i have heard that platnum is no good for the turbo motors. my buddy swears they are better than my ngks can anyone clear this up for us
platinum plugs vs copper core
- Thread starter robbo1987*2.3*
- Start date
- Status
Platinum will last longer, other than that, a 100,000 volt coil will fire a platinum or a regular plug the same. The best plug is the one Ford engineers spent countless hours and thousands of $ developing. If NGK or any other plug was better than the Ford plug, Ford would have them in there engines from the factory.
um
i understand that andon allnewer cars that i work on get what the factory calls but my motor is far from factory i have heard that the turbomotors will melt the platnum plugs just wondering and ngks do much better and last longer than the stocklmotorcraft replacements in my motor
i understand that andon allnewer cars that i work on get what the factory calls but my motor is far from factory i have heard that the turbomotors will melt the platnum plugs just wondering and ngks do much better and last longer than the stocklmotorcraft replacements in my motor
Tubos, unless they are 20 psi + don't melt pugs. And 20 psi is just asking for crank problems. 20 psi is like having 14 to 1 pistons in a NA engine, You have to have high octane fuel or detonation happens. With 93 octane you may get away with 10-15 psi. Spark plugs is not the problem with melting plugs, it's the low octane fuel with high pressure. I had a 6.71 blower on my pinto (351) that was running 16 psi , That's like 25psi with a turbo. I ran 4 pints of 104+ in 11 gallons of 93 octane and I could still here the ping.
ohhhh ok
thats what i was worrying about. when i g o to the track i turn the boost up to 18/19 lbs and run straight cam 2 ( i have no cat) on the street i run around 12-15 depending on outside temp/humidity with 93 octane in it ( with a cat of course lol
) if i try and run the higher boost with the 93 it starts detonating about halfway through 3 but with the cam 2 and a little tweak of the timing it runs like a skalded dog. i know the boost levels are sketchy with my setup but i have a new motor on the stand so im kinda guinea pigging this motor if you know what i meen. the plug question cam about when we were talkin about puttin a nitrous system on it and he bought autolite double platnum athat are like 2 heat ranges colder than stock
thats what i was worrying about. when i g o to the track i turn the boost up to 18/19 lbs and run straight cam 2 ( i have no cat) on the street i run around 12-15 depending on outside temp/humidity with 93 octane in it ( with a cat of course lol
) if i try and run the higher boost with the 93 it starts detonating about halfway through 3 but with the cam 2 and a little tweak of the timing it runs like a skalded dog. i know the boost levels are sketchy with my setup but i have a new motor on the stand so im kinda guinea pigging this motor if you know what i meen. the plug question cam about when we were talkin about puttin a nitrous system on it and he bought autolite double platnum athat are like 2 heat ranges colder than stock
Eh 20 psi is plenty doable on pump gas, if you have stuff set up right and good injectors. I think people have done it.
oh9, 2.3's flow so bad they can take more boost than most other engines (plus they're really stout).
As far as the plugs- Just run motorcrafts that are specified for this engine. They're better than most others out there. That's what I've been running for years, at 15-17 psi, with no problems.
oh9, 2.3's flow so bad they can take more boost than most other engines (plus they're really stout).
As far as the plugs- Just run motorcrafts that are specified for this engine. They're better than most others out there. That's what I've been running for years, at 15-17 psi, with no problems.
RED LX
20 PSI is not doable on 93 octane. Simple math.
9 to 1 , which is what most 2.3 have, and 20 psi is like 14.5- 15 to 1 in a NA engine and 93 octane will not support a 14 or 15 to 1 engine no matter what people say they have done or know someone who has done. Feeding a bunch more of 93 octane fuel into a engine that needs 120 octane will just blow the engine. Because the fuel will self detonate at around 10.5 compression ratio. So if you would feed 93 fuel in a 14 to 1 engine the mixture would ignite about 50 degrees before the piston was at the top, You can see how this would not be good.
2.3 don't have a stronger crank assembly than the 2.5 or any other stock 4 cylinder. What it takes is a STEEL crank, canferred bearings and a strong oil pump. none of which the 2.3 has.
If I remember right the Turbo 2.3 mustangs were not any faster than the stock 302 GT, (which were an embarrassment) and the turbo’s were making around 3-5 psi.
20 PSI is not doable on 93 octane. Simple math.
9 to 1 , which is what most 2.3 have, and 20 psi is like 14.5- 15 to 1 in a NA engine and 93 octane will not support a 14 or 15 to 1 engine no matter what people say they have done or know someone who has done. Feeding a bunch more of 93 octane fuel into a engine that needs 120 octane will just blow the engine. Because the fuel will self detonate at around 10.5 compression ratio. So if you would feed 93 fuel in a 14 to 1 engine the mixture would ignite about 50 degrees before the piston was at the top, You can see how this would not be good.
2.3 don't have a stronger crank assembly than the 2.5 or any other stock 4 cylinder. What it takes is a STEEL crank, canferred bearings and a strong oil pump. none of which the 2.3 has.
If I remember right the Turbo 2.3 mustangs were not any faster than the stock 302 GT, (which were an embarrassment) and the turbo’s were making around 3-5 psi.
2.3 Turbos were not 9:1, they were 8:1. 20 psi is plenty doable on 93 octane, I'VE SEEN IT DONE. Don't believe me, go over to Turboford.net and look at some guy's "proven combinations" over there.
And from the factory 2.3 turbos were running around 10 psi before they had intercoolers, and 12-15 psi once they got an intercooler. These are FACTORY settings. 17 psi is easily doable on stock injectors and a stock computer, 20 psi is just a stone's throw away from that.
Also 2.3's had a totally different crank & rod setup from the 2.5. The 2.5 had smaller main journals and a longer stroke.
2.3's are stout from the factory. ARP rod bolts are all that are needed on the bottom end to run 400+ hp, and you need at least 20 psi if not more to reach that figure.
And from the factory 2.3 turbos were running around 10 psi before they had intercoolers, and 12-15 psi once they got an intercooler. These are FACTORY settings. 17 psi is easily doable on stock injectors and a stock computer, 20 psi is just a stone's throw away from that.
Also 2.3's had a totally different crank & rod setup from the 2.5. The 2.5 had smaller main journals and a longer stroke.
2.3's are stout from the factory. ARP rod bolts are all that are needed on the bottom end to run 400+ hp, and you need at least 20 psi if not more to reach that figure.
You should listen to Red. He know's what he's talking about and has been around forever. Everyone here is lucky that he still reads and posts in the 2.3 section, because all the other knowledgable people packed up and left!
There are far too many factors involved in octane limitations to do calculations as you've done. The real world works much differently than this overly simplified estimation. Your simple calculations make no account of initial timing, temperature of the air charge, intercooler efficiency, engine speed, or volumetric efficiency. Beyond these obvious factors for octane limitation, there are plenty much more complicated factors that I would bet you've never even heard of that greatly effect the equation... such as the speed of the flame front, quench area, swirl as the air enters the cylinder and the compression height. There are no equations to calculate maximum boost with a given octane because every engine is different and there are far far far too many factors to consider that are dependent on eachother.
As Red said, lots and lots of people have run 20psi on pump gas in their 2.3, including me.
And I would hardly consider a 2.3 that runs even with a stock 302 embarrassing. The 5.0 fox was without a doubt the king of the street in the late 80s and very early 90s. There were very few cars that could match the performance. Even the corvette of the time could only run even with the 5.0, and most other cars weren't even close until you got into exotic car territory. So a 2.3 with less than half the displacement and even worse head flow than the 302 is far from an embarrassment in it's day. It is absolutely not fair to compare an engine produced more than 20 years ago with modern turbo engines.
There are far too many factors involved in octane limitations to do calculations as you've done. The real world works much differently than this overly simplified estimation. Your simple calculations make no account of initial timing, temperature of the air charge, intercooler efficiency, engine speed, or volumetric efficiency. Beyond these obvious factors for octane limitation, there are plenty much more complicated factors that I would bet you've never even heard of that greatly effect the equation... such as the speed of the flame front, quench area, swirl as the air enters the cylinder and the compression height. There are no equations to calculate maximum boost with a given octane because every engine is different and there are far far far too many factors to consider that are dependent on eachother.
As Red said, lots and lots of people have run 20psi on pump gas in their 2.3, including me.
And I would hardly consider a 2.3 that runs even with a stock 302 embarrassing. The 5.0 fox was without a doubt the king of the street in the late 80s and very early 90s. There were very few cars that could match the performance. Even the corvette of the time could only run even with the 5.0, and most other cars weren't even close until you got into exotic car territory. So a 2.3 with less than half the displacement and even worse head flow than the 302 is far from an embarrassment in it's day. It is absolutely not fair to compare an engine produced more than 20 years ago with modern turbo engines.
Red
If you think 20 psi is doable then go for it. My first 2.3 I bought new in 74.
The Ford Pinto used the OHC version, a 2.3 L (2302 cm³) unit introduced in 1974 which has a 96.0 mm (3.78 in) bore and 79.5 mm (3.13 in) stroke. This version lasted until 1997 in various guises. The earliest units produced 66 kW (88 hp) and 160 N·m (118 ft·lbf). This engine has also been known as the Lima engine, after the Lima Engine plant in Lima, Ohio, where it was first manufactured (it was also later manufactured in Brazil).
In 1979-80, a draw-through, non-intercooled turbo version was produced for Mustang Cobras and some Capris. Lack of dealership and owner training resulted in many stuck turbochargers and other maintenance problems. They were limited to 5 PSI of boost though Ford Motorsport sold a wastegate with an adjustable rod which allowed an increase of up to 9 PSI. It was used in this carbureted form in a number of passenger cars, from the Fairmont Futura Turbo to the 1979 Indy Pace Car edition Mustang.
In the 1980s, a turbocharged and intercooled version was used in the Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. This was made practical by the introduction of Ford's EECIV port fuel injection system; 1983's 2.3 Liter Turbo was the first production implementation of that advance in technology, which paved the way for across the board use in many Ford passenger car and light truck engines; however, the turbo version never made it into any Ford trucks. Output for this turbo/intercooled version was 142 kW (190 hp) and 325 N·m (240 ft·lbf) for the 1987-88 models with the (T-5) 5-speed manual transmission.
The turbocharged and intercooled 2.3 was also used in the 1984-86 Mustang SVO, while the 1983-1984 Mustang TurboGT, 1985-89 Merkur XR4Ti, 1983-1986 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe and 1984-1986 Mercury Cougar XR7 all skipped the intercooler on their turbo versions, which dropped output to 180 hp (130 kW) and 205 ft·lbf (278 N·m) of torque). The SVO Mustang's output increased in 1985 1/2 to 205 HP.
A dual-spark version (with two spark plugs per cylinder and distributorless ignition) was introduced in the 1989 Ford Ranger and 1991 Ford Mustang. This version produced 78 kW (105 hp) and 183 N·m (135 ft·lbf).
I had one of these 89 rangers also.
If you think 20 psi is doable then go for it. My first 2.3 I bought new in 74.
The Ford Pinto used the OHC version, a 2.3 L (2302 cm³) unit introduced in 1974 which has a 96.0 mm (3.78 in) bore and 79.5 mm (3.13 in) stroke. This version lasted until 1997 in various guises. The earliest units produced 66 kW (88 hp) and 160 N·m (118 ft·lbf). This engine has also been known as the Lima engine, after the Lima Engine plant in Lima, Ohio, where it was first manufactured (it was also later manufactured in Brazil).
In 1979-80, a draw-through, non-intercooled turbo version was produced for Mustang Cobras and some Capris. Lack of dealership and owner training resulted in many stuck turbochargers and other maintenance problems. They were limited to 5 PSI of boost though Ford Motorsport sold a wastegate with an adjustable rod which allowed an increase of up to 9 PSI. It was used in this carbureted form in a number of passenger cars, from the Fairmont Futura Turbo to the 1979 Indy Pace Car edition Mustang.
In the 1980s, a turbocharged and intercooled version was used in the Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe. This was made practical by the introduction of Ford's EECIV port fuel injection system; 1983's 2.3 Liter Turbo was the first production implementation of that advance in technology, which paved the way for across the board use in many Ford passenger car and light truck engines; however, the turbo version never made it into any Ford trucks. Output for this turbo/intercooled version was 142 kW (190 hp) and 325 N·m (240 ft·lbf) for the 1987-88 models with the (T-5) 5-speed manual transmission.
The turbocharged and intercooled 2.3 was also used in the 1984-86 Mustang SVO, while the 1983-1984 Mustang TurboGT, 1985-89 Merkur XR4Ti, 1983-1986 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe and 1984-1986 Mercury Cougar XR7 all skipped the intercooler on their turbo versions, which dropped output to 180 hp (130 kW) and 205 ft·lbf (278 N·m) of torque). The SVO Mustang's output increased in 1985 1/2 to 205 HP.
A dual-spark version (with two spark plugs per cylinder and distributorless ignition) was introduced in the 1989 Ford Ranger and 1991 Ford Mustang. This version produced 78 kW (105 hp) and 183 N·m (135 ft·lbf).
I had one of these 89 rangers also.
nice
good copy and paste there guy its not what you know but what you can prove
imma stick with red and buhff they have been around for a while and have or had turbo setups that ran very well
good copy and paste there guy its not what you know but what you can prove
imma stick with red and buhff they have been around for a while and have or had turbo setups that ran very well
So a "Copy and Paste" makes it somehow, Wrong?
20 psi in a engine with a cast iron crank and cast pistons will not work, No matter how or who says it will. I don't doubt that Red has had turbo 2.3s but a factory 2.3 had 7 psi and that wouldn't last very long. saying a 2.3 will last with 20 psi and actually having a 2.3 last might be a little different. Like I said before, 20 psi is like having 14-15 to 1 pistons in a NA engine. 93 octane will not support 14-15 to one compression, the fuel will detonate before TDC.
"its not what you know but what you can prove "
You say this about my post only, that's nice. I haven't seen any proof from anyone.
It really doesn't matter if you have a 4.6 or half a 4.6 (2.3) , having 20 psi just will not work unless the engine is built for 20 psi. And that means steel crank, forged pistons, high pressure oil pump, etc. without these things the engine wont get the oil it needs, the crank will not stand the pressure, the pistons will melt and one day when you nail the gas, you WILL run over the crank shaft.
But in America, people can think whatever they choose to think. I think I will go and drive my TWIN turbo 4 cylinder to the store.
Darn,,,,,, It blew up, soon as I started it. It only had 30 psi, wonder why it blew?
20 psi in a engine with a cast iron crank and cast pistons will not work, No matter how or who says it will. I don't doubt that Red has had turbo 2.3s but a factory 2.3 had 7 psi and that wouldn't last very long. saying a 2.3 will last with 20 psi and actually having a 2.3 last might be a little different. Like I said before, 20 psi is like having 14-15 to 1 pistons in a NA engine. 93 octane will not support 14-15 to one compression, the fuel will detonate before TDC.
"its not what you know but what you can prove "
You say this about my post only, that's nice. I haven't seen any proof from anyone.
It really doesn't matter if you have a 4.6 or half a 4.6 (2.3) , having 20 psi just will not work unless the engine is built for 20 psi. And that means steel crank, forged pistons, high pressure oil pump, etc. without these things the engine wont get the oil it needs, the crank will not stand the pressure, the pistons will melt and one day when you nail the gas, you WILL run over the crank shaft.
But in America, people can think whatever they choose to think. I think I will go and drive my TWIN turbo 4 cylinder to the store.
Darn,,,,,, It blew up, soon as I started it. It only had 30 psi, wonder why it blew?
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on nearly every 'fact' you stated
The minimum boost the EFI 2.3 cam with from the factory was 9 psi, not 7psi. That's the base setting of the wastegate and what most of them ran on 87 octane. The premium settings normally ran 14-15psi. The very early carb turbos ran less, but I'm talking efi. Next, the factory 2.3 turbo actually came from the factory with forged pistons and a high volume oil pump.
Have you ever taken a 2.3 apart before? If so, you'd notice the crank is very heavy duty and very strong, even though it is cast iron. The 2.3 has a main bearing between every rod bearing, which means it has LOTS of support. Most V8s have 2 rod bearings between main bearings, which significantly reduces their strength. The cast crank on the 2.3 is actually good for more than 700hp... so I think 300hp from 20psi will be no problem for it.
As said, I've run 20psi on pump gas and as much as 25psi on E85.... with a cast crank even... I cracked the cylinder wall of a newer style (non-turbo) block, but the cast crank and pistons were still just fine. (note, this was a dual plug block and the non dual plug blocks are much stronger).
Please stop a moment to learn something before firing off inaccurate information. You don't have the experience to say what will and won't work on a 2.3.
The minimum boost the EFI 2.3 cam with from the factory was 9 psi, not 7psi. That's the base setting of the wastegate and what most of them ran on 87 octane. The premium settings normally ran 14-15psi. The very early carb turbos ran less, but I'm talking efi. Next, the factory 2.3 turbo actually came from the factory with forged pistons and a high volume oil pump.
Have you ever taken a 2.3 apart before? If so, you'd notice the crank is very heavy duty and very strong, even though it is cast iron. The 2.3 has a main bearing between every rod bearing, which means it has LOTS of support. Most V8s have 2 rod bearings between main bearings, which significantly reduces their strength. The cast crank on the 2.3 is actually good for more than 700hp... so I think 300hp from 20psi will be no problem for it.
As said, I've run 20psi on pump gas and as much as 25psi on E85.... with a cast crank even... I cracked the cylinder wall of a newer style (non-turbo) block, but the cast crank and pistons were still just fine. (note, this was a dual plug block and the non dual plug blocks are much stronger).
Please stop a moment to learn something before firing off inaccurate information. You don't have the experience to say what will and won't work on a 2.3.
Biff
I would guess I have been building cars for longer than you, but that's a guess.
My first engine build was in 1962.
Saying all the stuff you say is pretty easy. Now, put a gage that actually works on a car and get 20 psi out of it and have it still run, now that may be something altogether different.
It's not my experience that determines if something will or will not work. It's simple math.
The crank on my John Deer lawn mower with turbo and E85 is good for 605 HP.
But I cracked the block at the exhaust port.
I think I'm done with this topic, I really don't care about 1/2 motor performance anyway.
I would guess I have been building cars for longer than you, but that's a guess.
My first engine build was in 1962.
Saying all the stuff you say is pretty easy. Now, put a gage that actually works on a car and get 20 psi out of it and have it still run, now that may be something altogether different.
It's not my experience that determines if something will or will not work. It's simple math.
The crank on my John Deer lawn mower with turbo and E85 is good for 605 HP.
But I cracked the block at the exhaust port.
I think I'm done with this topic, I really don't care about 1/2 motor performance anyway.
Platnium plugs were deveped and used for one reason....longevity. If you look back, they were first installed on luxury cars and touted and 100K mile plugs. The idea was it would be easily to sella car with less maintainence items to older people who didn't want to pay.
Now pretty much every car comes from the factory with platnium plugs. As a result, the ignition systems have been upgraded to compensate.
Now, for performance applications, platnium really isn't all that good. It's a high resistance plug. Copper exceeds it, but the issue of wear does come into play.
But, for a boosted motor, you could run Iridiums. Iridium is a stronger metal than platnium, so the electrode tip is much smaller reducing resistance. It also will take more heat than copper or platnium. I would consider using an NGK Iridium plug in a power adder situation.
But if we were talking N/A....Copper > platnium
Now pretty much every car comes from the factory with platnium plugs. As a result, the ignition systems have been upgraded to compensate.
Now, for performance applications, platnium really isn't all that good. It's a high resistance plug. Copper exceeds it, but the issue of wear does come into play.
But, for a boosted motor, you could run Iridiums. Iridium is a stronger metal than platnium, so the electrode tip is much smaller reducing resistance. It also will take more heat than copper or platnium. I would consider using an NGK Iridium plug in a power adder situation.
But if we were talking N/A....Copper > platnium
fess40
Founding Member
I've yet to do my turbo conversion, but I'm pretty sure the turbo motors all came with forged pistons. bhuff / red correct me if I'm wrong here.
248a
New Member
Thanks for the tip Cleetus, you just keep building those engines. I'm sure the knowledge you've garnered in those years is enough to make blanket statements about every engine ever. What's sad is that in your supposed 47 years of building engines, you still haven't learned common courtesy enough not to insult someone else because their opinion doesn't suit you. If you're wrong you're wrong, leave the name calling between you and whatever souped-up beast of a "whole" engine you must be working on as I speak.
2.3L Turbo Build
"Ok, I've done some more work on FourBanger. It's now January and this car is the fastest it's ever been. I've had this car faster than 150 mph. It's scary as hell. But the performance of this car out of the hole is incredible! I've pulled the left front tire on the street in second gear more than a couple of times. My MotorSport clutch is holding up great. Good thing too, cause I've upped the boost to 25 psi. The turbo is holding up fine. As long as I keep the boost cold, I can keep the timing "Jacked" and receive the maximum power out of this thing. I've learned that the power comes from the ignition timing. Sure I can turn the boost up; but if I have to turn the timing down so it doesn't ping, what's the point? It looses soo much power when the timing's down. The key is to keep the timing as high as possible without detonating and run as much boost as possible. Thanks to my intercooler, it's possible."
248
I have no idea were you got that I called anyone a name.
And yes the knowledge I've garnered in those years does give me the right to make blanket statements. I made a statement and someone tells me "Your wrong" Well, that’s their opinion. Allow me to have mine.
If the people here think a engine can run on actual 20 psi without the stuff I mentioned, then go right ahead, think it. I have built many, many motors in my years and only by trial and error can anyone make statements like I did. I made the mistakes and I make the statements. I built a 540 cubic inch Mustang ll, I built 2 V8 pintos, one had a 6.71 on it, Do you know what 6.71 means? I put twin turbos on a 302 mustang way before you could buy a twin package. A 4 cylinder
(1/2 motor) with a turbo, in a mustang will run the same times as a GT of the same year, High 14s or 15s, (Blanket Statement). If you don't like having a 4 cylinder called 1/2 an engine then don't own a 4 cylinder, cause simple math tells me that 4 is 1/2 of 8 and 2.3 is also 1/2 of 4.6, but then some here may have had a different math teacher when they were young. I have found that talking cars to a Chevy guy is just a waste of breath and talking engine build to anyone is also a waste. People think their way is the best, chevy guys think Chevy's are the answer to world peace, well, I will give my opinion, but after that , I could care less, Buy a Chevy, Build a 20 psi 4 cylinder, makes NO difference to me, at all.
A whole motor
I have no idea were you got that I called anyone a name.
And yes the knowledge I've garnered in those years does give me the right to make blanket statements. I made a statement and someone tells me "Your wrong" Well, that’s their opinion. Allow me to have mine.
If the people here think a engine can run on actual 20 psi without the stuff I mentioned, then go right ahead, think it. I have built many, many motors in my years and only by trial and error can anyone make statements like I did. I made the mistakes and I make the statements. I built a 540 cubic inch Mustang ll, I built 2 V8 pintos, one had a 6.71 on it, Do you know what 6.71 means? I put twin turbos on a 302 mustang way before you could buy a twin package. A 4 cylinder
(1/2 motor) with a turbo, in a mustang will run the same times as a GT of the same year, High 14s or 15s, (Blanket Statement). If you don't like having a 4 cylinder called 1/2 an engine then don't own a 4 cylinder, cause simple math tells me that 4 is 1/2 of 8 and 2.3 is also 1/2 of 4.6, but then some here may have had a different math teacher when they were young. I have found that talking cars to a Chevy guy is just a waste of breath and talking engine build to anyone is also a waste. People think their way is the best, chevy guys think Chevy's are the answer to world peace, well, I will give my opinion, but after that , I could care less, Buy a Chevy, Build a 20 psi 4 cylinder, makes NO difference to me, at all.
A whole motor
Attachments
well ill set it straight for you
i have an 88 coupe with a 2.3 turbomotor in it
ive run 20 lbs quite a few times with the stock head, block, internals, brown top injectors, vam, im talkin stock everything with 93 oct fuel and it would start to detonate about halfway through 3rd. i cut the timing back a little bit and all was well.
i will say that cam2 (110 oct) is some good stuff, i can advance the timng and run 20 lbs all day and have done it many times with no probs
i know that the stock i/c runs outta effiency at around 15 lbs or so if im not mistakin but i stillpush it with more boost because it does go faster whether its efficeint or not im no expert but ive been messing with the turbo setupps since i was 15 and im now 23 yes i have blown many headgaskets and broke a few opther things but it is all in trial and error thats how i learn but anyways..................
YOU CAN RUN 20LBS OF BOOST ON 93 OCT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as far as the plug question goes i had that one answered for me when the nitrous express kit that i put on my car said no platinum plugs in very bold lettering.
will iriduim work with the nitrous or should i stick with the copper?????
i have an 88 coupe with a 2.3 turbomotor in it
ive run 20 lbs quite a few times with the stock head, block, internals, brown top injectors, vam, im talkin stock everything with 93 oct fuel and it would start to detonate about halfway through 3rd. i cut the timing back a little bit and all was well.
i will say that cam2 (110 oct) is some good stuff, i can advance the timng and run 20 lbs all day and have done it many times with no probs
i know that the stock i/c runs outta effiency at around 15 lbs or so if im not mistakin but i stillpush it with more boost because it does go faster whether its efficeint or not im no expert but ive been messing with the turbo setupps since i was 15 and im now 23 yes i have blown many headgaskets and broke a few opther things but it is all in trial and error thats how i learn but anyways..................
YOU CAN RUN 20LBS OF BOOST ON 93 OCT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as far as the plug question goes i had that one answered for me when the nitrous express kit that i put on my car said no platinum plugs in very bold lettering.
will iriduim work with the nitrous or should i stick with the copper?????
While oh9 may not know a lot in particular about the 2.3 turbo, he at least knows something about engines. Certainly, the 2.3 turbo is the only oem engine I know of that will handle 20psi without puking all the fluids out in one spectacular moment. Even then, you have to do some modifications to make it handle 20psi... an effective intercooler, and of course ensuring you have enough fuel on tap.
However, I'd rather not think of my 4cyl as half an engine... I'd say it is probably closer to a 1/4 engine, and a V8 is only HALF an engine. The Bentley W16 changes everything.
However, I'd rather not think of my 4cyl as half an engine... I'd say it is probably closer to a 1/4 engine, and a V8 is only HALF an engine. The Bentley W16 changes everything.
- Status
Similar threads
