could you port the intake shapes or use a phenolic adapter to fit on a LGO motor the quad 4 H.O.? (086 head)
also I was wondering is it possible to have a hex gear driven p. steering pump on a LGO so you could get rid of the belt driven p.steering pump
That S/C would probably be quite useless on a HO motor. You will also have to keep in mind that the ports are lower on the 2.3 heads than the 2.4 heads. Ypu will have to modify or make new mounting and support brackets for the S/C.
Why you would want 10-20 hp from a charger when you could get that from just a header (proven) is beyond me...unless you just have a free one laying around somewhere I guess. The worth of this modification has been exhausted several times, and doesn't need to be again.
And to answer your second question:
No...At least, not unless you use a 2.4L intake cam tower.
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
What does the cam tower have to do with his question?
mitdr774 wrote:What does the cam tower have to do with his question?
Jacob Smith wrote:could you port the intake shapes or use a phenolic adapter to fit on a LGO motor the quad 4 H.O.? (086 head)
also I was wondering is it possible to have a hex gear driven p. steering pump on a LGO so you could get rid of the belt driven p.steering pump
The LGO cam tower doesn't have mounting holes to use the 95+ hex driven power steering pump. If you have an aluminum welder, then I guess you could weld material to the tower, deck the plane that the ps pump mates to (to provide an even surface so no oil leaks), then drill and tap the bolt holes yourself. It would be easier to just have a shop bore out the eight 2.4L cam tower lifter holes and be done with it.
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
Whalesac wrote:Why you would want 10-20 hp from a charger when you could get that from just a header (proven) is beyond me....
Actually it would give you quite a bit more than 10-20hp. The LD9 kit on the LD9 gives 190hp, a 40-50hp gain depending... Just because the HO starts out at 180hp (depending on model), doesn't mean that putting the LD9 charger on will give you the same HP as the LD9. You can almost guarentee that you'll get the same gain on the HO as the LD9, and a MUCH stronger low-end range. People need to learn that peak numbers aren't what's important, if you increase the lower end power band by 40%, and the top end HP by just 10%, then you've GREATLY increased the 1/4 mile of the vehicle.
4cyltuner.com - Information Source For 4 Cylinder Tuners
Buy stuff from CarCustoms Ebay! Won't be disappointed!
Shifted wrote:Whalesac wrote:Why you would want 10-20 hp from a charger when you could get that from just a header (proven) is beyond me....
Actually it would give you quite a bit more than 10-20hp. The LD9 kit on the LD9 gives 190hp, a 40-50hp gain depending... Just because the HO starts out at 180hp (depending on model), doesn't mean that putting the LD9 charger on will give you the same HP as the LD9. You can almost guarentee that you'll get the same gain on the HO as the LD9, and a MUCH stronger low-end range. People need to learn that peak numbers aren't what's important, if you increase the lower end power band by 40%, and the top end HP by just 10%, then you've GREATLY increased the 1/4 mile of the vehicle.
You don't need to explain power curves in racing to me Shifted. I've been preaching that for a while. You also aren't guaranteed 40% on the low end as it takes power away from the engine just to run the charger. The charger itself is also added weight.
The eaton chargers are an air pump, and with the LGO spinning higher RPMs, sure it will make more power. Perhaps I exagerated a bit with the gain, but the charger maxes out around 230 whp. It definately doesn't seem worth it to me unless he has it sitting around like I stated. If you have to modify a manifold or use a phenolic spacer, you might as well work on making the ECOTEC manifold and pulley location work on the LGO (I believe there are starter clearance issues to work out though).
EDIT: I may have been misleading, I should have said it takes power from the engine to run the charger...not that you will make less power than stock.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:24 AM
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
the whole 230 max thing has me all messed up. , it im am running a 2.6 charger pulley, and a 7" crank pulley, it sould talke 30 HP to spin the blower, making my fly wheel have 200 hp,
134k on the motor, and nothing but bolt on's done to it, and i still have the power in a 2980 LBS (with me in it) car to cut 13.9-13.7's ( the 13.7 was with a 30 shot.)
any way, Brian and i are playing with the idea now of puting the blower on my W41.
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
Also comparing blower maps between the m45 and m62 they are both very similar chargers if i was going to put a charger on my ld9/quad motor it wouldnt be a m45 OR m62 or even a m90.
Blower maps to compare the 2....
^^^^lol. Those don't look anything alike. Look at the values on the x-axis, the charger speed and the values of the efficiency regions again, Tom.
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
Fine... they are both inefficient piles of crap.
Wrench Monkey wrote:Fine... they are both inefficient piles of crap.
Agreed
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
...........................
How may TURBO cars beat me at the bash?
134K mile POS...
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
230max whp crowd stick to your guns on this...even after I make you eat your words.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Wade Jarvis wrote:230max whp crowd stick to your guns on this...even after I make you eat your words.
i dont doubt you i just know that the m45 is a ticking time bomb above there.
Whalesac wrote:mitdr774 wrote:What does the cam tower have to do with his question?
Jacob Smith wrote:could you port the intake shapes or use a phenolic adapter to fit on a LGO motor the quad 4 H.O.? (086 head)
also I was wondering is it possible to have a hex gear driven p. steering pump on a LGO so you could get rid of the belt driven p.steering pump
The LGO cam tower doesn't have mounting holes to use the 95+ hex driven power steering pump. If you have an aluminum welder, then I guess you could weld material to the tower, deck the plane that the ps pump mates to (to provide an even surface so no oil leaks), then drill and tap the bolt holes yourself. It would be easier to just have a shop bore out the eight 2.4L cam tower lifter holes and be done with it.
i am just about finished with a fix for this problem. I have designed an adaptor kit to bolt to the end of the Quad 4 cam towers. it will allow the Twin Cam PS pump to be driven off of a Secret,H.O., W41, HG2 cam. any quad cam you want to use will be able to drop right onto the twin cam now, and retain the factory PS pump, and even has a built in reluctor pad, and sensor bracket, keeping the check engine light off! for details, check out the thread over on Q4F's
http://www.quad4forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12834
M90'd Built LGO-15 PSI
http://webstarts.com/quadper4mance
Wrench Monkey wrote:Wade Jarvis wrote:230max whp crowd stick to your guns on this...even after I make you eat your words.
i dont doubt you i just know that the m45 is a ticking time bomb above there.
Tommy...
how manny turbos has my first M45 out lasted? (97K) ?
and my motor is still running, ok.
but yes, that is alot of G forces spinning that fast. i will not spin mine any faster.
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
why are you bumping this? your answers were given, it's up to you how you want to perceive them.
YA, YA, I know just relax
