Well i think from here on out we should aim a little higher than that!
I think some head flow numbers would be the next big thing im looking for, hopefully after class today ill have some more time for research
Well i think from here on out we should aim a little higher than that!
I think some head flow numbers would be the next big thing im looking for, hopefully after class today ill have some more time for research
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
the other thing to look into is the head gasket up grade and mabe studs
as for the intake run it through a band saw cutting the runners mabe 4to6" long and weld on a 6" plumen ,weld in some injector bungs and yes a t1 fuel rail
as for the coolant pump looks to be a good way for remote mounted electric pump.
as for the exhaust side make a 4into 1 equal length header and a holset
I meant the starion/conquests...the n/a motors...to be honest, I'm not sure.Originally Posted by turbovanman
Last edited by strang3majik; 01-25-2010 at 07:49 PM.
Yep, just checked, they are mechanical and adjustable,Maybe '84 Caravans had solids? Pic looks like a hydraulic lifter though, but maybe it's a generic pic.
http://www.starquestclub.com/forum/i...h&fromsearch=1
Only dang thing ive found for head flow so far, a ported head that "flows 230cfm @ .500 on the intake side".
Those ports are monstrous compared to ours..
later in thread:
"A stock T-casting head with JV's removed and welded CAN flow over 225 cfm intake with stock sized valves (undercut) with the right flow work.......just ask me how I know"
Also, looking around StarQuestClub, it really seems most people are held back by bad info/lack of knowledge more than any real deficiency in the motor. I kinda figured the community would be about on par technically with t-m... so far what im seeing is nothing close to that.
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
The heads do have decent flow. The ports are very similar to 3.0 ports.
yeah...as I've said many times...it isn't the engine's fault the owners are idiots...lol Now, a majority of the owners on that site are very knowledgable...but...theres quite a few "drifters" on there that know nothing more than..."MORE BOOST!!!"
But...keep in mind...the TMs have had many many years of R&D and many people interested in them to keep coming up with new stuff.
The Conquest/starions have always been a red headed stepchild since they were Mitsu, and cost damn near $30k new in the 80s. So...they haven't had much exposure to those who want more parts til now. So...just now, many new things are popping up.
MPI is still the best way to go for power and reliablility, though. Tried and proven. But...basically...the theory that has been behind the G54B...bigger turbo...more fuel. But...thats slowly changing.
The days of making your own parts are slowly dieing during the transition into the aftermarket.
Seems like the best option really is to build an intake, considering how rare the factory MPI manifold is.
Ive seen ONE 2nd gen Magna (factory mpi manifold car) in all my junkyarding years, and it was 3.0. Chances of finding a factory MPI manifold seem very slim, and i definitely dont want to be dollar-fighting over one online with overzealous starquest owners who think its the bomb-dizzle.
Of course, all this is assuming someone wants more/better than the factory tbi unit on a factory manifold. That setup would easily take me as far as ive gone on the Aries, for example, and most people who ride in that think its REALLY FAST
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
no...the australian 2.6s were MPI...not turbo...but...yeah. They were the magnas and were FWD....so....modification is required...
however, people have made MPI work on the stock manifold.
As I said though...just use the stock caravan intake....many people switch to that one anyway since it has equal length runners and doesn't lean cylinders 1 & 4 out as much. But...only thing is...you need to make an adapter for the TB and open up the hole to the size of the TB...but...probably cheaper than buying a quest intake...
I'll post some pics of comparison tomorrow for you.
There are aftermarket MPI intakes out there for them. Kinda expensive though.
I pretty much refuse to buy aftermarket parts unless i NEEEEED them. Like a wideband, boost gauge, strong clutch, etc.
Im pretty sure for whatever it costs to buy an aftermarket intake i could build one and learn infinitely more from it.
I assume the caravan intake is the one thats on ALL the k-car 2.6s? I walked out to my 2.6 with a log fuel rail to see if the spacing was right to use a 2.2/2.5 fuel rail but i need to pull a bunch of junk out of the way to check and i was too lazy.. worked on my spirit instead. I'll do it sometime and post results. Drilling the manifold for MPI won't be hard, but if i cant slap a readily available, near-free fuel rail on it than it's no good for me
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
what he meant is the 83 starion had mech valvetrain stock. The was the only year the starquest had the mech setup it was hydraulic after that. However every 2.6 minivan had mech setup (solid if you will). So yes you did adjust mech on the 85 van lol. Your not crazy haha.
There is several differences between the na and turbo 2.6 so if you do gfo this route go with the starquest 2.6 setup. Dont even bother using or trying to use a NA block with SQ internals. The crank are nitride hardened, rods are AND pistons are better. the turbo bloack has oil squirters which do justice!! Oil pumps are VERY different. A caravan 2.6 head is a good chage of you dont get a marnel casting non-jet. The caravan heads were non-jet and supposedy stronger casting so peope use those as upgrades. Oil pickup screens are different from the NA to turbo too, heck even the pickups from 88-89 are different than the prior years and there is also many TSB changes for timing, oil pump, etc torque numbers. I have all this info if you do go thie route and can give you all you need. As for parts i have nothing anymore. I am gone away from the SQ's since i came over here with my turbo min and my soon to be aquired spirit RT i deposited on. I lov e these cars!!!! As far as SQ's, I spent 15 years and was around them even longer from family and i wish i had got into these cars then. I love them and the members here (minus a few lol) are great!!! Much less drama too!!! Any sq'er that isnt part of the drama over there can vouch for this haha. Between the site that was made against starquestclub.com, bickering from various SQ members, its like gangs against gangs lol.
lol...yeah, I keep my distance from all the BS...like a bunch of little kids bickering over a toy...and this is coming from me...a 17yo.
But...yes...word to the wise...there is no such thing as a high flow oil pump for the 2.6...anything advertised as that is usually just a turbo oil pump.
But...Vigo, that is the intake I was talking about. The stock quest intake was 2 runners coming off the TB plate, that split into 2 more going to each cylinder...very restrictive setup that leans out the outer 2 cylinders quite drastically...just run water through the intake to see for yourself. i myself haven't swapped intakes...but, then again, I'm keeping my car stock, for now...so, I haven't needed to.
I'll post a pic of them both once I find some.
yea thats another thing, the turbo pump is higher flow as i said than NA but anywhere you see a 2.6 mitsu high volume and charged more than usual is a scam. TEP used to sell a HIGH flow which was nothing more than the stock mitsu. No larger gear or anything. Strang i figured you had an idea of where i was comming from over there lol. I have seen you around there, before seeing you here. I post once i in a while at the sites but nothing much anymore. Me and a friend (randomguy) started the g54b.com site and it ended and he brought it back but its go to be searched for as he has not yet finished or even knows if he is going to continue it. It was probably the most laid back forum yet. 2.6liter is a good site too. He ended g54b.com to make it better and just has not done much with it and not even keeping the layout he has now anyway and its just laying dorment with a few random people going there.
Well, school started again and ive been slammed (got a 6page paper to write in the next 27 hours, for example) but im still planning on getting back to this and digging up info.
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
if anyone is still into this stuff....i need help. i want to go the opposite route with my 87 ram 50 (mitsubishi mighty max). i want to keep the stock mitsu 5 speed but upgrade to a longer stroke motor. i have a 91 dynasty (dodge) 2.5 that is in much better shape than the 2.0. i need any ideas about bellhousing bolt pattern differences between the chrysler block and mitsu block as well as ideas on how to rig up engine mounts. figure this would be unique and then i'd have a great powerplant. i could spend money on a 2.4 or make the 2.0 into a 2.3 with stroker crank kit but that is big bucks. fuel delivery and electronics won't be too much trouble.
thanks!
too many differences between the chrysler and mitsu motors to make to work reasonably.
if you wanna use the 2.5L, get a dakota 2.5L trans.
if you want a bigger mitsu motor, get the 2.6L and a non jet-valve head.
Brian
HA and people ask me why i dont go to collegeWell, school started again and ive been slammed (got a 6page paper to write in the next 27 hours, for example) but im still planning on getting back to this and digging up info.
Yeh, ive been thinking about this thread every once in a while but im still too damn busy to do much research on the motors, and havent touched mine. I even got in touch with a local guy to meet up with and then never got around to meeting up.
Stupid school. Only 7 more classes, though. Woopee, i guess.
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
best I can do...
Flow #'s for intake @ 28" and .400 Lift:
Stock JV Head about 151 cfm
NJV head about 165 cfm
Mild Ported Marnal 188 cfm
Heavy ported Marnal 211 cfm
Stock 2nd Gen Magna 187 cfm
Stock 3rd Gen Magna 179 cfm
2ng Gen Magna With 50mm Valves About 285+ cfm
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
