in boost that I could of dialed in for those gears as well! At only 7 HP per pound of boost, adding 15 psi would be +105 HP, I stand by my claim!

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree my friend. I failed to recognize that you were talking about doing this on regular radial tires last time around. Using D/R's or slicks I would agree whole heartedly, but there is a phenomenon which takes place @ around 28-30 PSI boost (with a turbo the size of a SC6152) which is called "skating rink". (ie. even in 4th gear @ 100mph you hit boost a Blow the tires Away!)

I use to tune on an abandon stretch of road years ago. Last time out I was using a set of 26" G-force D/R's on very heavy rims in 4th gear only and when the Charger hits full spool it would blow them out from under the car. (20pis in the tires) This was around 33psi boost. Since then all tuning has been done at the track.

Now, advances have been made over the years and you can get some pretty fancy (good dry traction) street radials. Some say almost as good as a D/R. So do I think you could have cracked the 7's........yes I do, but Deep in the 7's, you would have to define that further, as I take it to mean Sub mid 7's like 7.20's and I Don't see that happening on a regular radial tire, specially at a drag strip. (where radial tires always seem Worse for traction than the street)

[MILKCARTON]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree my friend. I failed to recognize that you were talking about doing this on regular radial tires last time around. Using D/R's or slicks I would agree whole heartedly, but there is a phenomenon which takes place @ around 28-30 PSI boost (with a turbo the size of a SC6152) which is called "skating rink". (ie. even in 4th gear @ 100mph you hit boost a Blow the tires Away!)

I use to tune on an abandon stretch of road years ago. Last time out I was using a set of 26" G-force D/R's on very heavy rims in 4th gear only and when the Charger hits full spool it would blow them out from under the car. (20pis in the tires) This was around 33psi boost. Since then all tuning has been done at the track.

Now, advances have been made over the years and you can get some pretty fancy (good dry traction) street radials. Some say almost as good as a D/R. So do I think you could have cracked the 7's........yes I do, but Deep in the 7's, you would have to define that further, as I take it to mean Sub mid 7's like 7.20's and I Don't see that happening on a regular radial tire, specially at a drag strip. (where radial tires always seem Worse for traction than the street)

^^^^^^
What he said.. I have never taken a car to the track and not tried to go faster, whats the point? I find it hard to believe that you didn't atleast try to ad 1or2 psi here or there.

[glhs875]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree my friend. I failed to recognize that you were talking about doing this on regular radial tires last time around. Using D/R's or slicks I would agree whole heartedly, but there is a phenomenon which takes place @ around 28-30 PSI boost (with a turbo the size of a SC6152) which is called "skating rink". (ie. even in 4th gear @ 100mph you hit boost a Blow the tires Away!)

I use to tune on an abandon stretch of road years ago. Last time out I was using a set of 26" G-force D/R's on very heavy rims in 4th gear only and when the Charger hits full spool it would blow them out from under the car. (20pis in the tires) This was around 33psi boost. Since then all tuning has been done at the track.

Now, advances have been made over the years and you can get some pretty fancy (good dry traction) street radials. Some say almost as good as a D/R. So do I think you could have cracked the 7's........yes I do, but Deep in the 7's, you would have to define that further, as I take it to mean Sub mid 7's like 7.20's and I Don't see that happening on a regular radial tire, specially at a drag strip. (where radial tires always seem Worse for traction than the street)

OK, I guess I should of said (well) into the 7's instead of deep! We will never know! I shouldn't of made any claims at all!!!

[glhs875]

^^^^^^
What he said.. I have never taken a car to the track and not tried to go faster, whats the point? I find it hard to believe that you didn't atleast try to ad 1or2 psi here or there.

My combo had wastegate control issues and needed a whole new wastegate setup,that is why! It was really difficult to control the boost! I also had a lot going on health wise at the time and still do. I now have an autoimmune disorder similar to Lupus. Those are some reasons! I will shut up! I shouldn't of said anything on this subject!

[MILKCARTON]

OK, I guess I should of said (well) into the 7's instead of deep! We will never know! I shouldn't of made any claims at all!!!

Not to argue but FWD turbo dodges that have ran 100 mph or better in the 1/8 have ran 7.20 or better, slicked up..

[glhs875]

Not to argue but FWD turbo dodges that have ran 100 mph or better in the 1/8 have ran 7.20 or better, slicked up..

You are right I am wrong! Like I said, I wish I hadn't of made any claims or comments! This is my last post on this matter!

[2.216VTurbo]

You are right I am wrong! Like I said, I wish I hadn't of made any claims or comments! This is my last post on this matter!

Well, I know fo sure I'd like to click on this thread and see more cylinder head pics/discussion and less drag racing claims:p

[glhs875]

Well, I know fo sure I'd like to click on this thread and see more cylinder head pics/discussion and less drag racing claims:p


I agree, and the only reason I made a post pertaining to drag strip claims in the first place was to stress how much I believed in a boost controller from a post made prior by Force Fed Mopar. My bad!!! :)

[Vigo]

I think we should just make sure our posts are negative until noone wants to post in the thread anymore...:confused2: :(

[chromguy]

I think we should just make sure our posts are negative until noone wants to post in the thread anymore...:confused2: :(

Interesting strategy, my friend. OK I will give it a try.....Santa does not exist and your mom/dad buys the presents.

[Vigo]

Cool, now I will retract my statement and everyone can pile their negativity onto me anyway!!

So, in an attempt to restart a cylinder head related train of thought, chamber mods almost all end up increasing chamber volume. These engines already have very low compression ratios. At what point does anyone feel that the loss of compression on stock or stock-compression forged pistons is diminishing the returns from chamber mods? Not at all?

[glhs875]

Cool, now I will retract my statement and everyone can pile their negativity onto me anyway!!

So, in an attempt to restart a cylinder head related train of thought, chamber mods almost all end up increasing chamber volume. These engines already have very low compression ratios. At what point does anyone feel that the loss of compression on stock or stock-compression forged pistons is diminishing the returns from chamber mods? Not at all?

Good question! I have wondered about this subject myself! I have a .027" thick Cometic head gasket to experiment with.

[Force Fed Mopar]

If it's less than a half a point, I doubt you'd ever tell a difference....

[cordes]

Even then, I bet you're a shave and adj. cam gear away from stock compression levels.

[MILKCARTON]

I agree, and the only reason I made a post pertaining to drag strip claims in the first place was to stress how much I believed in a boost controller from a post made prior by Force Fed Mopar. My bad!!! :)

Once again, I'm the bad guy....

[wheming]

Cool, now I will retract my statement and everyone can pile their negativity onto me anyway!!

So, in an attempt to restart a cylinder head related train of thought, chamber mods almost all end up increasing chamber volume. These engines already have very low compression ratios. At what point does anyone feel that the loss of compression on stock or stock-compression forged pistons is diminishing the returns from chamber mods? Not at all?

+2. Excellent question. I was going to ask the same thing, but been busy here today.

My Menegon 91 casting 287 head has a 56cc combustion chamber, and my JE pistons have a 23cc dish.
I'm using a Cometic MLS gasket of unsure thickness and the static compression ratio is around 8.2:1
Brian did want to have about 8.5:1 but we fell short of that by my piston choice that had already been purchased.
When i need a new headgasket, maybe we can get closer. I've heard you can get Cometic gssketd in custom thicknesses.

It seems the combo is working well enough, with the other parts of the complete package. This is not turned all the way up yet, but i feel i may be getting close to the intercooler being more of a limiter.
I should try to get my other dual thermocouple gauge kit installed so i can get some efficiency data.

[glhs875]

Once again, I'm the bad guy....

All is good! I was wrong for posting off topic to begin with! lol Don't worry over it!

[Force Fed Mopar]

Cool, now I will retract my statement and everyone can pile their negativity onto me anyway!!

So, in an attempt to restart a cylinder head related train of thought, chamber mods almost all end up increasing chamber volume. These engines already have very low compression ratios. At what point does anyone feel that the loss of compression on stock or stock-compression forged pistons is diminishing the returns from chamber mods? Not at all?


+2. Excellent question. I was going to ask the same thing, but been busy here today.

My Menegon 91 casting 287 head has a 56cc combustion chamber, and my JE pistons have a 23cc dish.
I'm using a Cometic MLS gasket of unsure thickness and the static compression ratio is around 8.2:1
Brian did want to have about 8.5:1 but we fell short of that by my piston choice that had already been purchased.
When i need a new headgasket, maybe we can get closer. I've heard you can get Cometic gssketd in custom thicknesses.

It seems the combo is working well enough, with the other parts of the complete package. This is not turned all the way up yet, but i feel i may be getting close to the intercooler being more of a limiter.
I should try to get my other dual thermocouple gauge kit installed so i can get some efficiency data.

Dynamic compression ratio is what really matters.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/dynamic-cr.php

[glhs875]

Even then, I bet you're a shave and adj. cam gear away from stock compression levels.

If I remember right I think around .060 reduction in area from the whole bore is worth around a full point increase or just a touch over that. Using the whole bore area for removal of area/material as in thinner head gasket has a greater effect on raising the compression ratio than what shaving the head only would have. Although my head has now been shaved .020 as well. So with a .042 reduction from the stock head gasket thickness of I think it was .069 (been awhile on remembering all this stuff) along with .020 taking off the head, the total is a .062 reduction. I had my compression figured to be 7.9 to 1 before. It was at 7.9 because off the chamber work and from using swirl head type forged pistons with a G head. My new compression ratio should be around 8.5 to 8.6 to 1 or so after the reduction in area. And good point "cordes" an adjustable cam gear will be needed to keep the same cam timing as before.

[2.216VTurbo]

I wasn't trying to single anyone out, I was just trying steer the thread back to the topic of head I mean cylinder heads:lol:


I too worried about CR reduction when cutting back the valve shrouds and other areas in the chamber especially since the head I started with was already heavily cut in the wrong places and I knew I'd be cutting more so I did some research into how much CR reduction I should expect. OK, I actually just called a guy here on the board that's way smarter than me(thanks Todd :wave1:) and not only did he have a decent rule of thumb formula for decking the head vs CR increase but he made a good point I hadn't thought about. Going with the larger valves (that have increased mass in the chambers) makes up for a good portion of what was lost with the cutting. He also told me to CC each chamber in the head if I really wanted to know what my final CR was gonna be. Not sure if I'm gonna take the time to do that or not yet. Wanna get it bolted on RedBox before 2017:nod:

You got be used to being the bad guy by now Tracy:p...

[glhs875]

Dynamic compression ratio is what really matters.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/dynamic-cr.php

I like this web site!

[OmniLuvr]

There is a reason I chose to run t3 pistons (other than being cheap) with my ghead... Hoping to try it out with a swirl head next...

[Dan H]

There is a reason I chose to run t3 pistons (other than being cheap) with my ghead... Hoping to try it out with a swirl head next...

Do you happen to know what the CR would work out to, assuming a stock g head chamber?

[OmniLuvr]

With the research I did and the 10 thou I took off the deck to get about 5 thou pop out, I was figuring 9.2 to 9.5 Ish, stock head. Hoping to maximize the quench and squish area, and give me some room for decent compression when installing either of my ported heads with modified chambers (one overly deshrouded ghead, and a tvaliant swirl). I'm worried with the swirl I will have to fly cut the pistons tho, I'll be doing mock up soon as a pull it apart again. I might just run the swirl head on my forged 2.5 tho depending on the condition of the "t3" piston engine. Destroyed the headgasket when I lost an injector but kept pushing it while racing a new sti, I had to rub it in when he wouldn't stop racing me... bad move

[glhs875]

With the research I did and the 10 thou I took off the deck to get about 5 thou pop out, I was figuring 9.2 to 9.5 Ish, stock head. Hoping to maximize the quench and squish area, and give me some room for decent compression when installing either of my ported heads with modified chambers (one overly deshrouded ghead, and a tvaliant swirl). I'm worried with the swirl I will have to fly cut the pistons tho, I'll be doing mock up soon as a pull it apart again. I might just run the swirl head on my forged 2.5 tho depending on the condition of the "t3" piston engine. Destroyed the headgasket when I lost an injector but kept pushing it while racing a new sti, I had to rub it in when he wouldn't stop racing me... bad move

Interested in what you are doing with the use of T3 pistons. I have a used set of stock bore T3 pistons to maybe one day experiment with myself. What kind of performance increase if any did you realize with the use of T3 pistons along with the G-head?

[OmniLuvr]

What kind of performance increase if any did you realize with the use of T3 pistons along with the G-head?

well, kind of a lot... ill "try" to explain.... also, I planned on running e85 and did, but still made a crap load of power on 87 and mp stage2 tune (actually I never really got my 3 bar tune how I wanted it honestly)

so, it fired up quicker (on cold start gas and e85), idled smoother at lower rpm, quicker off idle rev, boost was full song (20ish psi) by 2500 rpm, got 28-32 mpg with e85! torq was actually too much, but it was more the combination of parts that I used, ended up rushing the build quicker than I had wanted and ended up with a few comprimises. it was only supposed to be a quick spooling daily, turned out it ran way better than I had hoped with too quick of spool. never saw knock on 87 up to 14 psi with the stock intercooler (but never wanted to push it harder obviously). I had also welded the intake and ported it heavily, plus I HEAVILY ported the exhaust manifold too

Had to many unfortunate events before realizing its full potential, but it was always going to be hinderd with a stock turbine housing and wheel mated to a Chinese 60-1 comp wheel and housing. blew up 2 early 523 transmissions (I'm an idiot, but they just stripped out 3rd gear rolling into the throttle), lost an injector that took out the headgasket (and I'm hoping not a piston), someone stole the large intercooler I was going to install so I just parked it behind my shop til I could work on it again.

same car before this motor, I also ran e85 on ghead pistons with a swirl head and log intake to 18 psi for months with no intercooler til I blew up the 525 (what an idiot again)

[glhs875]

^^^^^^
What he said.. I have never taken a car to the track and not tried to go faster, whats the point? I find it hard to believe that you didn't atleast try to ad 1or2 psi here or there.

I just had to comment on this post,sorry! I was studying things on how they effect 60' times at the time. Hard to see the exact results from chassis tuning, weight distribution, etc. if the power is increased as well! I always have a method to my madness! lol

[Ondonti]

Cool, now I will retract my statement and everyone can pile their negativity onto me anyway!!

So, in an attempt to restart a cylinder head related train of thought, chamber mods almost all end up increasing chamber volume. These engines already have very low compression ratios. At what point does anyone feel that the loss of compression on stock or stock-compression forged pistons is diminishing the returns from chamber mods? Not at all?

I was already at full QWERTY when I heard talk of people retarding cams being re..... Or were they sad that a little junk setup mitsu makes power up top when sorted and toyed with.

Very enjoyable to see a swing at someone's 20 year old work. Excess deshrouding where its gonna make very little difference while not attempting to find the easy gains closer to the valve. Obsession with a "good look" vs optimal performance. Customers look for something pleasing to the eye. Really hard to sell potentially your best to work to someone who can't appreciate it. I wouldn't want to explain every little secret just to make the complaints stop. Everyone has their lazy day too.

Speaking to Alan's point about a "ported" head, I worked and flowbenched a TIII head that was off the shelf supposedly big name ported. With the valves removed I really hoped that wasn't true. Apparently TIII heads can have large casting "cornflakes" hidden behind the valves and a pro headporter wouldn't leave those...

I am assuming the 8v head I ported from a 2.2 TII forged crank Shelby Z was a 782 head. I wish Gary would make his head section a little more dummy friendly for understanding what is what. Seems like some years of the same style head are better but its all very unclear.
Assuming 782 head, all I remember was that the intake port looked like a C-clamp. Junk.

Regarding SMP's old posts, I believe he would have had a nasty ignition system, no blowing out the spark for him on a swirl head.
He also raised the ports on his heads so any head with a better angle/radius to the valves would have been his head of choice. When I say he raised the ports, I believe he basically built a new ceiling and extended that into his own intake manifold design. Better if he did this with both the exhaust and intake. One of the poor aspects of the old Hemi heads were terrible exhaust port angles. Same problem on 3.0 heads. Floor drops right after valve. The Gen II hemi (427 I think) was less of a hemi than the older 1950's 390somethings but it had a better exhaust port. Get the idea that the crossflow design was the real improvement aspect and the chamber gimic was not as important as a good port.

I have said before that a "chambered" piston would cost nearly the same, nobody wants to do the work to make it all jive. There is certainly a good point to having a nice burn near the plug. It is also very true that when you are running exotic fuels, you don't care about a little sensitivity improvement. I will defend exotic fuel use in that its not just for hiding problems. Methanol makes 20% more power minimum off the bat. Thats got nothing to do with all the people who cover up with excess octane.

Side note, I see some camshaft issues people long argued over have more to do with running a sketchy turbo than everything else. Crap turbo on iffy head with according to myth marginally better camshaft is nothing to bother writing about. People still pass around fraudish t3t4 turbos in stock housings that perform worse than S60's.

I also have never really seen these large turbo high timing projects that did well at low boost and failed at high boost. I would assume they ran poorly at the start and never got much better. I would also not blame the turbo. I love big turbo with fun timing. Its insane common on other platforms, or domestic v8s. Its something you do on an engine that was not factory turbocharged. It makes little sense on a low compression slug lacking supporting mods. Neither the junky factory turbo engine, or the factory n/a engine will handle the rigors of high boost levels, so either one has to be fully modified to bother with big boost #'s.

That last point brings me to think about Gary's comment on cylinder head sealing. That could certainly be more important than anything else. Lots of high power turbo import motors don't bother porting heads. The n/a guys have to, but for the turbo guys, sealing the head is a much bigger deal. They can always throw insane boost levels to make up for flow, but if the combustion pressure won't hold, its game over.

For true high power, I would first want to be able to seal the head. Screw flow. You can always make more boost, and on the right fuel you don't care so much about a little extra heat, especially since you won't be lacking intercooler in a high level race setup. Once you can seal the head and have a turbo falling off the boost pressure map (but still having flow potential) then optimized ports will bring more power. If the turbo dies off at 60psi, you probably want to make that same power at 45psi with improved headflow assuming your turbo flows more there. Very interesting to see SMP ran a bone stock head during an event on the same exact setup. Thats info you would never get your hands on otherwise. Shows ability to perform, yet still a huge bottleneck. Realize that he ran the same boost level, he always ran conservative boost #'s compared to his rivals, and I bet if he cranked that turbo hard he could have brought his times down near ported levels if the head would seal. All that really matters is if his class legal turbo was off the compressor map either vertically or horizontally. Thats how you maximize power for a turbo class racer. Knowing how easy he ran his turbo, he certainly could have made that stock head run fast. I feel Stephane did a lot of things to avoid weight penalties and keep his costs down. Go slower and be consistent. Never turn things up. Never show your MPH until some ridiculous SDAC pass. Make one fast pass at an event and you are gonna get slammed with weight. He was allowed back then to be very very light. Near lightest in the class I believe while having more displacement than the legal B series Hondas. Probably all down to saving the transmission.

[tryingbe]

Found an interesting cylinder head picture.
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/garage_vehicle.php?do=view_vehicle&id=142

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/garage_attachment.php?id=322&attach_type=full

[OmniLuvr]

that thing looks crazy? it was milled so much theres no more "pad" left to tell how much "life" is left. wonder how it did? any more info on car?

[tryingbe]

that thing looks crazy? it was milled so much theres no more "pad" left to tell how much "life" is left. wonder how it did? any more info on car?

fingts is from Finland with a Lancer. The pictures I linked is all you have to go with.
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/member.php?4000-fingts&tab=activitystream&type=user?tab=user_vehicles
http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/garage_vehicle.php?do=view_vehicle&id=142

[Keito]

I used to have pics of the head Scott Koffel did for a local guy that worked at his shop.
I'll keep looking

[2.216VTurbo]

I think that's a G head significantly reshaped into a 'swirl':eyebrows:

I guess I never did finish loading pics from the RedBox top end Redux. Even at SDAC last year we already knew there was an oil control/smoking problem with the head(motor was bought used as 'low mile' so I can't really whine much) so at JT's house a few of us puilled the valve cove for a looksee. That's when we saw the dropped valve guide and the seal just riding the stem up and down on the #3 so we assumed that's where all the oil was coming from. Upon teardown a couple weeks ago I discovered that #3 WASN'T the big offender:confused: Surprise surprise #1 has soooo much oil going down the TU header there was a 1/16" layer of coke all the way around the runner. Clearly that's why you had to change that #1 plug on the drive out to Cali (PHX ;)) Cordes:nod:. I ended up building another head that's in the earlier pics in this thread so I haven't dissasembled the old head yet to diagnose the problem but Cordes was adding a quart of oil for each tank of fuel on the drive out:wow1: so that's bad Umkaaaay... Heres a few more pics of the new top end, I actually had to port the TU header with a scroll/abrasive cartridge roll on the #1 runner to that layer of coked oil out.