**Twin Turbo 67 Dart Project**

68 HEMI GTS said:

man, thats a bad *** build!!!!

Click to expand...

Mad Dart said:

You would not believe how hard it is to get Y Pipes etc. The only ones I found were the same size through out the whole Y. I would need to build my own to do that. The 3" to 4" 90* reducing bend will take care of the whole thing and it will be nice and clean too..

There is a big thought process that goes on with a build like this, you change one thing and it affects the next. You are forced to think 2 or three steps ahead which is a BRAIN STRETCHER at least for me anyway!:dontknow:

Click to expand...

bjkadron said:

I figured it was a parts availability issue.

I know how everything affects everything, Even a "simple" Supercharged cornercarver build like mine is ridiculously complicated to plan. Especially if you want everything to be perfect on a budget.

Click to expand...

CUUDAK said:

Someone once told me,
"Pick a plan and stick to it!" Oh, that might have been Louis.LOL!!:toothy10:

Things change at a glance!! I'm stick'n with the Carb. hehehe! I gotta stick to the budget... Its al I got!

Click to expand...

CUUDAK said:

Someone once told me,
"Pick a plan and stick to it!" Oh, that might have been Louis.LOL!!:toothy10:

Things change at a glance!! I'm stick'n with the Carb. hehehe! I gotta stick to the budget... Its al I got!

Click to expand...

bjkadron Good advice!

If I would do that I'd get stuff done a LOT faster!

Click to expand...

turbofreek said:

Looks like your getting there now. For efi intake questions, ill give you some insight on the difference. Dual plane would work but limit rpms before its rated rpm window n/a. It would also work up to a certain power output before restricting the air and heating it even more. The reasoning for the single plane is equaling pulses to a center point in the intake. It does not create a restriction under pressure due to its open plenum. This alone stops power losses for the majority of the people using forced induction. Also in a boosted application the single plane does not adversely affect low rpm driving as it would in n/a form. Due in large part the comp wheel adding air to the intake charge even not under pressure conditions. Now not all engines are created equal even when using identical parts side by side. So there are those who have better power out of a dual plane intake when used under boost. However if its for a great amount of power and rpms a dual plane is simply stupid to use. as it has distributing problems that are equal(vacumn) in n/a form, but unequal when pressurized do to directional flow in the runners that are inconsistent per cylinder. It will cause tunning inconsistency and possible damages to a pressurized engine. My suggestion is <500hp either will work fine. >500hp don't take the chance on it. If there was not any difference. i think a dual plane would be most used due to the additional broad torque curve it could provide to make a turbo car even more dominating.

According to some this is probably bad tech. I Can't teach experience, but can share solid information on this subject.

Click to expand...

Mad Dart said:

Thanks! I like the looks alot better also. I had EFI on my Sand Car with an after market ECU. After I had it dyno tuned I never had to touch it again and never ever had any problems with it. Started up and alway's ran hard at that. I am hoping for the same with this set up.

Well I don't know about April being ready, we will see.
What motor and how much nitrous you hitting it with?

Click to expand...

turbofreek said:

Dual plane would work but limit rpms before its rated rpm window n/a. It would also work up to a certain power output before restricting the air and heating it even more. The reasoning for the single plane is equaling pulses to a center point in the intake. It does not create a restriction under pressure due to its open plenum. This alone stops power losses for the majority of the people using forced induction. Also in a boosted application the single plane does not adversely affect low rpm driving as it would in n/a form. Due in large part the comp wheel adding air to the intake charge even not under pressure conditions. Now not all engines are created equal even when using identical parts side by side. So there are those who have better power out of a dual plane intake when used under boost. However if its for a great amount of power and rpms a dual plane is simply stupid to use. as it has distributing problems that are equal(vacumn) in n/a form, but unequal when pressurized do to directional flow in the runners that are inconsistent per cylinder. It will cause tunning inconsistency and possible damages to a pressurized engine. My suggestion is <500hp either will work fine. >500hp don't take the chance on it. If there was not any difference. i think a dual plane would be most used due to the additional broad torque curve it could provide to make a turbo car even more dominating.QUOTE]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am a newbie at supercharging, and know practically nothing about this subject, but I charged ahead anyway, building a home-brew, low-boost (10 psi) Vortech blow thru system for my almost stock 360 Magnum (in a 3,400-pound (no driver) '72 Valiant 4-door. I have a 214/218 @ .050" lift cam from Hughes that lifts .525." It has 116 degrees of lobe separation.

I bought a Chinese "Air Gap"-type intake manifold when Edelbrock was advertisisng the REAL Air Gap, but nobody had one for sale. That went on for months and I needed a manifold... so, I gritted my teeth and bought the almost-a-copy.

Anyway, it's a dual-plane forced induction system with a Vortech V-1, S-trim blower that makes 10 pounds of boost. It went from 260 RWHP to 445, by adding the blower, the intake (N-A, it had a M-P dual plane) and going to TTI headers from the N-A engine's early 340 cast manifolds. Drag strip ET's went from 13.35 to mid 11's, while the MPH went from 102 to 116... a different car.

I have access to a M-P single plane manifold, now. So, I'm considering trying it. Do you think it will improve this package? I'm thinking that the flywheel HP may be around 520 with the current setup.

Here's the chassis dyno test and picture of the motor.... So far, no one's been electrocuted...

Click to expand...

rapom65 said:

My friends motor is a 408 built for nitrous by Brian at IMM. Dynoed by Brian at 678 HP and 575ish TQ. Good for 10.18 so far in a 70 Duster without nitrous. He has a 200 shot kit but we will be working up to that slowly. I doubt well get much, if any, tuning time due to the weather up here in WA prior to leaving for Vegas. It ought to be interesting!

Click to expand...

Bill Dedman said:

turbofreek said:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am a newbie at supercharging, and know practically nothing about this subject, but I charged ahead anyway, building a home-brew, low-boost (10 psi) Vortech blow thru system for my almost stock 360 Magnum (in a 3,400-pound (no driver) '72 Valiant 4-door. I have a 214/218 @ .050" lift cam from Hughes that lifts .525." It has 116 degrees of lobe separation.

I bought a Chinese "Air Gap"-type intake manifold when Edelbrock was advertisisng the REAL Air Gap, but nobody had one for sale. That went on for months and I needed a manifold... so, I gritted my teeth and bought the almost-a-copy.

Anyway, it's a dual-plane forced induction system with a Vortech V-1, S-trim blower that makes 10 pounds of boost. It went from 260 RWHP to 445, by adding the blower, the intake (N-A, it had a M-P dual plane) and going to TTI headers from the N-A engine's early 340 cast manifolds. Drag strip ET's went from 13.35 to mid 11's, while the MPH went from 102 to 116... a different car.

I have access to a M-P single plane manifold, now. So, I'm considering trying it. Do you think it will improve this package? I'm thinking that the flywheel HP may be around 520 with the current setup.

Here's the chassis dyno test and picture of the motor.... So far, no one's been electrocuted...

Click to expand...

With a dyno graph like that I would be hard to convince it needed changed. The near flat across the board power is not typical of a blower. I would only change if I wanted more power and was having a tuning issue where certain plugs read leaner then others. Now if you had a single plane laying around a comparison would be awesome to see.

Click to expand...

Mad Dart said:

Is that 678/575 NA Power. R3 Block and W series heads or? That is gettin it done!! If you can tune it with the 200 shot you will be DEEP in the 9's for sure.

Click to expand...

rapom65 said:

Those are NA numbers, it's an R3 block, the rods were horribly expensive (can't pull the name out of my rear at the moment) which required custom pistons. Heads are Indy 360-2 (again if memory serves me correct) further massaged by Brian. Brian built it for nitrous which so far we haven't tried. Owner likes to do "John Force" burn outs and it sounds wicked when he has it spun up. Been messing with suspension changes/tuning and were close to getting that finalized. Biggest problem has been getting the correct converter. He had one specially built for the combo but it came apart on the 1st full power launch. The new one has done well but he thinks it's too soft off the line (needs higher stall). I told him it was time for the laughing gas and then see if the converter needs changing.

Click to expand...

03ramit1 said:

it won't nickle and dime you. It will twenty and hundred you to death. Lol

Click to expand...

Bill Dedman said:

turbofreek said:

Dual plane would work but limit rpms before its rated rpm window n/a. It would also work up to a certain power output before restricting the air and heating it even more. The reasoning for the single plane is equaling pulses to a center point in the intake. It does not create a restriction under pressure due to its open plenum. This alone stops power losses for the majority of the people using forced induction. Also in a boosted application the single plane does not adversely affect low rpm driving as it would in n/a form. Due in large part the comp wheel adding air to the intake charge even not under pressure conditions. Now not all engines are created equal even when using identical parts side by side. So there are those who have better power out of a dual plane intake when used under boost. However if its for a great amount of power and rpms a dual plane is simply stupid to use. as it has distributing problems that are equal(vacumn) in n/a form, but unequal when pressurized do to directional flow in the runners that are inconsistent per cylinder. It will cause tunning inconsistency and possible damages to a pressurized engine. My suggestion is <500hp either will work fine. >500hp don't take the chance on it. If there was not any difference. i think a dual plane would be most used due to the additional broad torque curve it could provide to make a turbo car even more dominating.QUOTE]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am a newbie at supercharging, and know practically nothing about this subject, but I charged ahead anyway, building a home-brew, low-boost (10 psi) Vortech blow thru system for my almost stock 360 Magnum (in a 3,400-pound (no driver) '72 Valiant 4-door. I have a 214/218 @ .050" lift cam from Hughes that lifts .525." It has 116 degrees of lobe separation.

I bought a Chinese "Air Gap"-type intake manifold when Edelbrock was advertisisng the REAL Air Gap, but nobody had one for sale. That went on for months and I needed a manifold... so, I gritted my teeth and bought the almost-a-copy.

Anyway, it's a dual-plane forced induction system with a Vortech V-1, S-trim blower that makes 10 pounds of boost. It went from 260 RWHP to 445, by adding the blower, the intake (N-A, it had a M-P dual plane) and going to TTI headers from the N-A engine's early 340 cast manifolds. Drag strip ET's went from 13.35 to mid 11's, while the MPH went from 102 to 116... a different car.

I have access to a M-P single plane manifold, now. So, I'm considering trying it. Do you think it will improve this package? I'm thinking that the flywheel HP may be around 520 with the current setup.

Here's the chassis dyno test and picture of the motor.... So far, no one's been electrocuted...

Click to expand...

Bill,

With the wide LSA I was wondering if you could hear the cam at all or if it sounds stockish.

The cam I am getting for mine is a Solid Roller 240@50 on a 111-112 LSA with .634 Lift. I really want to hear the cam in it at least some without killing the power. I called Bullet Cams and they gave me a recommendation of a 114 LSA installed 3* advanced with the same duration at 50 and the same lift. I called Brian at IMM Engines to pick his Brain and he came up with the exact same specs as Bullet did but in about 3 minutes and I never told Brian about the Bullet conversation. I was on the phone with Bullet for over 40 minutes. I then explained to him that I wanted to at least hear the cam some and we decided to tighten up the LSA a little to achieve that goal.

This is kind of like making Soup, you don't know exactly how it will turn out until it is done!

Click to expand...

03ramit1 said:

man. On the injectors do you know if they wil fit the factory hemi fuel rails? I'll be needing a nice big injector on my build. I currintly have 6.1 injectors in the rails of my 5.7 and they were a little large, but I have a feeling I'll need to step them up for the turbos.

Click to expand...

Mad Dart said:

Google it. I did find alot of information on that install. If I recall you will need to modify the rail or the injector and the stock ecu will need to be flashed etc.

Click to expand...