Turbo manifold progress

[tealcherokee]

turbo stroker -> 23 spline aw4 -> np242 locked in full time -> hp30 front w/ TJ crmo shafts and a d44 rear

spinning 255/55-16's general grabber UHP's on the street
and 245/60-16's mt's for the dirt

black steelie wheels 16x8, 5" back spacing, puts the jeep a total of 2.5" wider

rear is currently stock, soon to be mid link, single triangulated, 4" travel coilovers, 1.5" down, 2.5" up, sitting 2" lower than stock

front is going to be 3 link w/ panhard, mid arms just like the rear, 4-6" travel coil overs, 1.25" down, 2.75-4.75" uptravel, not sure what i want to go with yet. not sure on spring rates yet, probably 300 up front, 225-250 rear, keep it nice and stiff, running factory sway bars, with beefed up links and mounts.

poly mounts on all soft joints, RE flex joints on the hard ones

custom RE flex joint motor mounts, fixed tranny mount w/ poly isolater (RE's dont give, but still allow the motor to rock, so the tranny mount needs to be solid as well)

removing the gas tank, sinking the rear cargo area down about 4", fuel cell inside, -6an for all fuel lines

removing the front crossmember, makeing a tubular drop crossmemeber, and room for a full size chevy, 4 core aluminum radiator

external tranny cooler mounted infront of the radiator

top mount intercooler, or meth injection, not sure which yet

muffler and cat-less 3" turbo back exhaust, splitting into dual 3" with 4" stainless tips exiting under the rear bumper

fully gutted interior, EOR 10 point jeepspeed approved roll cage

summit racing buckets

custom dash




i think that should keep you busy.....

 

[Boostwerks.com]

I can't wait to see the finished product man. This thing is going to be sick!

 

[Zebaru]

np242 locked in full time

Why lock the t-case? I don't see any advantage...

removing the front crossmember, makeing a tubular drop crossmemeber, and room for a full size chevy, 4 core aluminum radiator

Why go to all the trouble of snaking your radiator hoses all over hell? A Ford type radiator should make life easier...

 

[tealcherokee]

Why lock the t-case? I don't see any advantage...



Why go to all the trouble of snaking your radiator hoses all over hell? A Ford type radiator should make life easier...

i locked the case (well shifter) so i can only use 4 full time, and 4 hi part time

because 2wd wastes tires, and 4lo and 500lbft is NOT a good idea

and someone gave me this radiator, its like a $500 radiator

 

[Fairmonco]

Turbo`s aren`t just for imports.......and BTW,not every "import driver" is tuning illiterate,buddy has a `92 Civic hatchback that he built himself,not a ricer at all...it has a SOHC 1.6L motor thats putting out around 450hp at the flywheel,and gets 35mpg on the hiway...track proven 11-sec car.......oh,and BTW...he`s 18!

 

[XJtoy]

I have been trying to put a turbo kit together for my jeep ever since I got it. Who doesn’t won’t more power and making it out of stainless is stronger then mild still of the same thickness it will look a lot nicer in the long run.

I'm not even going to start the war on the imports vs domestics I have been building turbo Honda for some time now. My own street car is a 91 Honda Civic that put down to the front wheels 461hp and 370ftlb. I run the quarter in 10.90 at 132mph with a 1.75 60ft and still get 25mpg. I have helped build some 9 sec Hondas so go ahead and make the comments about the ricers and all that stuff but I tell you what when the guys with the turbo Jeeps are telling us about how they pulled on a Vette your going to be wonting there help when your building a turbo for your Jeepeace:

Now i wont to see some more pic of the turbo set up on the Jeeps

 

[Boostwerks.com]

http://s121.photobucket.com/albums/o206/boostwerks/

 

[pro-rallye]

properly designed thicker walled ss is used on turbo manifolds because they withstand the high heat that the turbo produces. they also keep the heat in the tubes which results in higher thermal energy and helps spool the turbo faster. the import ones that you see are ususally cheap ebay knockoffs that are way to thin or made with a lower quality ss and fail quickly due to their poor design. bracing is the key to a long lasting ss manifold because of the weight of the turbo and especially when you get into bumpy situations.

 

[vetteboy]

Neat project. But one thing I'm a little concerned about...the NP242 has a maximum torque rating of 1486 ft-lbs. At 2.8:1 first gear in the AW4 and another factor of 2 for the torque converter, this leaves you with a maximum of 265 ft-lbs from the motor. And I'd tend to think you're building something with a little more than that.

Is there something I'm missing here?

 

[Boostwerks.com]

Neat project. But one thing I'm a little concerned about...the NP242 has a maximum torque rating of 1486 ft-lbs. At 2.8:1 first gear in the AW4 and another factor of 2 for the torque converter, this leaves you with a maximum of 265 ft-lbs from the motor. And I'd tend to think you're building something with a little more than that.

Is there something I'm missing here?

People have pushed more tq than that on stroker builds though?

Would you happen to know that figure for the NP231? Where are you getting these figures?

 

[vetteboy]

Torque rating is 1885 ft-lbs on the NP231.

http://www.newventuregear.com/tcases.html

That rating for the NP231 is specified as "gasoline engine, manual trans, load factor 2.2". I'm guessing this means the torque rating shown is continuous, but can handle brief shock loads of up to 2.2x that amount?

No such disclaimer is made for the 242 though, so who knows.

It's easy to get 300 ft-lbs out of a stroker, which is why I'm wondering about this. That obviously blows that rating away, so it's obviously conservative, but I'm wondering by how much. For what I do, it's very rare that the motor ever develops peak torque in 1st gear, but in a more racing-oriented application I can see it happening more often.

 

[tealcherokee]

Neat project. But one thing I'm a little concerned about...the NP242 has a maximum torque rating of 1486 ft-lbs. At 2.8:1 first gear in the AW4 and another factor of 2 for the torque converter, this leaves you with a maximum of 265 ft-lbs from the motor. And I'd tend to think you're building something with a little more than that.

Is there something I'm missing here?

yes lol.... your missing that 265 * 2.8 = 742 not 1486

the max torque number is about to be about 530 going into the tcase

 

[vetteboy]

yes lol.... your missing that 265 * 2.8 = 742 not 1486

the max torque number is about to be about 530 going into the tcase

You're not factoring in the torque multiplication from the converter?

Are you figuring that's because that'll typically only occur when the converter is slipping/not locked up, and by the time it reaches peak torque it'll be synchronous to the engine RPM and not multiplying at all?

I guess it's the same thing as what a stall converter does.

 

[tealcherokee]

i dont have a torque converter.

im setting up the AW4 w/ a clutch

but either way I'm sure it would be fine

 

[jjvande]

i dont have a torque converter.

im setting up the AW4 w/ a clutch

please expand...

 

[tealcherokee]

please expand...

lol..... people always get curious about this one.

ok, its quite simple. you remove the torque converter, and put a clutch in, you need to make a custom input shaft for the tranny, and get the pressure plate to spin the tranny pump. I havent looked into the details on an AW4 but ive seen it done on the old torque flights.

 

[87manche]

I've seen it on a power glide setup for the strip. Looked like an odd contraption, but it sure worked good.
If you think about the TC it's nothing more than a clutch that allows it to slip.

 

[tealcherokee]

I've seen it on a power glide setup for the strip. Looked like an odd contraption, but it sure worked good.
If you think about the TC it's nothing more than a clutch that allows it to slip.

yes I agree. Ive never under stood the "torque multiplication" theory....

 

[vetteboy]

yes I agree. Ive never under stood the "torque multiplication" theory....

Not sure I'd consider it a theory, unless you consider most of physics and fluid dynamics theory as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter

The torque converter will have a very high torque multiplication ratio when the driven member is held stationary and this ratio will decay fairly linearly as the speed ratio approaches 1:1.

The maximum amount of torque multiplication provided by the stator depends on the angle and design of its blades. Typical torque multiplication ranges from 1.8 to 2.5:1 for most automotive applications, up to 5.0:1 or more for static industrial applications or heavy maritime propulsion systems. The blade angle and shape also affects the stall speed of the stator, although actual stall speed is also a function of the engine's input torque; an engine with less torque will stall the stator at lower rpm.

Each member has the same weight but different mean diameters. The driving member is twice the diameter of the driven member. This means it has four times the energy. If the driving member was spinning at 1000 RPM and the driven member was stationary, the stationary member could attain a speed of 2000 RPM if all energy was transferred instantaneously (one time interval). In a clutch system, both members would have to connect and since the new resultant member has a mass of 2X it would never approach 2000 RPM. Much more RPM is lost although it has the same momentum. Despite the same momentum the operating speed of the engine has dropped so it is producing less power over the next time interval, resulting in the advantage of an automatic transmission over a manual for standing starts.

As the input member turns, oil spirals outwards. When it reaches the end of the input member it looks like a rim of spinning oil. The energy that this toriodal shape of oil has is a function of its diameter, how fast it is stopped, and its weight. It does not take very much oil to impart a large amount of energy to a stopped car. This is because since the output member is stationary the oil has no choice but to be stopped very fast as if it hit a wall. When the output member is moving, obviously the oil doesn't hit as hard and less force is exerted. Consider this toriodal of oil moving at 32 feet per second, spinning at 1000 RPM, and with a mean diameter of 12 inches. In one second oil weighing almost 360 pounds will collide with the stalled member and produce a force of 300 foot-pounds if stopped in one second. Actually, it would have to be stopped and returned in one second or all of the oil would be on one side. After entering the output member and imparting energy, the rim of oil will change direction of flow and simply become a straight flow of oil entering the input member at the center.

 

[Beej]

Not sure I'd consider it a theory, unless you consider most of physics and fluid dynamics theory as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter

Semantics. Using the word "theory" does not necessarily mean that it is unproven. It can also refer to a body of work or conceptualization of an idea...