![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 |
Board Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tulsa, OK
|
![]() I have bene having fun with my N/A motor in my 90/ 240 DL, and i want to play with my engine. So, a turbocharger provides such fun, and it seems to me that the 3.1 system may not be able be turbocharged... or am i wrong??? And how difficult would changing computers be, or other options. Just curious how difficult the additions will be, thanks you guys. This board makes my day everyday.
-spencer |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Board Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Two Up, Two Down
|
![]() james, parkgh34 was gathering parts to do this on his '92 244 (car is mint, btw) i havent heard from him in a few weeks tho, ill try to get him to update things, or light a fire so he gets started on it
__________________
-Billy Volvoless for the first time since 1990... ![]() 2002 Toyota Avalon XLS (comfy gradma car) 1996 Chevrolet Tahoe LS 2WD (hauls ass) 1990 Mazda Miata (track toy) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Exklusiv Zubehör Klub
![]() Join Date: Sep 2002
|
![]() A 3.1 car would be a pita to turbo imo in that there were never any turbo 3.1 cars to my knowledge, so there is no computer to swap in that is pre-mapped for larger injectors.
It's too bad because at a glance at least 3.1 seems to be a far more sophisticated management system relative to 2.4 and below. Wether that is the casse or not in practice I don't know. Your coices are basically either try modding the maf ouput or go to a programmable standalone ala MS. Would be neat to see a +t 3.1 car though! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Board Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ma
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Board Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oregone
|
![]() Your car is a 90 M47 car right? I think 3.1 started in 91 manual 240 NAs, but it is possible that your 90 has it. Anyway, the flywheel for my car came out of a 91 240 NA LH3.1 I am almost positive, and it works just the same as the OEM turbo LH2.4 flywheel. I also think the connectors and pinouts to the ECU for 2.4 and 3.1 are pretty much the same. This means that you ought to be able to swap to the LH2.4 turbo ECU, AMM (hot wire for 2.4 instead of film type for 3.1), and LH2.4 TPS +greentop injectors and resistors. There wll be some veriations on this theme if the LH2.4 ECU has the cold start or EGR stuff, and whether your 3.1 ECU is designed to deal with that stuff, but it seems worth a try to atleast try and plug in any 2.4 ECU + 2.4 hardware and see where the pinouts lead and what it does. Or, you could just not bother messing with LH2.4 stuff. THe 3.1 seems like it was more sophisticated, being that it had a switched and variable resistor TPS if I remember right. That is a setup much more akin to the hardware you find on the motronic stuff in 850s than 740Ts per se. 3.1 turbo would be a cool experiment, though I am really not sure how heavily 3.1 leans on the TPS reading. I know it must lean on it some because the film type AMM responds slower, but I am not really sure if you would drive normally or badly with a turbo. It could be cool to see where it leans out to maybe run a piggyback on your NA 3.1 system.
__________________
How PSI a stock can support? Always Be Crushing! Last edited by Kjets On a Plane; 11-15-2004 at 01:01 AM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
What, me worry?
![]() Join Date: May 2003
Location: Acworth, Ga. USA
|
![]() Okay- Mikey has two 245's, a '90 and a '93 . Both have AMM with #'s ending in 016. I thought this was lh2.4- how else can you tell? It seems the info on id of 2.4 & 3.1 is sketchy.
He is doing f+t on the '90 in about two weeks. I hope they're not 3.1. We have lh2.4 turbo ecu- a 563 and will install that if possible, plus turbo ignition ecu. Are you saying the pinouts are the same on 3.1? I have the pinout diagrams for 2.4 and 2.4 turbo, so I know they are the same. Help!
__________________
I coulda had a V8! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Fabricatin'
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Concord, NC
|
![]() Perhaps a piggyback system? Something like SDSefi or something...
-Andy |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Board Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Two Up, Two Down
|
![]() or like what eric was running, the SMT-6
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Board Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oregone
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Board Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
|
![]() one way to find out
![]() i turbo'd my 2.4 without any modification to the fuel or ignition computers, and iwas able to run about 8psi without any problems id think if you just slapped the turbo on there like i did, it would be fine to a certain point, then just MS it and be done just my $0.02 ps, my car was a 1990 M47 -Brendan
__________________
RIP Batmobile.... play nice, or the gestapo will get you Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Board Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: RI
|
![]() My 1990 240 m47 has LH3.1. The serial number will tell you. If its got 88 in the number its lh2.4 and 82 its lh3.1. AMM looks different. Its not the hot wire type and is suppose to be more reliable along with a different TPS. Its a sensor not just a switch.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
What, me worry?
![]() Join Date: May 2003
Location: Acworth, Ga. USA
|
![]() Thanks, guys- we are going to use the turbo ecu- we have automatics, so 2.4 is it.
Maybe MS later, when money catches up with ambition. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|