Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Now understand i hate fuel injection. 1 because if I put a 610 lift cam in my 91 she aint gunna run with out a stand alone. 2 because a carb is cleaner. The DP head out flows the D port head. I aint gunna argue because the fellas at racer walsh agree with me. knowing that it would seem you could get more power out of a DP head right? So who makes just an ignition controller ? MSD does but will there DIS ignition run without the factory ecu? if it can its simply a matter of welding some holes on the lower intake and making an adapter for my 500 holley hehe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
First off, for the benefit of yourself and other Modded Mustangs readers, here is what BoPort had to say about 2.3L heads in terms of airflow. He is a highly experienced 2.3L head porter and I think his work speaks for itself. I can say that I have achieved some similar results as those posted, but only on a few of the examples listed below. I do not have a business solely dedicated to porting 2.3 heads.
Check him out if you want to-
Boport Racing Heads (Powered by CubeCart)
(Note here, that when properly ported, all most all of the examples posted below, flow about the same numbers. Port velocities are not taken into account in the examples below and can have a significant effect on performance.)

All heads were bone stock other than cleaning carbon off the ports. Factory valve job, same valve used for all tests. This is an intake flow comparison tested at 28" water on my bench. 1/2" clay radius on port entrance. 3.810" test bore on iron heads and 3.92" for Esslinger heads. Cylinder number 3 port was used on all tests but the ranger round port, in which cylinder #4 was used. Back to back, same day.


Lift" N/A D Turbo D-Oval D7-Round-LateDual-EarlyDual--EssyD- BoEssyD- BoIronD- ARCA
.050"---27.55--- 27.8----- 28.6---- 31.0---- 30.0------27.3------28.1-----29.6-----31.1------33.7--- 42.3
.100"---48.9---- 54.5---- 55.9---- 59.0---- 58.0------54.9------51.4-----61.3-----61.1------61.3--- 85.1
.150"---61.8---- 75.4----- 78.9---- 77.7---- 86.7------78.3------76.7-----94.5-----94.5------91.6---123.9
.200"---75.2---- 100.6--- 100.3--- 101.6--- 110.7-----96.1------105.5---123.6----123.0-----122.0--- 164.1
.250"---88.0---- 120.7--- 122.3--- 122.0--- 130.3-----109.4-----132.3---147.2----148.5-----149.8--- 198.5
.300"---101.6--- 132.3-- -136.8--- 135.5--- 143.3-----120.4-----156.3---169.9----173.2-----175.8--- 219.2
.350"---116.5--- 140.1--- 146.6--- 142.7--- 153.1-----128.4-----177.7---189.4----193.9-----198.5-- -226.4
.400"---131.0--- 144.0--- 150.5--- 145.3--- 158.9-----132.3-----190.7---207.6----212.7-----218.6--- 229.6
.450"---144.0--- 149.2--- 153.1--- 145.9--- 164.1-----134.9-----199.8---220.5----223.1-----236.1--- 231.6
.500"---151.8--- 154.4--- 156.9--- 149.2--- 166.8-----136.8-----205.6---231.6----225.7-----252.3--- 234.1
.550"---158.2--- 159.5--- 156.3--- 150.5--- 168.8-----138.8-----210.1---236.1--------------265.9-- 235.4
.600"---163.4--- 160.8--- 156.3--- 151.8--- 170.2-----140.1-----214.7---237.4--------------275.0--- 235.4


"N/A D" refers to a naturally aspirated D port head with closed combustion chamber.

"Turbo D" Refers to an open chamber D port used on the turbo EFI engines as well as early carbureted applications.

As you can see, the closed chamber head in stock form flows significantly less than its open chamber variant due to excessive valve shrouding in the chamber. After proper chamber re-shaping however, the closed chamber head can be made to flow equally well as the open chamber head.

The "Bo Essy “D" and "Bo Iron “D" are both standard level stage 3 ported heads.


OK, with that out of the way, it seems like you are building a fairly radical engine and you want to avoid all of the complexities of dealing with a PCM (power train control module, your cars computer) connection and the wiring that goes with it. With the 2.3 DIS systems, the PCM is continuously monitoring the DIS ignition system signals during vehicle operation for, Profile Ignition Pickup (PIP/CKP) signal, derived from the crankshaft position sensor Ignition Diagnostic Monitor (IDM) signal, which is derived from the kickback voltage spike that occurs when the primary side of a coil has fired. Camshaft Identification (CID) signals derived from the secondary crankshaft position sensor: the 2 sensors are mounted together.
If you wanted to, you could leave all of this in place and just eliminate the fuel system wiring, but from a performance aspect, this may not be your best choice.
The 2.3 Mustangs use what is called a waste spark ignition design, where a single coil fires two separate cylinders at the same time. The spark plugs in the respective cylinders are wired in series, with the circuit being completed through the cylinder block. As a coil fires, current flows into the first plug and out of the second plug. This means that the firing voltage of one spark plug is negative with respect to ground, while the other is positive with respect to ground, so half of the plugs are firing with a reverse polarity. Indecently, the second set of plugs fires on the exhaust stroke.
I’m sitting here thinking: trying to characterize this in a way where it will make sense. The best answer I can come up with right now is: Detonation resistance. That is why you want a dual plug head in the first place. That’s why engine builders have been building them for decades. There are very few unburned regions within the combustion chamber of a dual plug head.
There are so many products on the market, which could satisfy this requirement that I can not give you a single recommendation here. I would give the guys a call at Haltech engine management systems a call first and tell then what you want to do.

Craig.

Haltech – Engine Management Systems
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I knew about how the DIS works its just the PCM wont trigger the DIS without the EFI working. as for the shrouding ya it deoes reduce flow but i was under the impression the dual plug heads had larger runners so deshrouding yeilds a better flowing head. thats what some ministock buddies and the guys at racer walsh told me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
Your DIS system will work independently of the rest of the fuel system if you leave everything else hooked up to the PCM. I have done this while troubleshooting many times. I can send you a wiring schematic if you need one. You will still need to keep the crank sensor and a few other items to do this. I can break this down for you, but seriously, you would be WAY better off using one of the race systems or even splicing one of the early 2.4 Nissan Dual plug distributors to the bottom half of a 2.3 Ford distributor like I did years ago. I have done what you are attempting before, but I used dual Webber carbs on my set-up. With a radical cam, like you are planning to run, you will need to be able to mess with the spark timing tables and the stock Ford DIS doesn't have the right advance curve. I guess you could just lock the advance curve down and move the position of the sensor to get enough advance, but you might need a high torque stater to turn the motor. So thats more $$$. You might need the high torque starter anyway, in order to turn over the motor with 12.5:1 or higher compression, which you will need to run with a radical cam.

On the dual plug head, I think it is a good choice for a race motor, if class rules will allow it. It can be a tricky one to port. I first got my hands on one back in 1990 and I wrote a program for porting it on a CNC mill. Unfortunately, I hit water on the last port and had to start all over again. The port volumes aren't that impressive on the dual plug heads before porting, but if they are ported by someone who knows what their doing, they start to look pretty impressive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
You should have a stub shaft on your engine, where the distributor used to go, which is basically the bottom half of a full distributor, which has been chopped off. Your oil pump is still driven off of this. The early Nissan Z24 (naps-z) engines had, throttle body injection, 8 spark plugs, and 8 valves. They were commonly used in Nissan trucks. They used a conventional distributor with 8 plug wire terminals on them. If you can find someone with a lathe, you should be able to take the Nissan distributor and the Ford distributor and graft the 2 together. If I had the time, I would make another, just for the hell of it. You have to look at it this way, why bother to build anything, if you aren't going to put any effort into it.

The other way I mentioned, was to get a stand alone ignition which is crank triggered, but of course those cost a bit of $$

Not trying to be critical, but I don't understand why any of this is surprising. I got the impression that you did not want to deal with the complexities of a modern engine management system. This is about as old school, simple as you can get. The system worked well as I recall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
368 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
sweat my neighbor actually has a lathe so ill see if i can use it because ya if i could run A dizz that would be ideal pm me with a write upon how to splice em together
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Sorry for digging this up, but I am very interested in the distributor. I have a N/A 2.3 in my 80 Capri, I build a 92 2.3 for it and didn't know I couldn't use a distributor with the head until it was too late. So using the Nissan with the 2.3 cap/stub will clear the intake manifold?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
It's by no means a bolt in deal, but I might be able to dig something up if you "really" want to go this route. Worthy of note; several manufactures make crank triggered stand alone systems which could also be used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Well the engine is a 92, and it had DIS ignition originally. So it had the weird dual vane crank sensor. My car has megasquirt and its set up for tfi, I've read that I can use the original DIS system with megasquirt because it's very similar to tfi.

I would like to change to a VR sensor, but it seems like it would be tough to change the front cover and pulley to make it work. I have a neighbor with a mill and lathe, so I don't doubt that we couldn't make it.

I need to read into changing to a vr sensor a little further, it would probably be the best solution.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top