250/200s sooner than later.....

Gearhead

Active member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
0
We would be better served with something in the 75mm neighborhood even if we keep the 66mm compressor.
 

TARM

New member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
0
gt40 series uses a turbine wheel of 77mm/68mm With the 4088 its matched to a 64.7/88 comp wheel and in the 4094 matched to a 67.8/94 comp wheel

That compared to the 38r which is a Comp:65.86mm/88mm Turbine: 76.20mm 67.73mm

Based on those numbers and that the turbine wheel uses comp wheels that splits slightly smaller and larger than what the 38R is, this looks like the turbine wheel for the 38r.

Not sure if it can be done but taking a gt40 turbine wheel onto a 38R shaft and then machine the housing to allow it to fit?
 

Gearhead

Active member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
0
I just confirmation that the factory turbine exducer is acutally less than 68mm. The issue with parts compatibility is that the 38r is a reverse rotation charge so you can't pull any parts from any of the other garrett t-4 style turbos.
 
Last edited:

Vader's Fury

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
3,302
Reaction score
1
Location
Chesapeake City, MD
I just confirmation that the factory turbine exducer is acutally less than 68mm. The issue with parts compatibility is that the 38r is a reverse rotation charge so you can't pull any parts from any of the other garrett t-4 style turbos.

just put it on upside down....... :poke:
























LOLLOLLOLLOL
 

Turbosuzuki

New member
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
403
Reaction score
0
Location
Louisiana
Lots of great info in this thread. Thank you Jason and Bill for sharing. I was the guy that bought Jasons stage1 injectors. Bill hooked me up and tuned my truck and it rips now.
 

TARM

New member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
0
Why could Ford have just made things fit and work with a normal flow turbo. Boy would things have been simpler. Grrrr
 

TARM

New member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
0
yeh yeh I know but you know what I mean. Trust me I can point a ton of fingers at the crap Ford did do to our engine trans to cut corners and save/make money.
 

Tim @ P.I.S.

Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
880
Reaction score
0
Location
Sunny, FL
Bill, nice job on what you have shown here. I do have one question I would love to hear your side on. Why is the peak at 2650? What after all this time do you feel the reason for the limited RPMs is??? DO you forsee anyway to break this long standing barrier? I have seen first hand some of the hold ups on the injection side. What can you share with us on the tuning side??
 

TyCorr

New member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
15,461
Reaction score
0
Bill, nice job on what you have shown here. I do have one question I would love to hear your side on. Why is the peak at 2650? What after all this time do you feel the reason for the limited RPMs is??? DO you forsee anyway to break this long standing barrier? I have seen first hand some of the hold ups on the injection side. What can you share with us on the tuning side??

Was that before or.after the fuel pump upgrade?
 

TARM

New member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
0
It was after while the TQ peak seems in normal range @2500 the HP peak was only 100rpms high in the 2600s. Just from what I have seen from other dyno runs I would have expected to see a 3000 rpm peak for HP +/-100 rpms.

Could it be from maxing out the turbo already and maybe bring fuel in a little slower would have broadened the HP curve and taken the peak up in the rpm band? I am guess at this. I could just be a tuning preference as well :shrug:

Here is the dyno graphs of the various run before and after the pump was added. It looks like you could change the fueling to bring it up slower but then have it in turn fall off a bit quicker as you only have so much PW and fuel in it.

jason_seay_stage_3_single_250_200_new_pump.jpg
 

Tim @ P.I.S.

Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
880
Reaction score
0
Location
Sunny, FL
A 200% nozzle can move 238cc of fuel in 2.25ms of pulse width(3200psi ICP). 2.25 ms/pw is allowable by the IDM at 4800 RPM.

Thats what raises why curiousity. If fueling is there, what on the tuning side can help open up some RPM???
 

PowerstrokeJunkie

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland
Maybe im missing something by replying while not reading the entire thread-- In this dyno graph above it shows over 550hp. You are making that Lowdown on your truck? Thought this sucker had pmrs?
 

TARM

New member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
2,439
Reaction score
0
A 200% nozzle can move 238cc of fuel in 2.25ms of pulse width(3200psi ICP). 2.25 ms/pw is allowable by the IDM at 4800 RPM.

Thats what raises why curiousity. If fueling is there, what on the tuning side can help open up some RPM???


That is just the electronic limit set by the IDM as you can not have signal overlap. That does not mean you have than much crank angle window time to injector the fuel in. Electric vs mechanical limits.
 
Top