rjf

I am interested in the turbo if it is in OK shape - still have it? how much? email rjfathome@yahoo.com

Do you have a good turbo for a flatty?? If so email rjfathome@yahoo.com

Looking for a turbo for a NON-intercooled StarQuest If you have a good one, email me at rjfathome@yahoo.com

I am looking for one of the small turbos used on the non-intercooled cars email rjfathome@yahoo.com

I used the MLS gasket with a copper spray sealer. Trying to get the best of both worlds. It has been fine so far, but it has been less than a year.

To replace that frame rail is no big deal. If you can find the actual part, fine. But if you cannot, the welder can use some heavy gauge C channel. What may be a big deal is if the frame rail looks like that, what else is rusted? Check bottom of front fenders near door, bottom of rears near door, rears at the top of the arch etc.

I think that either the 3550 or the T56 are excellent options. The T56 has an extra gear and is stronger, but the 3550 seems to be much more plentiful and cheaper. I do not know how much folks paid for their units, but what little shopping around I have done seems to tell me that low mileage T56's seem to be around $1500+ while low mileage 3550's seem to be $500 - $1000. Am I way off base on this? What kind of prices are folks seeing for these trannies in your area?

If you read all of the tech talk at their site, and look at the pictures, the E3 plug seems to be similar in design to the Bosch +4. Both have this multi pronged anode that does not cover the center of the core. Actually the Bosch +2s also have these features. So is it worth twice the price of a Bosch+4 ? I do not know, but it would probably take some dyno runs to tell the difference.

Well a little more oil can't hurt I guess, but I thought that it was the oil bath that the cam swam in that lubed the lobes. If the intake rockers do not have this oil hole, then it probably is not a problem. Consider that the intake rockers have more work to do with the bigger valve to move, along with moving the extra jet valve. One of the points of having the roller rocker is to cut friction. Are the folks that are running the rollers having cam lobe wear problems? If so, then maybe this is worth it. But if not, don't fix something that ain't broke. Another thing to consider, every drop of oil you bleed off to oil the lobes is a drop of oil you do not have to oil the arm to shaft bearing surface, and in the engines I have torn down that surface it usually more worn than the lobes.

Well this thread has been going for quite awhile. As I mentioned months ago, most runner length calulators recommend a runner length around 15", but those calculators are really set for non-turbo'd engines. On the other hand many Tubo publications show manifolds with very short runners, but most of those are set up for the drag strip. Most of those engines are high rev units, the G54B has a 98mm stroke and although it can rev well past 6K with mods, it is not really happy up there, nor I suspect long lived. Then some folks adhere to the therory that each runner should have a volume at least equal to a single cyl displacement. If this project is to be successful you must decide if you will sell more if it is a manifold for the drags, or for street/SOLO2. Also the idea to make a manifold that can be used either as an MPI unit, or, with the bungs blocked off, as a TBI unit is a good one. This would give you a wider audience. If this unit is to be used on the street, some consideration will have to be given to adding ports, that can be blocked off, for the various vacuum hoses and for the EGR needed for smog in some states. Also it should clear the distributer and the AC unit if it is for the street.

I am here to cheer you on. As your friend is tied into the racing scene, he is probably up on all this, but when I run several of the intake runner length calculators that are available on the internet, I get runner lengths of between 13 to 15 inches for our engine, for max torque at 6000 rpm, for the 3rd wave, and assuming a 284 cam. The best length for the 1st and 2nd wave are even longer. So, if someone else is getting a better number from some calculation lets hear it, especially if it is a calculator for a turbo'd engine. I notice that most of the manifolds out there have runner lengths much shorter than what the calculators recommend. Maybe folks are saying, this thing is turbo'd, screw the length, make it an easy fit. Just guessing.

One of the design points of Oscar's kit was to work with the stock 16" wheels. As I recall Oscar said the 3000 GT calipers were to bulky to fit.

Have you considered cutting the bit of metal off of the header panel that is below the lights. This would reduce the shrouding effect. Just square off the ends of the header (front fascia).

Great work Derek - How much of the beam is shrouded by the being sort of in a tunnel? Can you move the light farther forward to reduce shrouding? Have you considered cutting the "lids" to the pop-ups and welding them to the hood to fill in the hole above the lamps? Keep up the good work -

This thread seems a bit strange to me. There are a lot of engines that make more power than the G54B, and if you wish to swap one in then I hope it works for you. But you must consider the "wholeness" of the car. Almost any inline 6 is going to be heavier and worse it it heavier out front. It puts even more weight out in front of the front axle. And from a packaging standpoint it is a disaster. From my point of view the best candidates are those which fit well and weigh less. Of those the G63 and G64 are the most common swaps. Some of the V6's are good candidates, especially the alloy ones like the Nissan VQ series. Another possible candidate is the GM "Shortstar" V6, these are used a lot in sand rails and have some decent aftermarket parts. With the Shortstar you can use GM trannies. Another candidate I would consider is the new GM 5cyl, this is llight and would fit, but has few aftermarket parts. So if you want to graft an inline 6 in there, have a good time, but do not hit the brakes too hard, you might stand it on it's nose.

Another old trick is to clean stuff with Coca Cola. Dirty toilet? Pour in some Coca Cola and let it set a bit. The stuff is very corrosive. I understand that some CC distributers powerwash their truck engines with Coca Cola.

A few years ago there was a GP for pillar pods. A handfull of 86's were made, but most were for the 87-89's with the rat track seat belts. I do not remember who ran the GP nor which company. Post on the "want to buy" forum, and see if anyone has a spare.

I was thinking about the problem of the angle between the end of the stock steering column and the input shaft to the R&P. Has anyone ever tried to move the steering column back a few inches from the dash? I have wanted to do this but the effort always seemed more than the reward. Due to a back problem I have always angled my seat back. This causes me to move it forward so my hands can be comfortable on the steering wheel, but my legs always feel a tad bit cramped. However if it also helps to resolve the problem of getting a better angle for the intermediate shaft that will be needed to connect to the R&P it might be worth it.

If I had to vote I would vote to notch the bottom like pearlquests. What ever happened to the guy who was working on a new "Wing West" style front end?

I had not noticed this thread before, and I am glad to see someone actually try this, as it has been talked about on the SQ board for over 5 years. I started to look into this a year ago, but did not get very far because I was trying to find an electric rack & pinion unit to use. Electric R&P is being used by more cars every year. Pontiac, BMW, Honda, VW, Bently are brands that I know of that have had electric R&P in at least one model. I was having problems getting info on the deminsions of these units and also their load capability. I am sure that, if we could fit it in, the unit from a BMW Z4 would be great, but the Honda Civic one might be too frail as everything on a Civic is thin. If anyone here works in the industry or has access to this kind of info, I would appreaciate some recomendations. Electric R&P has some obvious advantages; no pump, reduced power loss, no hoses, etc.

When I tried to check this out on the JC-W web site I could not get to a valid aftermarket header. The one that they show is clearly not for a G54B engine. It looked as if it was for a Civic. Do you have the JC-W part # ????

I am not sure who the sanctioning body is for the "Auto-X" you wish to run in. In San Jose it is the SCCA SOLO-2 competition. The first thing to do arround here is to get the SCCA rule book. In there they list what you can and cannot do for the various Solo-2 (the current name for Auto-X) classes. As it turns out StarQuests can do fairly well in the strick SOLO-2 STOCK class. They do not do well in the Street Prepared class as the rules favor Camaros and Mustangs. That is because in Street Prepared you can put on anything that came from the factory, even if they only built one car with it, but the part is listed in the factory record. It sounds as if you want to run in one of the street modified classes. But before you do anything, understand the rule restricitions.

""allanfrompdx wrote - And the closer the coefficient the better. Aluminum is 24 and cast iron is 12 but stainless is around 16 and 321 is 18. the difference is less using 321 stainless and an aluminum head. Again we have 24 and 12with iron or 24 and 18 with 321 stainless will still expand but at a closer range than the cast iron. "" This is a reasonable explanation. I did not realize that the coefficient of expansion of SS was so much closer to AL. Seems like a design consideration for those folks trying to weld one up from steel pipe elbows. A couple of comments on responses to my original question. The "cure" on the stock manifold was to cut the webbing. This tells me that it was the difference in side to side expansion(shear) that was cracking the studs, not the expansion of the base flange (tension) pulling them out. The cut webbing allows them to flex side to side a bit more. The thickness of the flange is not changed The custom units being created have a thicker flange than the stock unit. And if SS has a greater rate of expansion (to make it closer to AL) then there would be less shear load but greater tension load on the studs with the custom units. I do not know what the coefficient of expansion is of the metal used in the bolts, but this rationale would lead me to believe that SS bolts may be called for.

Well it looks pretty. I hope you do something about all the heat you are going to have. The turbo is very close to the brake lines and they will fail if they get too hot (happens to the best, for those who remember Parnelli Jones lost a brake line that way at Indy one year). Also you should wrap all the runners in insulation, as you have about 10+ times more surface area than the stock manifold. Question for all of the folks who have built or are building one of these exhaust manifolds. All of the designs I have seen start with a thick base plate that bolts to the head. But one of the problems with the stock manifold is that it was so rigid it was causing mounting stud failures. That is why folks cut the webbing on the stock units. What keeps these custom units from causing the same stud failures?????

I may be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that the difference in the oil pumps was not between Chrysler and Mitsu, but between the turbo version of this engine used in the Starion/Conquest vs non-turbo versions used in the sedans, K-CARS etc. Other differences is that only the StarQuests and the engines used in the trucks have the piston cooling oil squirters, the others do not.