Tom Morana! - Page 4 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech General discussion of 2.9L and 3.0L V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #76  
Old 11-29-2009
dkchrist's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ellsworth/Manhattan, KS
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84FordMan View Post
Remote mount turbos are an excellent option for any application, they allow for greater range of choice, you are not restrained by packaging, plus they hide everything, for that sleeper style.
Option yes, excellent not so much. They are good for street applications where hp is a plus and efficiency is not as much a factor. Choices yes, they are great but require great attention to the sizing, piping etc. to make decent power.

3.0s are good and all but no matter how you slice it there is no replacement for displacement.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 11-29-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rapala View Post
what im saying is that I have dents on my muffler because of cheapo speed stops, even scratches from dips into driveways..... thats what Im talking about.... plus the fact that its under the truck where water can easily get into the system and screw you because they give you an open element filter and has a strong possibility of sucking in water and doing major damage. Say you are cruising along and go through a puddle since you are used to going through them without thinking.... water splashes up gets into the system and you are s.o.l.
The exhaust in my Pontiac sits pretty low thanks to the headers, no dings or dents, even when I fly through a nearby intersection with a harsh dip at 45 MPH. In the B3000, at the same speed, the shocks bottom out and nearly loses traction. In the Pontiac, what dip? That is due to the fact that I have Monroe Severe Service shocks on the Pontiac, large diameter bore shocks that are extremely stiff. Everything you just described is not an issue, with proper attention paid to your suspension.

As for the water, do you not run a cold air intake too? You would have to submerge the filter in said puddle. Just a splash is nowhere near enough to hydrolock anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dkchrist View Post
Option yes, excellent not so much. They are good for street applications where hp is a plus and efficiency is not as much a factor. Choices yes, they are great but require great attention to the sizing, piping etc. to make decent power.

3.0s are good and all but no matter how you slice it there is no replacement for displacement.
Really turbo selection remains the same, it's A/R you have to really pay close attention to. You would use the same turbo you would bolting right to the manifold as you do six feet away, but needs a higher A/R. As for piping, you may want to wrap the pipe to retain heat, but its not required.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 11-29-2009
dkchrist's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ellsworth/Manhattan, KS
Posts: 52
Not only do you lose heat you lose velocity not making the same boost. Also, I hope you like turbo lag as it will take more time for the pressure wave to hit the turbo.

I am not against them I just think there are better options.

Anyway somebody build a daggum 1000 hp 3.slow and lets see it
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 11-29-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
More misinformation!!

Not making the same boost - Incorrect! While it may not make the same at the same RPM (Due to A/R), the overall potential of the turbo never changes no matter the location or A/R.

I hope you like turbo lag - Incorrect! Only if you have absolutely no idea how to plot a compressor map (Which is surprisingly alot of people who end up creating their own turbo kit). A T3/T4 with a .48 A/R would be unable to create any traction, because you would hit peak boost between 1,000 and 2,000 RPM. A .63 A/R is a better choice, you would hit peak between 2,000 and 3,000 and hit torque peak between 6,000 and 6,500. Turbo lag, eh?
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 11-29-2009
Rapala's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 826
my suspension is not sagging all is well with it, Im at stock height btw. Im just really skeptical of having it out under the truck where it is in the open.... Im pretty paranoid about what goes on the truck. Ive just hit stuff when I shouldnt have and my under carriage shows it. Its not for the races it works in fields and what not where if I were not careful I could easily go over a stump and lose $3000 turbo system.
I have an cold air intake... its under the hood, and there is metal around it.... no way for water to get in... unlike the STS where water hits the turbo constantly if it happens to be raining or if you are washing the truck. I know there is some good but I just see to many things going wrong in the future, I like my truck to be reliable and make decent power.
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 11-29-2009
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721
Bodylift it, cut up your spare holder in frame...build a skid for the underside of the turbo.....bam! Problem solved.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-29-2009
dkchrist's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ellsworth/Manhattan, KS
Posts: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84FordMan View Post
More misinformation!!

Not making the same boost - Incorrect! While it may not make the same at the same RPM (Due to A/R), the overall potential of the turbo never changes no matter the location or A/R.

I hope you like turbo lag - Incorrect! Only if you have absolutely no idea how to plot a compressor map (Which is surprisingly alot of people who end up creating their own turbo kit). A T3/T4 with a .48 A/R would be unable to create any traction, because you would hit peak boost between 1,000 and 2,000 RPM. A .63 A/R is a better choice, you would hit peak between 2,000 and 3,000 and hit torque peak between 6,000 and 6,500. Turbo lag, eh?
It is simple physics that you will have more lag and less boost potential. Air is compressible and a fluid. There are more fluid losses and heat lose with the longer pipes, no way around it, this comes well before you can plot any compressor map. When you mash on the throttle the air will make a pressure wave down the exhaust, and it can only travel so fast (speed of sound ideally) I know that does not seem like a lot but it will make a difference. A T3/T4 is a very small turbo I know you can spin them fast but that require exhaust heat and velocity (aka energy which can be helped by wrapping as you mentioned earlier). They have their place in tight spots and non OE applications but if a conventionally mounted turbo can be used it should be.

I am also not trying to say a supercharger is better either. They are very parasitic. As well the tighter the charger and higher the boost the more power it takes whereas a turbo uses almost a free source of energy.

If remote mounts are so easy why will the OEM not touch them? And why is there such a push to mount the turbos in the valley with super short intake and exhaust runners?

This is all great info keep it coming.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-30-2009
84FordMan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkchrist View Post
If remote mounts are so easy why will the OEM not touch them? And why is there such a push to mount the turbos in the valley with super short intake and exhaust runners?

This is all great info keep it coming.
Materials, R&D, warranty concerns, just some of the few reasons why OEs will not touch them. They really need a scavenge pump to ensure proper lubrication and oil pressure or the OE would have to find a way to ensure the engine's oil pump was sufficient enough and can guarantee to keep it out of warranty repairs.

Turbos in the valley are great, when you have the available space and have a supplier for turbo manifolds, but when one or both of those are not available, remote mount becomes the cheapest alternative.

And again.. the sleeper look, I mean just look at this "plain" Pontiac Tempest:

Oxidized red paint, stock steelies with chrome ashtray hub caps...


Pretty plain interior too, custom gauges and some rocker switches..


326 Pontiac engine.. ok... wait, are those individual coils? A serpentine belt setup? And that looks more like a big block Chevy...


WAAH! Twin turbo 1120 RWHP big block Chevy V8?!


That is Rob Freyvogel's 63 Tempest, big block Chevy powered, a pair of turbos picked up from a junkyard for a Cummins turbo diesel feed the engine mixed with Rob's homebuilt EFI setup.

YouTube - Sleeper Pontiac
YouTube - Sleeper Pontiac on Dyno
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-30-2009
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boring, Oregon
Posts: 21,721
Badass example of a badass sleeper that I wouldn't mind owning.



As you were. lol.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-02-2009
Robin Hood's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 789
So I've been talking to him lately and he's basically telling me it'll be about 700-800 bucks for the intake with an M90 adapter. Now call me out if I'm wrong but doesn't the m112 make more boost than the m90? Wouldn't it make more sense to just buy a rebuilt m112 (for like 400$) that way the total for S/C and intake would be 900$ or so? Then plus the cost of tuning and all that jazz.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-03-2009
sickranger3.0's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pensacola, FL.
Posts: 148
well actually boost is boost on a supercharger. it will take less revolutions on the m112 then the m90 which will equal a little lower intake temps but. boost is boost. A guy on fordrangerforum well aka 98blownranger. not sure if he is on here. but he is going to be re-releasing a manifold for the m90 from what he was telling me.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 07-16-2013
jmc94's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: ft myers, fl
Posts: 10
i assume from the above posts u guys have used tom moranas website before and all i want to know is if it is a trustworthy website to give billing info to and if u got items basicsally asking for a type of ebay feedback b4 i buy PLEASE ALL REPLYS ARE VERY APRECIATED
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 07-16-2013
jmc94's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: ft myers, fl
Posts: 10
is tom morana a trustworthy website???
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Going to Summit Racing tom. need opinions! cchsbuzz19 General Ford Ranger Discussion 7 05-22-2010 01:22 PM
Tom Morana 1/8th mile comparison Rapala 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 10 05-02-2010 07:10 PM
cchsbuzz19/Clayton & Toms994x4/Tom ROCKS!! Fx4wannabe01 Ranger Products, Company, & Member Reviews 15 11-02-2009 03:10 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.