call me crazy, turbo'd cutlass!!
11-07-2009, 04:16 AM
#21
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 22
11-11-2009, 05:00 AM
#23
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22
you shouldn't have to trick the map sensor. It only reads to one bar, so the computer won't be able to tell if its in boost. The maf on gm cars output a 5v squarewave instead of a voltage signal. There should be enough extra range in the sensor that you'll maxout the stock fuel pump before you max the sensor.
So it shouldn't need tricking, but if the maf does max the pcm throws a P0103(maf freq out of range hi), this will reduce the injector pulse width and make you go very lean. If you hit that, you need an maf interceptor, or fix it in the pcm.
So it shouldn't need tricking, but if the maf does max the pcm throws a P0103(maf freq out of range hi), this will reduce the injector pulse width and make you go very lean. If you hit that, you need an maf interceptor, or fix it in the pcm.
11-12-2009, 03:22 AM
#24
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6
haha, update again. i got a line on a bunch of free stuff, including blow off valve, engine and transmission tuning chips, oil pump, various other stuff. i now have the turbo down here with me, so all i need to do now is find time to take the pictures. well, i just got off work, so i'm heading to bed
11-12-2009, 04:57 AM
#25
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22
The turbo should be large enough. The 1990 factory 3.1 turbo (pontiac grand prix ste) used a garret t-25 with front mount IC.
It was only rated at 205hp, 225tq, but was almost 1 point lower conpression and based on older version of engine.
N/A of same year as turbo was rated 140hp, 1996 was rated 160hp.
It was only rated at 205hp, 225tq, but was almost 1 point lower conpression and based on older version of engine.
N/A of same year as turbo was rated 140hp, 1996 was rated 160hp.
11-12-2009, 03:58 PM
#26
0.5 BAR
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 166
The turbo should be large enough. The 1990 factory 3.1 turbo (pontiac grand prix ste) used a garret t-25 with front mount IC.
It was only rated at 205hp, 225tq, but was almost 1 point lower conpression and based on older version of engine.
N/A of same year as turbo was rated 140hp, 1996 was rated 160hp.
It was only rated at 205hp, 225tq, but was almost 1 point lower conpression and based on older version of engine.
N/A of same year as turbo was rated 140hp, 1996 was rated 160hp.
11-13-2009, 12:38 AM
#27
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6
http://tinypic.com/r/rwta4y/4
http://tinypic.com/r/2lwwqcm/4
http://tinypic.com/r/2f07hoj/4
http://tinypic.com/r/288paq/4
i uploaded some pictures of the turbo and the intercooler. enjoy!!
http://tinypic.com/r/2lwwqcm/4
http://tinypic.com/r/2f07hoj/4
http://tinypic.com/r/288paq/4
i uploaded some pictures of the turbo and the intercooler. enjoy!!
Last edited by reaper0101; 11-13-2009 at 12:46 AM.
11-13-2009, 01:42 PM
#28
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22
When I said it should be big enough I didn't mean it would be a efficent fit, just usable.
It would be near maxed out also. there would only be about 20-30 more hp on the 96 motor then the the1990 had. The t-3 should flow enough more then the t25 for extra 20-30hp.
T-3 maps vary enough though that it may not or may flow more. If the specs on plate of turbo was posted could pull up compressor chart to see for sure.
It would be near maxed out also. there would only be about 20-30 more hp on the 96 motor then the the1990 had. The t-3 should flow enough more then the t25 for extra 20-30hp.
T-3 maps vary enough though that it may not or may flow more. If the specs on plate of turbo was posted could pull up compressor chart to see for sure.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
scottsi
General Discussion
42
06-22-2005 02:03 PM
