Redliner777

I've been talking to the guy that does the kits for the mustangs. here's an E-Mail he sent me: [tt]Brian, Ok, so both vehicles (or at least one) is/was an import? Here is where we need to discover the kind of rear wiring that is being used. There are two "styles" of rear wiring for US and Euro (import) cars. The wiring styles are different in that they go by the generic names of 3-WIRE US (brakes/turn signals on SAME bulb/filaments) 4-WIRE Euro (brake and turn signals are on seperate circuits) Even though the rear rear taillights on many imports are RED note that the red bulb used for turn signals is normally a single bulb and the brake lights are on separate bulbs and sections of the taillight assembly. In later years, the imports have gone to completely YELLOW or AMBER lens for the turn signals (one bulb) and RED for the brakelights and are seperate. Earlier imports used one RED taillight assembly, but the turn signals and brakelights were on seperate wires or circuits. This is easily verified. This would also allow the MFG to simply change lense covers to the amber turn signal style when importing to another country that specified turn signals must be yellow/amber (EURO) regs. To find what you have, crank the car and have someone press the brakes. Note the number and position of the brakelights. Then release the brake and do a turn signal and note the position and number of lamps in use. Then leave the turn signal going and press the brakes, and note the number and position of bulbs now. If you have the Euro style, there will be one or two bulbs that are only used during the turn signals, and the brakelights are NOT used as turn signal indicators. Determine this and get back to me. The EURO style or 4-WIRE systems are not condusive to converting over to sequentials because of the number of bulbs wired for turn signal application. In these systems you have to use a powered "T" connector (like for use in a trailer harness converter) and these can be expensive and a problem to properly wire in. -Marv' [/tt] So the Question is do we have a 3 or 4 wire setup, anyone know?

Thanks for the info. I much prefer the 86 to the 87+ automatic ones as well.

Got a link to the article or to an ad for the part?

That is SOO close to what I want. I like the face that it sits higher, and hangs back lower, but I'd want it to still hold to the original bottom edge for a thicker looking spoiler. But still it's a sweet looking mod

One would think that one of the eletrical wizs on this board could figure out how to do this. I'd be very iterested in doing it, but I'm not sure $100 is worth it

It is true, our cars aren't THAT heavy. But our engines aren't THAT weak. Never stopped any of us from trying to get more power. I know stripping the interior saves a ton of weight, but I want to keep my interior. My goal is to be a daily driven high performer. I'd love to reduce weight, but I'm keeping my AC interior and the undercoating. Body panels make great sense there. Further I'm very intrigued about the idea of vacuum molding fiberglass over our IC piping. I know wraping them is good, but it's ugly as sin. Perhaps this would be an attractive way to heat shield the pipes?

What about a driving technique section seperated into drag and road(not street) A place where people can go to learn and share about how to do it right

I'm with Chuck, I've seen the Alpine unit, it uses one DIN for the retractable LCD screen and the second DIN for the CD/DVD and controls. This unit also comes with road map programs. Wish I remebered model numbers but a sound shop should know the unit.

A good place to find the 4G63-T is http://www.nippon-motors.com/ but as of right now they are temporarily out of stock. What I would like to know is this. If the d50 tranny is crap for horsepower, does the tranny from the 2.0 Starion bolt up, and is it better for holding the power?

Maybe this point is obvious but just in case I'll put it into words. It occurs to me that you could actually use a second MBC so that you could run to bos levels that weren't stock. Forinstance have your high boost side set at 15 pounds, and set the low boost side to 12 pounds. Nice for driving fast, or flip the switch and go balls out. Great job with that mod.

You are correct, I'm new to the board so I was not aware of any previous animosity. Knowing that it is an ongoing thing does mitigate the circumstance. I just hope someone gets one running soon so we can put this old dog to sleep

My point is this. the name of the the thread implies that the 2 intakes will be in question, but it looks like anyone that does not fanatacaly claim Chad's intake to be the best gets a bunch of crap. In addition, when I say I want to see what the numbers are, it is not because I believe one intake to be better than the other. I expect to see different performance characteristics. I have a goal in mind for my car, and if these intakes perform as I think they might, then I can't afford to make the wrong choice. Lastly, you say you are not getting emotional, but I have not seen once where anyone said that you made a poor choice or wasted your money. Several people have stated that they would not choose Chad's intake for whatever reason, but I wouldn't choose a 20G. That doesn't mean I think anyone who runs one is wasting there money. I just want to see an inteligent dicussion based on theory or proven results.

the spool up times is a matter of Velocity vs Flow. think of a water hose and a super soaker water gun. The super soaker uses a small diamater but throws the water with enough velocity to shoot 60 feet. The water hose at the same CFM as the super soaker would just dribble. However, you could never flow the CFMs through the super soaker that a water hose can handle. Basically there is just more area that has to be preasurized in the big pipe, so it takes longer. But it will flow ALOT more at the top end. Smaller Diameter = higher velocity = quicker spoolup Larger Diameter = Higher flow = slower spoolup Hope this makes things a little clearer

Lizord: Thank you. I made that point earlier and no one paid any attention. these look like 2 intakes that are designed for 2 different setups. Magna for streetability, Chad's for all out race. Further. why is everyone so emotionally involved? it looks like everyone jumps on a person that does not fall to the ground and worship Chad's feet.(no offense Chad, I have no clue who you are) I am very proud that one of our own is doing this kind of work. but the topic IS "Chad's vs Magna" I want to see numbers on both intakes, and I do not think it is unreasonable. Before anyone asks "What do you care?" remeber that this is an information forum for people who love these cars. What do we care? We want to know. we want to have an INFORMED oppinion about these cars. If someone asks me about MPI I want to be able to make some sense. And before you go jumping someone saying they are being over critical and negative. Look in the mirror. In closing I have to say that watching peoples behavior in this thread is single-handedly responsible for lowering the amount of pride I took in this comunity. I know we can behave better than this.

Heefner: Easy there man, I'm not attacking, or asking that Chad "Prove" himself. I'm asking about a flow comparison of ALL the intakes. Just my oppinion, but we can debate based on looking at them all day long but I want to see some actual comparisons. Preferably Dyno runs.

I almost forgot. I know Chad's has been preasure tested, but can't a flow test be done to determine the characteristics of an intake on the bench? Has this been done? what were the results?

Just throwing in my 2 bits, As I understand flow dynamics, just because a air channel is smaller does not mean it is worse. I have been told that the very large intakes actually lose bottom end performance due to the amount of preasure it takes to get decent velocity. While the smaller intake has strong velocity at bottom end but flow suffers at the top end. Can anyone confirm or deny this theory? Brian (A.K.A. The Flaming Bumper)

Doesn't the 88-89 setup cut the boost down to 7.5 if it detects knock? and wouldn't this be a good reason to swap in the 88-89 actuator and all?

from my manual that came with it. how odd.

I think you are talking about the first Gen Talon, mine is a 2G. my weight figure is from the factory specs. Are the listed specs wrong?

Hi, I'm new to StarQuests, looking to buy my first one to replace my '95 Talon TSI. Speaking of the Talon, I can tell you from personal experience the 2nd Gen 4g63 with the Garret t-25 turbo is a VERY nice engine. The Talon weighs almost 4000 pounds and can hang with many mustangs. I don't know the weight on a Quest, or the weight of the engine(would love to find out if anyone knows) I personally have been thinking of doing this swap and is oe of the reasons I want to buy a quest. As far as I know the pros and cons of the engine are as follows. Pro's: 210HP @ 6000 RPM 215 Torque @ 5800 RPM (numbers could be off, going by owners manual) Spools very fast, full 15 pounds by 2500 RPM after market support. Buschur racing can sell you parts to make over 300 HP for about $1000 Cons: Turbos go pretty quick (I've replaced 3) Prone to snapping timing belts. (when it goes usually kills valves) parts are a little pricey all in all I thing the 2g 4g63 combined with the lighter frame would be a vicious combo. p.s. as a disclaimer I would like to say that these are just oppinions. if any of my info is incorect please let me know. p.p.s I still think it ould be cool as hell to have a v6 twin turbo under the hood ;D