Anyone put a turbo in their CR? 5k max budget

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by RedHawk

Yes!! What the heck. Any suggestions?

Cable interference - probably two options:

1. relocate the cable by fabricating a new bracket; or
2. provide relief by grinding away a portion of the bellhousing.

I'd go with option 2. Remove the cable and bracket and get in there with a grinder, Dremel tool or file.

As to the return spring - source a proper return spring, then drill a hole in the clutch / shift fork to insert the end of the spring. OTOH, this spring is probably the clutch / shift fork return spring, with another, heavier spring on the clutch pedal or the pulling end of the cable - as seen in this diagram: http://repairguide.autozone.com/znet...528006284c.gif

If that's what your setup looks like, the clutch / shift fork return spring is only doing light duty, so doesn't need to be too strong - it just needs to be better mounted to the fork.

[RedHawk]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

Cable interference - probably two options:

1. relocate the cable by fabricating a new bracket; or
2. provide relief by grinding away a portion of the bellhousing.

I'd go with option 2. Remove the cable and bracket and get in there with a grinder, Dremel tool or file.

As to the return spring - source a proper return spring, then drill a hole in the clutch / shift fork to insert the end of the spring. OTOH, this spring is probably the clutch / shift fork return spring, with another, heavier spring on the clutch pedal or the pulling end of the cable - as seen in this diagram: http://repairguide.autozone.com/znet...528006284c.gif

If that's what your setup looks like, the clutch / shift fork return spring is only doing light duty, so doesn't need to be too strong - it just needs to be better mounted to the fork.

Thanks CycleGuy
So one other things I was hoping you could help me with and what caused me to investigate the clutch cable was the fact that when speed shifting through the gears ( not power shifting) second, third and fourth sometimes can not engage and it litterly causing a grind or just wont engage. If I perform a healthy run but take a slight pause between shifts there is no issue whatsoever.

What I was curious about was whether the cable isn't properly engaging the clutch fork because of the current setup or does this sound like a syncro problem? Anyway to go through process of elimination?

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by RedHawk

Thanks CycleGuy
So one other things I was hoping you could help me with and what caused me to investigate the clutch cable was the fact that when speed shifting through the gears ( not power shifting) second, third and fourth sometimes can not engage and it litterly causing a grind or just wont engage. If I perform a healthy run but take a slight pause between shifts there is no issue whatsoever.

What I was curious about was whether the cable isn't properly engaging the clutch fork because of the current setup or does this sound like a syncro problem? Anyway to go through process of elimination?

That sounds like the synchros aren't keeping up and acting fast enough when you're 'speed shifting'. Other than re-building the transmission and replacing the synchro rings, are you running synthetic or dino fluid in your transmission?

I know the recommendation for my Richmond transmission was to use dino as synthetic was too slippery for the synchros to work properly. There's one exception - a certain Redline fluid I'm running, but I note the synchros are still not doing the job. I may go back to dino or look for a friction modifier to make them work better.

[RedHawk]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

That sounds like the synchros aren't keeping up and acting fast enough when you're 'speed shifting'. Other than re-building the transmission and replacing the synchro rings, are you running synthetic or dino fluid in your transmission?

I know the recommendation for my Richmond transmission was to use dino as synthetic was too slippery for the synchros to work properly. There's one exception - a certain Redline fluid I'm running, but I note the synchros are still not doing the job. I may go back to dino or look for a friction modifier to make them work better.

I haven't the faintest idea. I suppose I will drain and re-fill GM Syncro mesh,

[Chicagowil]

I am going the same route as you. I have a Kenne Bell 1.5 kit that I am looking to install into my '90 CRI. It had never been completed- just all mechanicals installed and body mounted. But I am starting with a problem it that the two previous owners had discovered that the engine is sitting tilted with the passenger side of the block an inch higher than the other side and the EFI system keeps the hood from even close to sitting. I think the motor mounts were installed wrong. But I have had my house and new workshop under construction for the last year. Almost done and will start with looking at re-configuring the mounts to lower the motor and get it level. The Kenne Bell system it less than 1 1/2" taller than the factory EFI system. It should be able to be accommodated to clear.

And you guys were right, the twin Paxton did have the hood modified to clear.

If you do look at a SC mounted low and in front of the motor, why not use a Holly style throttle body, EFI system and fuel rails on a 4bbl intake and not fight with a blow thru carb? The tuning ability is much better and you still have the "original" look of a carb style system at a glance.

This is a listing for a EFI adapted intake using a late style TB in the Chicago area.

https://chicago.craigslist.org/sox/p...533309428.html

Last thing, if anyone is interested in a early Paxton style SC, I have one that was factory rebuilt and converted to a 6 rib pulley that I would sell. It was the same style as was used on the Shelby Mustangs and Cobras. It was originally on a Porsche 911 so I do not have the right brackets for the Ford. Its never been used- just dry mounted on the motor. I had sold the 911 and the new owner did not want the SC kit. He had a turbo motor he was going to install.

I had gotten a price for the additional hardware from the folks that list the original style system for the early style Mustangs on ebay and it was about $2500 for everything but the SC.

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by Chicagowil

If you do look at a SC mounted low and in front of the motor, why not use a Holly style throttle body, EFI system and fuel rails on a 4bbl intake and not fight with a blow thru carb? The tuning ability is much better and you still have the "original" look of a carb style system at a glance.

I second the idea of EFI, but a Holley-style TB and elbow are probably going to be higher than a carb and air cleaner. I'd be more inclined to get an elbow that bolts to the carb pad and use a modern, inline style TB. All that plumbing under the hood is going to detract from the 'original' look of a carb anyway - may as well go 'all in' and do it right.

Don't forget to switch to a single-plane manifold if that's not what's on there now.

[Tom Wells]

Brian,

My memory may have it a bit inaccurately but a Holley throttle body is somewhere around 1-1/2" shorter than a carburetor.

The MPFI throttle body measures 2" from manifold flange to the air cleaner flange. The newer "all-in-one" EFI units measure from 3" to 3-1/4", closer to a carb's height.

With the MPFI, the injectors are in the manifold vs in the throttle body for the all-in-one units.

Overall height also depends on the type of elbow (e.g., round or oval-shaped) you choose.

Hope this helps,

Tom

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by Tom Wells

Brian,

My memory may have it a bit inaccurately but a Holley throttle body is somewhere around 1-1/2" shorter than a carburetor.

The MPFI throttle body measures 2" from manifold flange to the air cleaner flange. The newer "all-in-one" EFI units measure from 3" to 3-1/4", closer to a carb's height.

With the MPFI, the injectors are in the manifold vs in the throttle body for the all-in-one units.

Overall height also depends on the type of elbow (e.g., round or oval-shaped) you choose.

Hope this helps,

Tom

While a 2" high throttle body is better than the standard height, I'd rather use that for a more gently curving inlet elbow and/or a raised carb pad. YMMV

[RedHawk]

Sooo Its been awhile I know. I have had several things come up that have taken me away from this project but honestly the fitment has been an issue. I have had some difficulty's with Torqstorm to be truthful and was ready to bail on this, but after looking at the engine bay and bracket I have determined that they are two ways to solve the problems related to fitment. It is also important to report that Torqstorm has regrouped in my opion and is ready to help.

One is to raise the engine with spacers to see I can get the whole system to clear obstructions like the 8 1/4" crank pulley to clear the front end cross member along with rotating the bracket position counter clockwise and re-drilling braket holes for new spacer locations that mount to the bock. This will take the blower further away from the passenger side wheel well which it comes into contact now and will not interfere with the hood.

This presents another issue where the supercharger inlet being blocked by tall valve cover. I have found a workaround this too by taking a section out of the valve cover and attaching an elbow to the inlet tube.

I still have to check for hood clearance but I believe I will have enough to accommodate the carb hat and plumbing since the engine was dropped by another monkey mechanic that recommended it. In hind sight he might have done me a favor, but I will never admit it.

Upward and onward.

btw I am off for another trip so this will have to wait for a few more weeks.

[twobjshelbys]

So much for 4 days.

[RedHawk]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

So much for 4 days.

Dear Two Trolls,

Actually it would have taken less than 2 days if the measurements that were given to me from torqstorm were correct.

But where you would have raced off into the corner of your garage for a good cry while simultaneously watching the royal wedding I the resourceful American that I am rolled up my sleeves and got to work.

The unit will fit with slight modification to the block bracket and repositioning of the mounting spacers.
All require an exotic tool I believe to be called a.......drill.



Now off to the Hamptons for memorial day weekend.

-Cheers

[RedHawk]

so I finally got a break from the hectic summer schedule with kids family golf tournament and a project starting in California I managed to peel away two days to work on the cobra and I got everything to fit lineup and most importantly clear the hood. Now I have to take measurements for the serpentine belt with a piece of string to determine what size belt I need and to my England or some distant country across the atlantic chap, I did this myself, although to your credit I had to use an exotic tool called a bench drill press for the new bracket hole positions. 😉

Btw never really noticed my severaly nicked up hood stand.. hmmm.

[RedHawk]

This is for those of you who said it couldn't be done but really it's for those of you who have always wanted to do it. Well it can be done and it is done and the car after the first test run is pulling very very strongly and I barely have even rapped it up or tuned it.
No intercooler as of yet either.

Costs:
Blower: $4k
Fuel system: $1.5k
My time: $100k just kidding.
Time required if original specs were correct from Torqstorm and no fab on bracket mounts.
5 full 8 hr days with 2 days of tuning.

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by RedHawk

This is for those of you who said it couldn't be done but really it's for those of you who have always wanted to do it. Well it can be done and it is done and the car after the first test run is pulling very very strongly and I barely have even rapped it up or tuned it.
No intercooler as of yet either.

Costs:
Blower: $4k
Fuel system: $1.5k
My time: $100k just kidding.
Time required if original specs were correct from Torqstorm and no fab on bracket mounts.
5 full 8 hr days with 2 days of tuning.

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

... And I'll assert that none of these are a "4 day weekend" project...

I would say Tony wins the cigar on this one for his accurate prognostications.

Lets see now, early March 2018 to late July 2018, calculating ..., calculating ... , Yuppers! That is more than a "4 day weekend project"


Ed

[Gaz64]

I hope your regulator is referenced to boost pressure.

[RedHawk]

Tonys always got to piss on my cornflakes. They're Great!!

Originally Posted by eschaider

I would say Tony wins the cigar on this one for his accurate prognostications.

Lets see now, early March 2018 to late July 2018, calculating ..., calculating ... , Yuppers! That is more than a "4 day weekend project"


Ed

[Gaz64]

Originally Posted by Gaz64

I hope your regulator is referenced to boost pressure.

I don't see your regulator connected to manifold vacuum.

If we have 6psi of fuel pressure and 6 psi of boost pressure, no fuel gets into the bowls.

[RedHawk]

So that's interesting. I have the blow off valve connected to vacuum on manifold but the regulator is open to atomosperic which is what automotive website references. Do I create a t-valve and connect both. What I have been reading is to connect it somehow to the carb hat. Somewhat confused actually. Cars running okay so fuel is getting in there.

Originally Posted by Gaz64

I don't see your regulator connected to manifold vacuum.

If we have 6psi of fuel pressure and 6 psi of boost pressure, no fuel gets into the bowls.

[Gaz64]

I would think about adding a fuel pressure gauge, just for testing, in the cabin.

The reg could be referenced to the hat, so fuel pressure would be say 6 at idle, to 12 under boost.

Where as to manifold vac, it would be say 3 at idle, 6 at zero vacuum, and then 12 etc.

Depends on your current vacuum at idle, (camshaft), and how much boost you are running.

You could also reference the regulator T'eed with an adjustable bleed to the carb hat, then can you dial up what your fuel pressure curve is separately to boost.

Gary

[RedHawk]

I have a gauge on the reg and it is set to 7. TORQSTORM rec 6-8. The reg uses 7 as a base and then adjusts as needed. The vacuum seems okay too as it idles pretty good. I can check that later today. Thanks for the tips.

Originally Posted by Gaz64

I would think about adding a fuel pressure gauge, just for testing, in the cabin.

The reg could be referenced to the hat, so fuel pressure would be say 6 at idle, to 12 under boost.

Where as to manifold vac, it would be say 3 at idle, 6 at zero vacuum, and then 12 etc.

Depends on your current vacuum at idle, (camshaft), and how much boost you are running.

You could also reference the regulator T'eed with an adjustable bleed to the carb hat, then can you dial up what your fuel pressure curve is separately to boost.

Gary