pumpngo

It would be nice for someone to chime in with personal experience

I went through a huge number of posts on the devils own site and they both recommend water before IAT and stated in another post, that the MAP should be fine , Although I found a Megasquirt forum, two people that claim to have problems getting water in their map and them playing up, one showing a picture of opened ecu with water droplets showing in clear tubing to MAP. I suppose if it's ok for devils own to recommend it, it's good enough for me.

Thanks , I've searched and found nothing as well, but thought maybe I'm just asking the wrong questions. I'll be tuning it myself. That's why I asked the question, also it's a homemade water system . I did find some comments on how un necessary water injection is, seems some people prefer to use e85 or rich mixtures or retarded timing in preference , but I just see all options as equally valid and personal preference. Plus trial and personal error, rather than just going with watever is concidered as main stream. Not that I don't read lots about other peoples experiences. I actually like the idea of using a very old school method using piggybacked injectors switched on by a hobbs switch to inject e85 in a metered way. Main system normal 91 fuel and a tank of e85 with it's own pump running the piggy back injectors. Problem is in my area e85 is sold only one station, so I'm opting for water only system.

Can I get someone that runs water injection with standard Tmap just say they run with no problems. I have the manifold off and if I'm going to move it now is a good time

I'm water injecting my xr6 and I'm concerned that the Tmap is in the manifold , and will have water mist going over it . Is it anything to be concerned about ?. When injecting just water do you normally start with half the amount shown on water meth nozzle calculators ?.

My 9" is 3.7 ratio. so without changing that I'll probably be at 2600rpm at 100 kph with 275-40-17 tyres. So 2600 rpm stall should be fine according to both the trans guy and my searching for info. I agree with you about the information on converters , it's probably all the variables, hp ,tq ,diameter all have effects it seems . But the biggest factor of weather it's tight or loose seems up to internal design and on that you just have to trust the trans guy. I do listen to everyone including the trans guy , but like to go home and confirm the logic and text book science behind it, after all what is google for. We live in the age of information, I'm an old guy and the information available to us today astonishes me. When I was young you had to trust and blindly accept knowledge from people like transmission guys, it was concidered a black art and they protected their knowledge by telling you how complicated things are , you wouldn't understand. We no longer have to accept that bull ,if we don't want to and are willing to dig deep enough.

Just a thought to explain my line of thinking, It might clear up what I'm talking about as I don't want to offend anyone . All my information is from research not first hand information and that is why I'm asking questions, The transmission is one of the bigger costs on my car so I want to get it right first time if possible. From what I understand, a std torque converter will have aprox 10% slip . That actually makes sence to me, as in a car with lock up converter at 100 kph will drop the rpm 200-300 rpm when it locks staying at the same speed. High stalls are said to be between the 10% and up to 30% , the higher stall you go the more slip. Also if using a bigger diameter converter to stall high rpm, there is a point where the blades have to angle backwards on the driving blade so it can slip to the higher rpm and that is where you should go to the smaller diameter converter with forward facing blades to gain some efficiency back. I have been doing a heap of homework on all this and I'm still no expert , far from it. So I'm not wanting to come accross as an ass, Everything I say is up for debate , not a statement of fact. I apoligise in advance if anything I say is inflamitory.

I ask you to prove me wrong with science please, not just feel , It's hard to feel 10% slip at light throttle but it's there, unless you have a lock up converter. That was why I asked the mpg question. If your high hp engine is an efficient turbo version running in vacuum at cruise speed and tuned well it should get the same fuel consumption as a bog std one.(given cams std) If the drivetrain is std, or is only robbing the same power as the std one they should be comparable. Tuners do run rich tunes under boost, but a good tune should be at factory mixture and maybe a bit more spark, so equal or better to std mpg on light cruise throttle just sitting on 100 kmh. I'm under no misconception the c4 will be near as efficient as the 4 speed and lock up, I'm just trying to quantify how much worse it will be .

I'm not saying the stall will fail, that's more about the quality of the stall. Maybe I'm telling you something you already know But. Any stall that does not have a lock up clutch slips. All slip. More slip more wasted energy, more heat caused by the slip , more heat has to be removed by the cooler or your just cooking chips and the rest of the box will die. The minimum slip is at or after the rated stall . so if your cruise rpm is less than your stall speed you are sliping more than necessary using extra fuel to make heat. I can't see a road car cruising at 4000 rpm , so that is why I asked the mpg question. Some converters are made tighter than others and slip more or less before stall speed, but even a tight one is slpipng at more than it's minimum before rated stall.

What fuel consumption do you get with the 3000rpm stall non lockup? What diff do you run? Just thinking with that set up it's pretty comparable with the c4 I'm concidering and I'd like some idea how bad the fuel consumption will be. I'm thinking 2400rpm stall,I have been told by a few trans guys 2400-2600 rpm is ok , so with the 3000 stall, even in od I think mpg should be similar as you'll have a higher gear but a bit more slip.

Yeah Fatz said it can't be done any more and there is no way they know around it . Seems ANDRA will allow bolt in now but still a fine if your caught on the street wih it in.

I know it's off topic , but how did you get the cage approved in your car as it sounds like it's road registered ? I'm in Rockhampton QLD and have asked all the local cage builders and I can't get approval for more than a half cage. I also have rally cars so very interested if you found a way arround it .

I have a ute so cv's are no problem . I have a 9" , strange pumpkin detroit lokcer and youkon axles . The tailshaft is modified at the rear to suit the 9" still has centre bearing and std front. If I do have to modify the tailshaft again should I go 1 piece? Some say the two shorter pieces make it stronger, pure physics would agree if it was just about the tube, but when you through in the centre bearing as a fail point and the fact you can go stronger tube the one piece sounds good. Some say you get vibration problems. I can't see it myself if balanced properly as the only other problem I see is angle making problems with uni's and I don't think the angle looks too bad. I'm not trying to get something for nothing here , just trying to do my homework before spending a large chunk of cash , wrong torque converter choice could need to be pulled out to sit on the shelf as a $750 dollar ornament .Seems general concensus ok at 2400-2600 towing. But all other info on the boxes seems all over the place. There seem to be people willing to either bag or promote every option.

Certainly tougher than I thought , Don't suppose you do any towing ? Have been told you have to tow in 3rd or the overdrive brakes and there is no way to strengthen that part of the box, and prestons say they have problems with people doing burnouts. just concerns me if they have problems with burnouts that's possibly a heat issue and I might have same towing , yes I do have a fan cooled 32 row cooler.

So are you using a factory tailshaft with centre bearing with that hp ?

I spoke to them over the phone price was $3000 box$600 converter , didn't sound bad but after talking for a while he started making excuses for it blowing up . Said people blowing them were burnout guys,not that I am a burnout guy myself but I know guys that regularly pop tyres with c4's. He seemed to think some shaft to do with overdrive might brake and then said ," but they are an easy fix" .He also recomends towing in 3rd. Even if what brakes is an easy fix, I'm not looking to tow the car back pull the box and freight both ways to fx it. All in all I think it might do the job , but I'm not filled with confidence.

http://www.prestonautomaticsanddifferentials.com.au/home/?page_id=41 I checked Prestons and the beefed btr is only rated to 280kw , and then they use the c10 I see in your sig you use one, so am I looking in the wrong place? If I'm right a full weight ba would only do 12.5 or so at 280kw so the test car at 9 sec must be lightened . I quite possibly got my figures all wrong so happy to be corrected. I'm shooting them an email , so see what they say.

Thanks , I'll look them up. MattKay is the guy I've been talking to about the c4, he sounds like he knows his stuff and has 100% positive feedback. I know you have to watch out on ebay but I have sent and recieved many emails he seems the real deal . It's not like the old c4 is rocket science, Still sounds like prestons might be the go for that price , would be good to keep 4 gears and lock up; Anyone with experience towing with higher than std stall converter?

Hi , I need a new transmission for my ba. I have been searching the web for a week and found 2 options I like. Having been a manual guy, I have no experience with stall etc so would like some first hand info. The first option as a t700 ls box that can be adapted and converted to full manual and 800hp capable but about $5500 delivered. I'm not sure they are as proven as the old c4 but they are 4 speed and have lock up converters. The c4 is proven at 1000hp at price of $3550 with converter. Full manual. The c4 seems a much better deal to me but I don't know how much better fuel consumption I would get with the 700. I have talked to the c4 builder and he recomends 2600 rpm stall as I tow with this car and he says with a big cooler it will be fine, I would like opinions and experiences with towing with a higher stall. Car will be starting at 600hp atw but don't know where it will end , so looking at a tough box.

So the 3540 is comp 61.4-82, and the 3576 is comp 53-76 , or is my info on the 3540 slash 3582 wrong ? sounds like a 2876 compressor wheel, 52.8-76.1

Thanks with all your help and going back to garett with your info I think I have the specs straight now.

It appears that the gt3576 fg turbo might be 76 comp as garett would imply but the ba turbo said to be gt3540 might be a gt3582 with 82mm comp and both might have the .5 ar housing. Would really like to know for sure from someone that has checked the sizes, as the huge amount of info on the net often conflicts.

Yes I have found general info on one making more hp, or the other spooling faster, but not exact specs on ar or trim or inducer exducer diameters . If it's just me searching in the wrong place, could you point me in the right direction maybe I'm using the wrong questions .gtx3576r is in the turbo by garrett site but not gt3540 and I don't think the gtx is the right one . garett does not list exact specs for the ford turbo's , or I cant find them .

I've been searching to find specs on the ba , bf , and fg turbo . From my search it seems ba bf are the same and fg is said to be a smaller turbo by some . Others say the turbines are the same on all 3. comp 61.4-82 trim56 turb 68-84 It seems that the ba is comp .7 ar and turbine 1.06 ar and the fg is comp .5 ar and 1.06 turbine. So from all my searching I think they are both the same turbo but the fg just has the smaller ar on the compressor. Any help on exact specs appreciated as I have found so much conflicting info.