xlnt6

Hi all, Just wondering if anyone has gone to the bother of retrofitting a Typhoon oil cooler (engine oil not transmission), onto their XR. The phoon comes with one that fits directly onto the block (where the oil filter is) and then the oil filter screws to the cooler. The cooler is water cooled and goes inline with the metal line that comes out of the thermostat housing and goes round to the heater pipe. Mines a manual, so I don't have any thermo valve in that line (I think the auto does). That means I probably can just cut the line so I can tap into it for the cooler. I figured it was an easy install as all the parts are off the shelf, and if they use them on the phoon, FPV must have figured that a higher than standard power car probably needs one for engine durability. Also speaking with a mate, he said that the BA phoon uses the Boss oil filter (shorter in height), but there is sufficient clearance to use the stocko F9 filter. The BF cooler has a different oil filter thread so the preferred one to use is a BA type. I was going to do some track work, so I though the cooler was a good idea. Has anyone looked at this at all ? Cheers Robin.

BTW what's wrong with it. Is it just whining or is it totally stuffed ? (ie locked up, or no drive). I plan to fit a different ratio to mine shortly, and will have a complete 3.45 that is no longer required in a few weeks ? Cheers Robin.

Try Transdiff at Bayswater.

Tom, That is fantastic !!! Good to see someone with "other" talents, that is proud to show them. Nice job. Cheers Robin.

Hi, This is a very common fault on cars once the mileage reaches over 30000 or so. The problem is the stepper motor control in the throttle body. The TPS problem can also be to blame, but often Ford will replace the entire throttle body assembly (including the TPS), so the exact nature of the fault is not known. Cleaning the throttle body is the first thing that's normally tried, but unless you have a absolutely filthy throttle body, then cleaning it will usually do nothing and the problem will reappear in a day or so. Also the problem is definately more prevalent during winter months or if the Air Con is being used, as the throttle control is more sensitive under those load conditions, at or near idle RPM. Due to the way the ECU determines when to seek idle vs speed, the problem is also more prevalent when unloading the car at speed and letting the speed drop. ie cruising up to a stop light by knocking the car into neutral while still doing a reasonable speed. Also this problem occurs much more in manual cars, as the auto maintains load on the engine during decel. I had this problem myself, swapped the TPS, no difference, only when I change the entire throttle body did it fix the fault. Has NEVER stalled since. Ford have changed hundreds of throttle bodies under factory warranty, so go get em !!!! Cheers Robin.

Same problem, same result. In fact I couldn't honestly say that I noticed any real difference between the original fluid and the Transmax Z. At least it didn't get worse !!! Cheers Robin.

1. At the moment I can't really tell, as the wastegate porting has changed and it no longer boosts like it did before (ie down 6 psi or so). The car is booked in for Friday @ Nizpro for a retune, after that I'll be able to truely compare. Also the diff will be a 3.7 as well to offset the extra lag of the turbo. After the tune I do some back to back comparisons and post the result. 2. Yes, it is the same exhaust housing as stock, single inlet 1.05AR and T3 flange. Next it would be worthwhile looking at a split pulse housing with a custom manifold, like what MrG has done. 3. Turbo is a uprated OEM type with a 66mm wheel and a new backing plate, 0.7AR front cover, ported wastegate with larger flapper and uprated wastegate actuator. Total cost was $900 + $150 for the actuator. Cost is based on a good condition core unit. 4. No. Same as stock. Cheers Robin.

Jack, It's booked in at Diff Trans for tomorrow, by this time next evening it should have a 3.7 ratio !!! Cheers Robin.

Brian, Likewise, as you know I've done some work on the factory exhaust manifold using a homemade flow bench. When I looked at the manifold and did some tests I found the flow of each runner was considerably different due to the design, and I mildly ported it to try and match the flow between each runner. Without making a completely new manifold it is very difficult to improve the factory manifold to improve the overall flow capability. By matching the flow rate of each port more closely the energy contributed by each exhaust pulse is more constant, with the ultimate aim being to counteract some of the loss of spool rate due to the larger turbo wheel. Here's the results from the flow tests. Note, I can't measure the actual CFM of each port, because I don't have a calibrated orifice in the home brew flowbench, but I can measure a presssure difference (PD) at a constant flowrate and compare that PD for a ported runner to find the delta between them. From this I can calculate the overall % gain in flowrate. Stock Manifold (Port Matching % from Mean) Runner 1 +33.3 Runner 2 -42.9 Runner 3 51.0 Runner 4 -47.4 Runner 5 +0.7 Runner 6 +5.3 What this says is that Runner 5 flows approx the Mean flowrate, and the rest either flow more or less than Runner 5 by the figure detailed above. So Runner 3 is flowing 51% more than Runner 5 and Runner 4 is flowing 47% less than Runner 5. One of my main aims was to even up the flows between the ports. After porting the results were: Ported Manifold (Port Matching % from Mean) Runner 1 +9.3 Runner 2 -19.9 Runner 3 +46.3 Runner 4 -27.6 Runner 5 -15.6 Runner 6 +7.5 After porting the largest deviation from Mean is still Runner 3 (and if you see the manifold it is clear why this is the case, it's almost direct from the port to the turbo flange). But the other runners are now much more closely matched. All this means the manifold should work better with better energy delivery capability to the turbine. Here is the outright flowrate change. While this wasn't the aim of the exercise, it's interesting none-the-less. Stock Manifold vs Ported Manifold (Flowrate Change %) Runner 1 -6.08 Runner 2 16.65 Runner 3 4.80 Runner 4 15.37 Runner 5 1.82 Runner 6 10.08 Runners All 3.03 The individual runners have gained (except for Runner 1). This is due to the shrouding of Runner 2 and 3 in the original non-ported manifold. Cause these have been de-shrouded to improve their flow, it has degraded flow on Runner 1, but only by a small amount. Runner 1 was outflowing most others anyway, so a small decrease actual helps to even up the flowrate between runners. The overall change is small only 3% or so, but as detailed above this wasn't the aim. Cheers, Robin.

Jack, Excellent !!!! Great result for the limit of the mods you've done. Time to skip Stage 2 and go straight for Stage 3. With the sort of power make sure you don't miss a gear and over-rev. You don't want to be getting the Stage 3 the hard way !!! Cheers Robin.

Hi All, In it's previous form, the car made a best of 409 rwkW using the factory turbo at about 18-19 psi. So I figured it was time to up the ante for the BVWII dyno day. The bigger huffer is now installed. This one is similar to the factory turbo, but has a larger compressor wheel and 0.7 AR front cover. The 100mm intake required some reworking of the surrounding area to allow a comfortable fittment. To do this I converted the PS pump and tank to one with a remote (ie XR8 type tank) and ran the appropriate lines back to the pump and PS cooler. Also I reworked the high pressure line to move the pressure sensor to allow more clearance. I replaced the Nizpro intake casting with a rubber/stainless combo which is 100mm all the way. The exhaust manifold is reworked to match the flow more closely of each runner and where it goes into the turbo has been re-profiled to aid flow. The whole job took about 12 hours to do, and now it's off to Nizpro on Friday for a re-tune to see if it was worthwhile. I am hoping for a lazy 450 rwkW or so. I attached a few pics below. BTW, I did all the spanner spinning and fabrication myself !!! Cheers Robin.

Hey Ninka, Are you able to detail all the changes you needed to do to upgrade to dual zone climate control ? I've seen a few posts about doing it, but no-one seems to have a complete "how to" ? I'm assuming you went from premium sound ICC to dual zone type ICC ?? Cheers Robin.

Nice !!! I think under the rules your correct, basically it's got to look stock, and given it's a stock Typhoon item then it should be considered so. Especially considering the XR6 and Typhoon "stock" class is one in the same. Give that man a face. Cheers Robin.

Hey Cro, I was talking to another dealer about the PP2 tyres and he said that Michelin's own data showed the new PP2 outperformed all other similar spec Michelins in all categories, dry/wet cornering, dry/wet braking, etc. That included the PP1, original PS as well. So unless you get the top of the range PS2, or can't go wrong with the PP2. Cheers Robin.

Yes, the original XR 18 inch rims will fit over the six pots. The 6 spot caliper is actually a little thinner in body width than the 4 spot Brembos. As long as you use the Ford 18's they'll fit as they have adequate clearance over the 4 spots as well. Many aftermarket rims will not clear Brembos. And how do I know, I have six pot Brembos on my XR. PS Ignore my avtar it's out of date !! Cheers Robin.

Thanks everyone for the input. I've decided on a set of 275/30ZR19 Yokohama V103 for the rear. Mainly cause I couldn't get the size I wanted in the Michelin PS2. The Yoko's are much cheaper as well at $590 each. I spent alot of time with the dealer and checking the latest Michelin info, Michelin are making more sizes available than shown on the website. For example, on the 18 June the PS2 is available in 275/35ZR19 at approx $760 a tyre. The problem is that this will throw out the speedo by about 3% as well as making the back of the car sit higher (96.25 mm high sidewall vs 82.5mm high sidewall on a 30 series 19 incher). Cheers Robin.

Hey Darren, You forgot one, and it's one of my favorites, the Series 6-8 Mazda RX7 !!!! Now, here's a few points that you may not have considered. As you have rightly stated, in the early 90's a vast collection of Jap performance cars embraced the twin sequential turbo design, and they did this with the sole purpose of minimizing turbo lag associated with smaller capacity (3 litre or less) engines which had to have sufficient punch down low to "feel fast" off the mark and at the same time needed to have high enough HP rating to impress. To provide this broad power feel, required a small turbo to provide boost at low RPM, but cause these turbos run out of flowrate at higher RPM, a sequential design is required to switch to a larger turbo which is effective at the higher flow rate required in the top end of the RPM range. So infact this design really acted like a single turbo (I know that in some designs both were operating and contributing to flow, but it is largely biased to the bigger turbo). OEMs did this cause, the majority of turbos of that era had plain bearings, and less efficient compressor designs with narrower efficiency lands vs shaft speed, ie they need to be operating within a small RPM range to be efficient. To alleviate some of the ineria required to get them to speed, the ceramic exhaust wheel was conceived. Now in the last five years the costs associated with producing turbos that have ball bearing centres and much more efficient compressor wheel designs, due to improvement in modelling techniques and reductions in production costs, means that a modern turbo, a la Garett GT series, etc is able to cover the demands across a much broad range of operating conditions, effectively negating the requirement to use sequential turbos designs. This is doubly so, with modern engine management techniques which are able to handle higher CR engine designs which have inherently better low down characteristics then their earlier brothers, again alleviating the requirements for the turbo to be so effective at lower RPM. As stated by Brian, the Ford 4 litre engine is naturally torquey engine and as such there is no need for a twin turbos in anything but the most extreme application. (Again, refer back to Brian, the king of extreme !! ). The only reason you'd want to twin turbo one was to achieve greater than the current HP achievable with GT35 or GT40 turbos, ie above 700-800HP. In that case you probably would use twin GT30 or GT35 turbos, and they would operate in parallel vs sequential. I'd hate to see (sic) what a twin sequential turbo on a I6 engine would be !!!, maybe the stocko GT3582 turbo then switching into some monster 1000HP + thingy !!! So in summary I'd say the days of the twin sequential designs are dead, and I can't think of any new model cars being currently produced which still use this design. Cheers Robin.

The OEM supplier of the monotubes and current design twin tube shock is Delphi and they have effectively gone belly up. As such Ford have dumped them for supply in the future. Hence there is no intention to redesign the current suspension til the Orion arrives. At that point a new supplier will be found, so you don't know how Ford will go. Let hope they go for something from the Boge, Koni, etc end of the spectrum rather than the Munroe GT end of the range !!! Cheers Robin.

Hi Ben, I didn't realise you had the V103s on your car. What size are you using ?245/40ZR18 is my guess. How do you find them, wrt straight line grip. I was at the lights today in extreme left lane and the road merged about 50-60m after the intersection. I was next to a rice cooker Lancer and I couldn't beat him to the merge !! I took off normally and he decided to plant it, so I put my foot down and it spun the rears, so I shift to 2nd and same again, so I changed to third and guess what it still spun and I started fish tailing, so at that point I gave up !! I've noticed now with the cold weather the tyre grip has dropped considerably, and the K104s still have about 75% thread and I can easily smoke them in third gear. The seemed OK with 320-330 rwkW, but now with 375-380 rwkW they are a joke. The colder weather means the car is boosting so easily and in the morning when the roads are damp, I find sometimes I am "skating" to work, rather than driving. I wouldn't hestitate to get the Michelin PS based on Craig's advice, but I love the look of the 275 rears, so I'm in two minds at the moment. Cheers Robin.

Cro and Craig, A bit more advice, I can get: Michelin PS 255/35ZR19 $730@ Michelin PP2 275/30ZR19 $525@ Yoko V103 275/30ZR19 $595@ They tyre dealer said, for my application, don't bother with anything else but the ones listed above. I'd love to get the same as Craig, but you can't get them in Oz, so which one would be best ? I'd like to get the bigger boots, with the best grip, but can't seem to have both. Cheers Robin.

A friend of mine is involved with some of the test trials on the FPVs, etc, and he said that after the extended road testing it was noticed that the shocks were beginning to leak. They pull the cars apart and check for premature failures, etc following testing. So they did some checks on low km test mules and found that the same thing on cars with only a few thousand kms. As a result the monotube design was scrapped and all the shocks returned to the OEM. Ouch !!!! Currently there is no intention to change the shocks, it maybe looked again with the new Orion platform Falcon (ie 2008 onwards). Cheers Robin.

Bent fins, means imbalance, which will eventually wreck the bearings and turbo in general. But if you act quickly you can get the compressor replaced, and the turbo cover replaced (if it's been rubbing), and get it rebalanced and all will be well again. This should save you about $1k over a replacement re-condition unit. I have a good compressor wheel and cover available if your interested in following that path, just PM me. Cheers Robin.

Here is a link to a similar thread on the same topic. In that I've posted pics of a gas injection system installed on a BA Falcon (non turbo). You may find it interesting. The ECU controlling the gas injectors is a laptop programmable piggy back system. http://www.fordxr6turbo.com/forum/index.ph...pic=19930&st=20 So far more than a dozen cars have been done and everything has been sweet. The issue wrt flow capability is correct though, so limits the max HP, but there is no reason they can't be doubled up. Robin.

Jack, I bet your pleased with that result. It's amazing how much power you can get for such simple mods !!! Back in the days before edit, that kind of result was unheard of. Glad everything went well with the T56, atleast that's one thing less you have to worry about. So ... assuming you get an IC, what's next ? And which bank are you intending to knock-off. Cheers Robin.

I had a similar problem, which started after the weather got colder. The symptoms are identical, except I have a manual, but the RPMs match up and it occurred under load. Anyway it was a simple matter of plug gaps. The plugs in the car had been changed at some stage to NGK BCPR7RES gapped at 0.8mm, and I swapped them back to factory AGSP22Z11 with a 0.7mm gap (which is 0.1mm less than what most guys have) and problem gone. Now smaller spark gap is meant to cause poorer idle, but I haven't found any difference. Now Dave and Simon, know their s..t so they probably have already tried that. I don't know what Typhoon plugs are vs XR6T plugs, but it should be pretty simple to try a slightly smaller gap. Also from my previous experiences I'm not a supporter of the colder plug in a street application, which the 7 range is, hence another reason I swapped back to the OEM plug. I'm guessing it's probably a 6 heat range plug (???), as most cars come from the factory with 5 or 6 heat range plugs. Anyway.... I digress. Give it a try !! Cheers Robin.