400HP pump gas friendly 4.5L stroker

[jpfrk2001]

I too looked into some books about running turbos. It all comes down to how well a person does their homework and proper planning and engineering. It depends on turbo size. Its very importent to match the compressor to the flow of the engine to get the power wanted at any rpm. It does require about 3 pages of math and calculations. You even must consider intercooler numbers. Injector size and tuning is crucial. I just want to know what type of exhaust manifold you are running or are you going to design and build your own. I also ran some numbers on a turbo application for the same engine both stock size and a 4.7 liter stroker. PM me and lets compare notes. I want to do the same to my engine but Im strokin mine first.

[tjmark]

If you are wanting to save on the budget i'd recomend sourceing all your parts seprate. Hesco wants a mint for there stuff. Bennie has never lied to me but i'm not shure he is always looking out for you. You can find theCROMO rods and pistons for under 1000 and you allready have a crank. felpro makes a HD headgasket can't rember the number. I personally have not had any problems with the stock 1/2 head bolts. 1/2 is really big considering other motors. Are you goint going to run a engine management system? FMU? Stand alone.

My intercooler was bought from a guy in Canada it was only 100 bones US. I'll try to find teh address. It is just air to air right now.
I build slow i'll add H20 when i get time.

[mondtster]

Originally Posted by tjmark

A forced induction stroker is perfect for rock crawilng. Super low end and great top end.

You're thinking of a supercharged motor. Turbos are different.

Originally Posted by CTD NUT

I would agree if it was supercharged.... a turbocharged stroker might be a bit more laggy on the very bottom than what some people prefer - the average hp is likely to be quite as high.

Most of the turbo motors I have seen and worked on were pretty peaky. They would have very little low end and come on hard at the mid and top end. I have my doubts that a turbo will be selected to give huge top end numbers in addition to good quality spool time. There however is still no replacement for displacement even when turbocharging. That is the reason that I suggested turboing an SBC.

Originally Posted by YJ_and_Corey

I can't prove to you that turbocharging isn't all that hard on a crank, but from the books I've read on the general subject of turbocharging - the crank and rods aren't being affected at the same rate as the power is being increased.

Look in the latest issue of Car Craft. There's a guy in there who has a bone stock SBC shortblock that is turbocharged and it is putting down over 700 hp at the rear wheels. It has run 9 second 1/4 miles on this setup too. It proves the point you are trying to make very well. The link to his turbomustangs.com thread is below. I've been watching it for the past year or so.

http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/in...?topic=61219.0

Originally Posted by YJ_and_Corey

Well, in truth that is why I am building it. Currently, the bottom end is unbelievable in my blown 4.0L. It pulls very very hard, and will start to spool at approximately 1000RPM in certain situations.

The more load you add, the more power you can make. Climbing in low range, second gear spools the turbo quick and hard.

I call BS on that one. There are reasons that people run 3.0 gears in their drag cars with turbo setups. If you have too much gear reduction you won't get that turbo to spool like you will if you really load it up. I can't imagine that a properly sized turbo would spool very well in 4 low with crawler gears. It may not do too bad however if the turbo was sized pretty small for the motor but that would also affect overall performance as well. Heck, my Dodge CTD with 4.10 gears won't spool the turbo very well when it is in 4 low (with open exhaust and good intake) and the turbos on those motors are considered to be too small for the application (like all factory turbos seem to be). Then again, I haven't gotten to play with some of the newest turbo designs that are becoming more popular as of late either. There may be something there that I am missing too.

When I build another turbo motor for myself it will be a v8 and have twin turbos on it. Two smaller turbos should help spool time out and overall be fun to drive. It will not be in a crawler though. I would consider a blown motor for a crawler but no turbo motor due to the power band that is associated with them.

Overall, I don't see why you will have any problems with the setup as long as it is tuned properly and there is no detonation. That's what will cause problems. You should stick this motor in some AMC car instead of a Jeep and go out and have even more fun at the track and on the street.

[YJ_and_Corey]

I call BS on that one. There are reasons that people run 3.0 gears in their drag cars with turbo setups. If you have too much gear reduction you won't get that turbo to spool like you will if you really load it up. I can't imagine that a properly sized turbo would spool very well in 4 low with crawler gears. It may not do too bad however if the turbo was sized pretty small for the motor but that would also affect overall performance as well. Heck, my Dodge CTD with 4.10 gears won't spool the turbo very well when it is in 4 low (with open exhaust and good intake) and the turbos on those motors are considered to be too small for the application (like all factory turbos seem to be). Then again, I haven't gotten to play with some of the newest turbo designs that are becoming more popular as of late either. There may be something there that I am missing too.

When I build another turbo motor for myself it will be a v8 and have twin turbos on it. Two smaller turbos should help spool time out and overall be fun to drive. It will not be in a crawler though. I would consider a blown motor for a crawler but no turbo motor due to the power band that is associated with them.

Overall, I don't see why you will have any problems with the setup as long as it is tuned properly and there is no detonation. That's what will cause problems. You should stick this motor in some AMC car instead of a Jeep and go out and have even more fun at the track and on the street.

Ok, good points. You obviously know turbos. Sweet. I have no detonation issues, and expect not to. I run Accel 30lb/hr injectors, Split Second 2 bar MAP sensor, and increased fuel pressure via the regulator. I compliment this with a healthy dose of methanol and water injection. Everything is running at about 60% capacity - and will no doubt handle the increased displacement and boost.

I won't lie, I started with a "kit", that worked like dog. In the last year I've redone everything from scratch in terms of fueling and cooling, including new mapping.

They did get the turbo selection right however.

I run a Garret T4/T3 hybrid, A.R. 60 in, A.R 48 ex. It indeed does spool very low in the RPM band - even in low range. I run 4.56 gears, on a 4:1 Dana 300, with 37" boggers behind an AW4. In second gear, low range, it spools very very fast. Need wheel speed? Got it.

I am planning on upgrading at the time of the new engine to a Turbonetics T4/T3 hybrid, A.R 63 in, A.R 50 ex. It should spool even lower due to increased intake volume and a more aggresive wheel profile. It will also use ceramic ball bearings - for longevity.

The hybrid T4/T3 rocks on the 4.0L- good match, the enhanced intake volute allows for big volumes of air - and the smaller exhaust volute builds boost at low RPM, again, when certain engine load conditions are met. I'm not revving to redline/rev-limiter levels ever, it works great at low to mid-range RPM's.

Call BS all you want, but yes it does spool as I've described.

As far as sticking this engine in an AMC car, LOL, no thanks. I'll prove my point where it counts, on the dyno, when this project bears some fruit. It will make torque on the low end, and in spades.

[tjmark]

2 bar map? Are stock harness and pcm will not read this. how you make it work?

Also mondster All the strokers i have driven and build have GREAT bottom end so why do you see it loosing it's bottom end with a turbo?

The jeep stroker in N/A form is all low end.

[HEEPJEEP]

The piggy back Split Second FTCI reads it for him and converts the input to the ECM.

BTW Corey, got all my goodies chilling on the bench.

-63mm TB
-Adj. FPR
-30 lb/hr Accel's
-(3) turbos (all the same, found a deal on a few so picked up some spares)
-intercooler and meth
-FTC I
-head gasket


Still need to get ARP studs (what is the part number/source, are they the same as 4.2L head stud kits???). Going to be needing the tunes sometime soonish too!

Building a 4.7L off on the side, but I have the 1976 12 counter weight crank, 93 block and head. Let me know more about the head work, I will def be interested in sending up one.

Just one issue before the stuff goes on it that I just blew up my AW4... FAWK. I will get it apart this week with some AW$ hard part carnage pics...

-Dave

[mondtster]

Originally Posted by YJ_and_Corey

They did get the turbo selection right however.

I run a Garret T4/T3 hybrid, A.R. 60 in, A.R 48 ex. It indeed does spool very low in the RPM band - even in low range. I run 4.56 gears, on a 4:1 Dana 300, with 37" boggers behind an AW4. In second gear, low range, it spools very very fast. Need wheel speed? Got it.

I am planning on upgrading at the time of the new engine to a Turbonetics T4/T3 hybrid, A.R 63 in, A.R 50 ex. It should spool even lower due to increased intake volume and a more aggresive wheel profile. It will also use ceramic ball bearings - for longevity.

The hybrid T4/T3 rocks on the 4.0L- good match, the enhanced intake volute allows for big volumes of air - and the smaller exhaust volute builds boost at low RPM, again, when certain engine load conditions are met. I'm not revving to redline/rev-limiter levels ever, it works great at low to mid-range RPM's.

Holy shit that's a small exhaust housing!!! You know that they use .63 ar exhaust housings on 1.6L Hondas, right? It's no wonder why you're getting the turbo to spool at 1000 rpm with crawler gears.

I had a .48 ar exhaust housing on an old 2.5L Chrysler turbo motor that would spool insanely quick but fall on its face as the RPM climbed. Consider that you have a motor that is almost twice the displacement that is trying to go through the same exhaust housing size. One cheap test you could try is to get a .63 ar exhaust housing off of a Ford turbo coupe turbo. That should have the standard T3 exhaust housing bolt pattern you likely have on your manifold.

That small exhaust housing will be choking that motor. I would definitely be looking to experiment with some larger exhaust housings at least. Another option that may be worth looking into would be something with a twin scroll exhaust housing or a variable vane exhaust housing (if you can figure out a good way to control the vanes). That might help retain your response on the low end and give you more top end as well.

Are you still running stock engine management? It kind of looks like you are from the first post anyway... If you are, you might want to consider looking at Megasquirt fuel injection or something similar. That could help you by providing more tuning capability, boost retard, and possibly control your methanol injection as well. Megasquirt is cheap too (you probably would have the same or less into it as you would messing around with stock injection). Just a thought anyway...

Cheers!

[mondtster]

Originally Posted by tjmark

2 bar map? Are stock harness and pcm will not read this. how you make it work?

Also mondster All the strokers i have driven and build have GREAT bottom end so why do you see it loosing it's bottom end with a turbo?

The jeep stroker in N/A form is all low end.

Displacement obviously helps things. My point is more of one that a typical turbo setup does not gain you any low end torque but boosts midrange and top end exponentially. They can be a lot of fun to drive on the street but I think the typical turbocharged power band would be a bit too twitchy for a rock crawler type application. I bet it would be killer in a mud drag type of setup though...

90% of the turbocharged motors I have worked on and/or built have been pretty aggressive combinations. The power band was much like a light switch. It was either "on" or "off" of the power band. Now, if you have a more conservatively sized turbo (read: small) you will have a smoother power band with more bottom end but you will be sacrificing top end to get this.

At one point in time, I had collected all the parts to build a Mitsubishi turbo 4g63 powered buggy. I was planning on retaining the small turbo in order to retain low speed torque and throttle response. Unfortunately it would have killed the top end of the RPM range if wheel speed was ever needed.

This stuff is just my opinion. I'm not saying it won't work, but I just feel that there are better choices for motor/drivetrain setup for the way that I drive and the areas I have gone wheeling at.

[YJ_and_Corey]

Now, if you have a more conservatively sized turbo (read: small) you will have a smoother power band with more bottom end but you will be sacrificing top end to get this.

Well thats where I'm at. The turbo spools quick, and provides very smooth power uptake. And like you said, falls on it's face in the higher revs. By higher revs I mean 4500+. I am certain my dyno charts will show a drop at 4500 or so.

I realize the exhaust housing A.R. is smallish by tuner standards, but it does what it needs to - make serious bottom end. I know what a bigger turbo would do - be like (you said) an on/off switch. Not cool for my application.

Are you still running stock engine management? It kind of looks like you are from the first post anyway... If you are, you might want to consider looking at Megasquirt fuel injection or something similar. That could help you by providing more tuning capability, boost retard, and possibly control your methanol injection as well. Megasquirt is cheap too (you probably would have the same or less into it as you would messing around with stock injection). Just a thought anyway...

Actually I am looking at advancing my ignition timing as another power adder. Painless wiring is going to be producing a stand alone 4.0L ECU sometime in the new year - which will allow timing to be increased.

I have very good detonation control - and did before the methanol was added to the mix. Realize that turbo charging is not a huge stretch for the 4.0L ODB1 computer. Megasquirt may be trick as hell, but ODB1 is very easy to fool - and mine runs really good.

My base tune does not need methanol, I use it as a chemical intercooler.

The piggy back Split Second FTCI reads it for him and converts the input to the ECM.

BTW Corey, got all my goodies chilling on the bench.

-63mm TB
-Adj. FPR
-30 lb/hr Accel's
-(3) turbos (all the same, found a deal on a few so picked up some spares)
-intercooler and meth
-FTC I
-head gasket


Still need to get ARP studs (what is the part number/source, are they the same as 4.2L head stud kits???). Going to be needing the tunes sometime soonish too!

Building a 4.7L off on the side, but I have the 1976 12 counter weight crank, 93 block and head. Let me know more about the head work, I will def be interested in sending up one.

Just one issue before the stuff goes on it that I just blew up my AW4... FAWK. I will get it apart this week with some AW$ hard part carnage pics...

-Dave

Sweet, sorry to hear about the trans however. Mine is holding up well so far. Will be interesting to see how it fairs under some serious power.

I can give you a quote on the headwork, however it might be straight forward for your local engine machinist - perhaps some pictures and specs could save you a bunch of shipping?

I'll have the ARP part number for you shortly, swinging by the rebuilders later in the week to get pics, The head studs are there.

I'm planning on running the now discontinued Mopar performance head gasket, if my buddy Pedalmesh will sell it back to me

[mondtster]

Originally Posted by YJ_and_Corey

Actually I am looking at advancing my ignition timing as another power adder. Painless wiring is going to be producing a stand alone 4.0L ECU sometime in the new year - which will allow timing to be increased.

I have very good detonation control - and did before the methanol was added to the mix. Realize that turbo charging is not a huge stretch for the 4.0L ODB1 computer. Megasquirt may be trick as hell, but ODB1 is very easy to fool - and mine runs really good.

My base tune does not need methanol, I use it as a chemical intercooler.

Unless that Painless 4.0L ECU is less than $200 USD, I'd recommend the Megasquirt. You have to build it yourself, but it is the cheapest standalone option that I have ever seen.

Do you guys have E85 fuel up there (85% ethanol)? If you do, it would also be worth looking into. It is basically like being able to run race gas for pump premium prices. Propane would be another possibility as well if you wanted to mess with it...

[offroadjunkie]

the guy before me mention propane. Im also wondering why you did not choose to run propane. From what ive read on propane its very easy to set up, once you have the parts, and its octane rating i believe is around 130 which would allow you to boost your compression rating from 8.0 to much higher. isnt it like a 13% power increase for every 1.0 of compression increase, i think i read that in hot rod magazine once.

Why did you choose to run diesel valve seats, was it purely for extended life? ive never heard of valve seats being power adders so im just wondering on this, love the build keep it coming.

[YJ_and_Corey]

Unless that Painless 4.0L ECU is less than $200 USD, I'd recommend the Megasquirt. You have to build it yourself, but it is the cheapest standalone option that I have ever seen.

Do you guys have E85 fuel up there (85% ethanol)? If you do, it would also be worth looking into. It is basically like being able to run race gas for pump premium prices. Propane would be another possibility as well if you wanted to mess with it...

Not that I am aware of, E85 may be available in the larger urban centers.

I live a ways north of what would be considered a major urban center, my area consists of about 200,000 people - split between about 6 small cities.

I would run the megasquirt, but to be honest it's a time thing. Don't have much. I run/own two businesses, one is an small oilpatch corrosion company and the other is a smaller Jeep aftermarket parts supply. Between the two I have little spare time - but if I did I would be interested in the megasquirt. I am also developing a user friendly bolt-on turbo kit for the 4.0L, using methanol injection, that will give ~80 more ponies and a shite load more torque. So, it's a time thing.

As far as propane goes - note that methanol injection can effectively boost your octane level to 120+.

I know I keep coming back to methanol injection, but it seems so far to be the "magic bullet" for Jeep 4.0L forced aspiration.

The engine temperature will actually drop about 5 degrees a few seconds after the meth/water starts spraying. Amazing.

Why did you choose to run diesel valve seats, was it purely for extended life? ive never heard of valve seats being power adders so im just wondering on this, love the build keep it coming.

Well the reason is two-fold. One, the diesel seats are hardened, while the 4.0L cast head (stock) only uses unhardened head material to seat the valves. I'm running some pretty stiff springs and a fairly aggressive cam - so the the first reason is as you suggested - longevity.

The second reason is because, as I mentioned, 4.0L heads like to crack on the exhaust seat under higher boost conditions. I've seen one in person (Guy running a supercharger) that was cracked, and Lee Hurly at Hesco told me it was such a problem they went and developed an aluminum head!

Or at least that was why they started thinking about it in the first place - lots of cracked cast heads. Their aluminum head could be welded back up. It's what he said anyhow. And the amount of heat dissipated was superior - less detonation.

Anyhow, back to what I'm doing. The cast head dissipates heat just fine, with (again) methanol/water injection and another trick - Evans waterless coolant.
The coolant keeps the entire engine under a static temperature - no hot spots.

Add some diesel valve seats, some waterless coolant, and keep your money you would have spent on an aluminum head.

[PedalMesh]

Originally Posted by YJ_and_Corey

I'm planning on running the now discontinued Mopar performance head gasket, if my buddy Pedalmesh will sell it back to me

......I'll trade you straight across for a set of ARP head studs

[mondtster]

Originally Posted by YJ_and_Corey

Not that I am aware of, E85 may be available in the larger urban centers.

As far as propane goes - note that methanol injection can effectively boost your octane level to 120+.

I know I keep coming back to methanol injection, but it seems so far to be the "magic bullet" for Jeep 4.0L forced aspiration.

It's too bad that you don't have access to E85. It has all the benefits of the methanol you are describing (cooling and octane) and you wouldn't have to worry about having a reliable methanol injection setup. You could run your motor on "kill" mode all the time safely.

The other cool thing about E85 is that you can be pretty sloppy with your tuning and you won't likely see as drastic of a change as you would with a poor gasoline tune.

I also suggested running it on propane since it is much more simple than EFI and you will also benefit from the high octane ratings from it.

Also FWIW, there are fully built versions of the Megasquirt available as well. I'm not sure what they cost nor how it would compare cost wise with the Painless setup but that may be an option if time is limited.

I can however understand the desire to stick with gasoline if you are trying to develop a turbo kit for customer consumption. This would also likely throw out the idea of Megasquirt or something else similar to keep it simple.

[YJ_and_Corey]

Ok, some updates from the rebuilder.

The head has been stripped and cleaned, and is almost ready for the new seats and guides. Scott, my builder, is wondering if stainless intake valves are in order (4.0L exhaust valves come stainless from the factory) - due to increased risk of "tuliping" at higher boost levels. I am tending to agree, however at $20.00/valve it's pretty spendy and only necessary if detonation does occur. Have to think about that one.

He is also going to do a bit of a "port" on the exhaust seats, by removing the inner lip which the stock valve seat sits above. It will be done by using a larger hardened seat than necessary, and reaming the bottom-side of the seat profile out to smooth transition into the cast. He figures a turbo engine needs to move exhaust fast - and methinks he has a good point.

I also may buy one of those home porting deals and play with the exhaust ports a bit, probably just enlargement to the gasket ring diameter.



Here's the new beast, straight from the tank:



A diamond in the rough



A quick pressure wash and clean up:







And for fun, a picture of a stock 4.0L cam (from the core motor) in really bad shape. Note the distributor gear wear and the lobe carnage.

[YJ_and_Corey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by YJ_and_Corey
I'm planning on running the now discontinued Mopar performance head gasket, if my buddy Pedalmesh will sell it back to me
......I'll trade you straight across for a set of ARP head studs

Hmm, maybe come browse my collection of 4.0L parts?

[YJ_and_Corey]

*UPDATE*

I broke down and ordered a full set of stainless valves.

I got Bennie's (Hesco) last set for a while, may be next year till more are available.

Intake normal sizing, one piece stainless. Exhaust, one piece stainless, oversized and a tuliped flow profile.

[jpfrk2001]

Im paying attention to this one. I want to do the same thing to my engine soon. Can;t wait to see the final product

[YJ_and_Corey]

I too looked into some books about running turbos. It all comes down to how well a person does their homework and proper planning and engineering. It depends on turbo size. Its very importent to match the compressor to the flow of the engine to get the power wanted at any rpm. It does require about 3 pages of math and calculations. You even must consider intercooler numbers. Injector size and tuning is crucial. I just want to know what type of exhaust manifold you are running or are you going to design and build your own. I also ran some numbers on a turbo application for the same engine both stock size and a 4.7 liter stroker. PM me and lets compare notes. I want to do the same to my engine but Im strokin mine first.

I am pretty sure I covered everything as to turbo choice and size after your initial post - sorry for not replying sooner.

The exhaust manifold I am using is pretty basic - an off the shelf Pacesetter dual outlet header, modified just past the 02 bung. It now curls up past the alternator and pumps into the turbo from below. The turbo I am using uses an internal wastegate, for space savings and simplicity. At 6-8lbs boost I am unconvinced an external is necessary.

[YJ_and_Corey]

A comparison picture of the heavier 4.0L crank on the left, and the lighter 88' 4.2L crank on the right. Note that the 4.0L crank has 6 counterweights, while the 88' 4.2L has 4:



I lifted these specs from Dino Savva's website:

Year.........Casting No......Description
1971.........3199738.........For Borg Warner automatic
1972-80...3214723.........12 counterweights, 66lb, 64mm nose
1981-86...3235477.........4 counterweights, 46lb, 64mm nose
1987-90...3727...............4 counterweights, 46lb, 54mm nose

For comparison, the 4.0 crankshaft has 8 counterweights, weighs 55lb, and has a 54mm nose.

-----------------------------------

And for those that pm'd and asked, here is the source of much of our engine machining information. Very little mention of the strokers, or turbocharging. It's also now out of print, and copies may become increasingly hard to find. Good information in here however, written by the engineers that designed the 4.0L.

[jpfrk2001]

Ok I looked at your choice of turbo. What Pressure Ratio are you using? I did my numbers using a 1.6 PR and came up with the t3/t4 being just a tad to large. But I did see your exhaust AR and I can see how the boost is possible. I see if you increase the Exhaust AR slightly, you will see that your boost will stay up for a slight increase in RPM. The numbers I used and the charts, I was trying to stay in the RPM range on not dropping off to soon. I started a thread on a different website on the same subject.

Im just interested in what numbers you used to come up with the turbo to get the best match and power. I want to do the same thing but haven't bought the turbo yet.

Since you are using the pacesetter: I am picturing the turbo on the right side of the engine opposite the intake manifold? Am I correct on this? How much boost are you losing because of the distance the exhaust has to travel to the compressor? I learned you want to place the turbo as close as possible to the exhaust flange to achieve the best efficiency in the setup.

Just some observations. I cannot wait to see your end product and the numbers and power out of this thing. I think 400HP IS possible with the right set up.

You might want to look at your injector size's. I came up with 43 lb/hr to achieve around 350 HP on 10 PSI at a 1.68 PR, 1.58 DR running an intercooler with a goal of 119 degree output into the engine.

[tjmark]

http://www.mopar.com/m_perf_subCheck...=1190421473630

Says they heave them in stock?

[YJ_and_Corey]

Hmm, Amazon said they were out of print.

So did the Chrysler dealership.

Tried to buy a few more copies last week.

[jpfrk2001]

im working on the write up for you. Make sure you have Microsoft Works so you can open it and read it. I will email it to you as soon as I finish it. It also gives me a chance to double check my math

[jpfrk2001]

I just emailed you the write up. I hope this helps a little, I really want to see your engine scream