Installing a 4.6L 3V in a 97 TBird
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
Just ahead of doing the turbo project, I'll be getting things changed over starting with removing the fuel tank, placing a fuel cell in the trunk, install bigger injectors and probably change the stock 3V slot MAF and put in a SCT MAF. I want to do away with the stock fuel tank to make servicing easier like pulling the driveshaft, tranny and rear end. Mainly, I'm doing it because I plan to mount the remote turbo in the cavity where the tank once was.
The tank is large in area but not depth. Would it not be simpler to slice off the spare tire bulge and make the trunk floor one plane?
Seems like about the same amount ofroom under there considering you will have both mufflers deleted anyway.
And you wouldn't have a fuel cell in your trunk.
The tanks are in such an ideal spot.
Keep me posted, like I said I have a vision of dual remote turbos that keeps returning.
I thought of about 7 different positions including in the right engine bay at the air filter/under fender area. My second best position is to put it in the trunks tire well. Make a removable cover over the well and only have the holes in the floor pan for the exhaust and cold pipes. My problem with any trunk or muffler area install is the exhaust, cold pipes and oil line are so long. And all of that has to be fished around the fuel tank which is in the way of anything. I believe there is enough room in the tank cavity for the turbo and the exhaust, (the 3V head pipe hangs down a bit now) cold pipes and oil lines will be much shorter. I've thought about dual turbos as well and there should be room on the right and left of the driveshaft for dual units under that rear seat. What you want to do for positioning sounds fine to me but I think I will to go a different route.
Of course, I was just sharing my thoughts. I don't disagree with your choice.
My original thought was to firewall the trunk and mount the turbos on a sub panel, then install the assembly in the trunk and pipe to it. Kind of a cartridge style.
The tank IS in the way of the shaft, and restricts access to the differential and IRS, and makes the exhaust run difficult, and the cold pipe even more so.
Shorter runs on all the pipes will benefit your application as you say.
Good luck and please share.
My original thought was to firewall the trunk and mount the turbos on a sub panel, then install the assembly in the trunk and pipe to it. Kind of a cartridge style.
The tank IS in the way of the shaft, and restricts access to the differential and IRS, and makes the exhaust run difficult, and the cold pipe even more so.
Shorter runs on all the pipes will benefit your application as you say.
Good luck and please share.
Yea, I haven't ruled out any position just yet. If it wasn't a driver, there are more choices but I plan to keep it as a driver so that tightens up the options. I'm not going to do it but a rear seat delete and enclosing that area opens up a bunch of new possibilities. Really, under the hood in the air filter area would still cause exhaust routing problem but might be the easiest to do. My thing is I want the engine bay to stay just like it is now and the power adder to be somewhat hidden but keep serviceability as good as I can make it. Putting it under the front bumper cover was one of my earlier ideas but of course, a quick look under the bumper and see lots of concerns.
There is one guy on here that did a traditional under hood turbo on a Mark VIII. He did a great job, but I have never been able to connect with him.
I thought about the rear seat area. Since I am adding a six point roll cage in the Spring, I may revisit that again. Once the shoulder bar goes in the main hoop, and the back stays are connected directly above the front IRS mounts, accessibility to the rear seat will be limilimited. I suppose I could firewall the back of the main hoop to seal it off. Lots of room for stuff there without back seats. I totally sacrificed a 60k mile really nice rust free a 97 Mark VIII to optimize the Mercury build...that was a hard thing to do, but I got it so cheap it made great economic sense. I have lots of spare parts now.
I just finished a DOHC engine swap and new CV 1/2 shafts, Hub Assemblies, upper and lower rear control arms, bushings, all new exhaust, and a front and rear brake upgrade. I need to it tuned or figure it out myself.
Last year I did the chassis, steering mods, new rockers, lowered it, new gear set and shaft. J-Mod, forced lube, and a wild converter.
I had already put new coil springs, rear shocks, coilovers, it goes on and on.
I hope to get the cage in to make it to The Maine Event in July. I hope.
Thank you.
It's been a lot of work.
That said, it has been enormously gratfying because every thing I have done was met with amazing improvements.
The car has performed much better than I dared to dream, and it is a blast to drive.
When I learn to not scratch and dent, I will have it painted
It's been a lot of work.
That said, it has been enormously gratfying because every thing I have done was met with amazing improvements.
The car has performed much better than I dared to dream, and it is a blast to drive.
When I learn to not scratch and dent, I will have it painted
Joined
·
761 Posts
Howdy...
Odd question: I probably skipped over the answer above, but are those Mustang exhaust manifolds or the truck units?
2006 Mustang manifolds. I ran it at the strip a week ago with a 13.95 1/4 mile with a speed limit shut down at the 1000 ft mark. Found an output shaft speed limiter set too low in the Quarter Horse software. I'll try again at the next test & tune, and I believe it should run a 13.70 or so.
Joined
·
2,966 Posts
Part of me thinks that has to be the disabled phasers as well. What about locking them in the high RPM position?
Yes, they are locked in the idle or full advance position. It starts and idles perfectly and easily turns 7000 rpm. I don't think retarding the cam for top end would be helpful. I'm sure idle quality would poor along with less low-end torque and understand, I don't think the Ford software ever fully retards them at top end anyway. The VCT is mainly for emissions, fuel economy and retarding at cruise to create the EGR effect.
Joined
·
2,966 Posts
Didnt know that was their purpose.
I was under the impression it was similar to how Ive seen other engines do it, where its advanced from idle to say 4000 then switches so it can keep going higher.
I was under the impression it was similar to how Ive seen other engines do it, where its advanced from idle to say 4000 then switches so it can keep going higher.
Joined
·
5,658 Posts
I'm just happy to finally see one done. Good job.
Thanks, I've already fabricated all the components for a remote turbo setup on this car. I have a new SCT MAF sensor installed to allow more range for boost, and it's dialed in on motor now. I likely will need to install the 35lb injectors in stock, but I believe the 24lb units might work on low boost, if I raise the fuel pressure. I plan to run it on motor for a while and install a different 4R70W with a higher stall converter before I commit to the turbo.
I gave thought to a 3v in the MN12.
I was made aware of the spark plugs issues.
And I was under the impression that neutralizing the phasers took away all advantages of variable can timing, making the 3v quite underpowered. And dimensionally, it requires a scoop for the TB location.
I always thought the 3v was a good engine with a reduced part count due to the SOHC, and the combustion chamber seems ideal. The aftermarket certainly embraced it. I found it an attractive option.
For us, bringing our NPI 2 valve up to 300hp territory was going to be a real project, too much for us really. The 3v would have gotten closer.
As it turned out, we chased down a 60k one owner 97 Mark VIII and harvested that.
I still have notes regarding a twin remote turbo setup, that could work for any of the engine options.
I have some design ideas to mount the turbos on a plate under or in the spare wheel well with the trunk bottom cut out, and then plumb to the assembly. The oiling, BOV/WG could be modularized on the plate.
What keeps jumping out of the notes is the sheer amount of pipe it would take to plumb in two turbos remotely.
And since it's not been done, like everyone else, I question the return on the investment.
It's really difficult to quantify boost possible and the power gains resulting with the remote system.
I am really only looking for 500rwhp, around 625shp. There are plenty of examples of supercharged cars with greater numbers, but no turbo MN12s to get base numbers from.
I am glad you tackled the project and I am quite interested in your results and thoughts. I think your idea to move the fuel cell is a good one, that opens up a lot of room for plumbing. Nice to be able to access the IRS and the shaft too. That tank is perpetually in my way.
I was made aware of the spark plugs issues.
And I was under the impression that neutralizing the phasers took away all advantages of variable can timing, making the 3v quite underpowered. And dimensionally, it requires a scoop for the TB location.
I always thought the 3v was a good engine with a reduced part count due to the SOHC, and the combustion chamber seems ideal. The aftermarket certainly embraced it. I found it an attractive option.
For us, bringing our NPI 2 valve up to 300hp territory was going to be a real project, too much for us really. The 3v would have gotten closer.
As it turned out, we chased down a 60k one owner 97 Mark VIII and harvested that.
I still have notes regarding a twin remote turbo setup, that could work for any of the engine options.
I have some design ideas to mount the turbos on a plate under or in the spare wheel well with the trunk bottom cut out, and then plumb to the assembly. The oiling, BOV/WG could be modularized on the plate.
What keeps jumping out of the notes is the sheer amount of pipe it would take to plumb in two turbos remotely.
And since it's not been done, like everyone else, I question the return on the investment.
It's really difficult to quantify boost possible and the power gains resulting with the remote system.
I am really only looking for 500rwhp, around 625shp. There are plenty of examples of supercharged cars with greater numbers, but no turbo MN12s to get base numbers from.
I am glad you tackled the project and I am quite interested in your results and thoughts. I think your idea to move the fuel cell is a good one, that opens up a lot of room for plumbing. Nice to be able to access the IRS and the shaft too. That tank is perpetually in my way.
IIRC a remote turbo kit was (looked at being) produced many years ago that housed the turbos in the cavities where the mufflers reside. I don't know of the details though, aside from the likelihood that there was a lot of lag!
There have been other attempts at turbocharging, most unsuccessful. Most talk about putting the turbo around where the battery sits (and obviously relocating the latter to the trunk). For some entertainment value, look for the quad turbo thread from twin turbo 281 - he had the idea the he could put 4 turbos where the radiator and condenser would normally be. You can guess how that went.
There have been other attempts at turbocharging, most unsuccessful. Most talk about putting the turbo around where the battery sits (and obviously relocating the latter to the trunk). For some entertainment value, look for the quad turbo thread from twin turbo 281 - he had the idea the he could put 4 turbos where the radiator and condenser would normally be. You can guess how that went.
I'd think about removing the gas tank, putting a cell in the trunk, and mounting the turbos where the tank used to be...
Intercooler piping is the biggest issue with remote set-ups, from what I've seen. Some have even gone though the rockers in other cars.
Intercooler piping is the biggest issue with remote set-ups, from what I've seen. Some have even gone though the rockers in other cars.
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
Join the discussion
