D100 Turbo Pet Project

[K-Note72]

Ever thought about rails and injectors from the 3.9 v6?

Idk much about that one, other than it was mainly made for use in the Dakotas and basically was only used thru the 90s. These other options are ones other people have done, so I'm not on an untraveled path. The only one that I remotely know is the 4L, because that Jeep I have in my yard

 

[65 sporty]

The EFI set up will be totally custom, with aftermarket EFI for the electronics you will need to figure out the rest. 3.8 or 4.0 injectors will get it running but wont be big enough when you throw boost at it. You will need injector bungs welded on to the intake and have to build your own fuel rail and regulator set up.
For ignition your going to use the dist still right? With maybe a MSD or other aftermarket ignition?

 

[K-Note72]

The EFI set up will be totally custom, with aftermarket EFI for the electronics you will need to figure out the rest. 3.8 or 4.0 injectors will get it running but wont be big enough when you throw boost at it. You will need injector bungs welded on to the intake and have to build your own fuel rail and regulator set up.
For ignition your going to use the dist still right? With maybe a MSD or other aftermarket ignition?

Yeah was thinking something along those lines. And I already knew the work involved, I knew there weren't any aftermarket efi options so it'd be custom. I read through that article of using the GM 3.8 system so I know the general work involved. I'm also aware I'll need a high pressure fuel system to feed it on turbo. I just needed to know what systems were usable, and whether the mpfi from a jeep 4L would be usable so I didn't have to spend money I didn't need to

 

[7mopar]

Unfortunately GM injection parts and sensors are the cheapest and most available.
Ever think about use the old 2-4 intake, 2 throttle bodies and small twin turbos. The smaller turbos have less lag time than one big one and keep the rpm requirements to a lower level. The slant with od should like it that way.
It has been years since working on a slant tubo project. Way before electric fuel injection. With stock ineards boost will have to be kept under 8 lbs. the o2 sensor will make maintaining fuel requirements much easier.
I do not know how much fabrication your capible of or if the plan was to keep with available parts?

 

[65 sporty]

You can use parts from the Jeep, like the injectors but you need to know how much they flow( lb per hour) so you can figure out how much HP they can support. Depending on port spacing you may be able to use the fuel rail. Forget using the computer, to many things required compared to an aftermarket system. The throttle body can probably be used if you make a adapter so it will fit the intake.

 

[K-Note72]

Unfortunately GM injection parts and sensors are the cheapest and most available.
Ever think about use the old 2-4 intake, 2 throttle bodies and small twin turbos. The smaller turbos have less lag time than one big one and keep the rpm requirements to a lower level. The slant with od should like it that way.
It has been years since working on a slant tubo project. Way before electric fuel injection. With stock ineards boost will have to be kept under 8 lbs. the o2 sensor will make maintaining fuel requirements much easier.
I do not know how much fabrication your capible of or if the plan was to keep with available parts?

idk about a twin tb/turbo setup, pardon me if that sounds like it might be more complicated than needed. I'll be going for a smaller turbo anyways since the goal is to keep rpms down and at best just make power in the low-mid range, I figure a turbo meant for an engine 80% the volume of the 225. And I only figured on 4-7lbs boost anyways, to keep low boost and stay within tolerances for stock internals. The original plan was to go with the cheapest viable parts, with some fab work expected.

You can use parts from the Jeep, like the injectors but you need to know how much they flow( lb per hour) so you can figure out how much HP they can support. Depending on port spacing you may be able to use the fuel rail. Forget using the computer, to many things required compared to an aftermarket system. The throttle body can probably be used if you make a adapter so it will fit the intake.

My only concern of using an aftermarket computer is making sure it'll play along with the fuel components. Besides, aftermarket MPFI systems are SPENDY. My preference of using jeep parts if possible is just because I have one here. I don't know what the flow or psi the jeep fuel system is, but I'm sure I can find out. I have a Chiltons or Haynes for it somewhere around here

 

[65 sporty]

The problem with trying to use the Jeep computer is the 4.0 uses a crank sensor and cam sensor. The /6 uses a distributor only and is not going to be compatible with the Jeep computer. A aftermarket system can use the signal from the electronic distributor for rpm input.

 

[K-Note72]

The problem with trying to use the Jeep computer is the 4.0 uses a crank sensor and cam sensor. The /6 uses a distributor only and is not going to be compatible with the Jeep computer. A aftermarket system can use the signal from the electronic distributor for rpm input.

So the comp would need to be scrapped then. What price does a decent aftermarket one go for? With that GM-3.8 route all the parts needed can total below $500, so if an aftermarkt ECU can come in under that then I'll stick with that option. I still gotta make sure the injector system can compensate for 4-7lbs of boost

 

[7mopar]

The problem with trying to use the Jeep computer is the 4.0 uses a crank sensor and cam sensor. The /6 uses a distributor only and is not going to be compatible with the Jeep computer. A aftermarket system can use the signal from the electronic distributor for rpm input.

What happens if one permanently aligns the cam and crank sensor or does it need the 2:1 pulse and rpm variance for the computer?

 

[7mopar]

Possibly using the start pickup on the slant leanburn distributor for the cam trigger. That would leave fabricating a crank trigger or can the one from the jeep be modified?

 

[65 sporty]

The problem with trying to use the Jeep computer is it uses the crank sensor mounted in the bell housing that reads the tone ring on the flywheel. The cam sensor is in the distributor. If the flywheel could be modified to fit the crank and the crank sensor mounted in the right location with the right air gap. But you still have a problem with the cam sensor. The Jeep uses a hall effect sensor and the dist uses a magnetic pickup. Two different signals.

 

[K-Note72]

The problem with trying to use the Jeep computer is it uses the crank sensor mounted in the bell housing that reads the tone ring on the flywheel. The cam sensor is in the distributor. If the flywheel could be modified to fit the crank and the crank sensor mounted in the right location with the right air gap. But you still have a problem with the cam sensor. The Jeep uses a hall effect sensor and the dist uses a magnetic pickup. Two different signals.

So that mean using the Jeep injection parts still warrants an aftermarket ecu, right?

 

[7mopar]

So that mean using the Jeep injection parts still warrants an aftermarket ecu, right?

Then getting the parts to work with the aftermarket ecu.
This sounds like the making of one big headake.

 

[K-Note72]

Then getting the parts to work with the aftermarket ecu.
This sounds like the making of one big headake.

If it's just getting a few extra parts and some nominal work then I'm still open to it. If the GM 3.8 option proves to be cheaper and exponentially-less hassle then I'll go that route instead. Again, I'm just questioning the Jeep route because I have those parts already on hand. I won't do it if I have to spend more making it work than the 3.8 parts. Since this is my own project I'll be working on, time spent won't be factored (unless if the task at hand requires me parting the sea).

Meanwhile, I've been talking to someone else about the trans and reinforcing it. Since towing on occasion will be a thing, a trans oil cooler and shift kit will be on the list. I was also recommended in getting a lockup torque converter, which I already planned on, but also with a lockup switch. What I wanna know on that front, from ANY slant 6 owners, is what rpm range is a good idle for a stock slant? I wanna try to gauge stall speed for the TC

 

[65 sporty]

So that mean using the Jeep injection parts still warrants an aftermarket ecu, right?

Yes on the Aftermarket system, you will have to check and see what's out there for systems. Your going to want something multiport, speed density(uses a map sensor) and can use your /6 electronic distributor for rpm input. You might want to check out these guy's

MegaSquirt | Premier DIY EFI Controller

 

[K-Note72]

Yes on the Aftermarket system, you will have to check and see what's out there for systems. Your going to want something multiport, speed density(uses a map sensor) and can use your /6 electronic distributor for rpm input. You might want to check out these guy's

MegaSquirt | Premier DIY EFI Controller

Megasquirt came up when i was searching on the topic, I just don't know too much about em. I know edelbrock makes some throttle bodies for multiport systems

 

[7mopar]

I know you want to retain the /6 but this just keep popping in to my mind. At what point would it have been more practical to have found a salvageable 2004 Dakota with a 5.2 or 5.9 and just simply moved everthing into the old frame and body. Ending up with the same power level and mpgs.
When we turboed the /6 years ago keeping the turbos, carbs and plumbing alive was more important than saving the 6. If it went just replace it no big thing. But we were looking for HP not reliability.

 

[K-Note72]

"We do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"

But in all seriousness I have the 5.2 in my Dakota, sure it's got(had) decent power, but same mpgs? Doubtful. Best I ever got was 21 (peak condition), average is 14-17 (even with a clean air filter and scrapping the cat converter). Isn't that why they disco'd the 5.2(318) and 5.9(360)? They couldn't squeeze anymore mpg's outta them, and the only way to keep selling big displacement engines these days is if they make big power (Hemi, LS, etc). After all, "there's no replacement for displacement" only applies to power and not reliability or economy. For every displacement there's an efficiency plateau where you just can't get anymore out of it (had a guy on another forum claim he got 29mpg from a 5.9L, needless to say I got a strong whiff of bull$h*t).

The slant's main problems, from what I hear, were:
-Fuel distribution (I'm actively trying to remedy in this build)
-Other carb-related issues (also rendering moot with this project)
-Emissions equipment bogged them down too much to stay practical (no emissions testing required in Oregon hence no emissions equipment needed, and the turbo+mpfi will pick up any lost power)

I've seen a lot of claims of mpg's for the slant in the low to mid 20s, depending on carb tune and driving style (sounds about right for a 6cyl). An efi system will improve the mileage, and a light-boost turbo will stretch the power a tad.

Also, probably gonna scrap the idea of using Jeep parts. I think I may try to fix it up and try to get a grand out of it on craigslist. Get more out of it than just stripping the efi system, plus not being able to use the ecu means aftermarket which means more money, most likely more than salvaging a system from a junkyard 3.8

 

[Scoots]

Im gonna weigh in on this and please keep in mind this is only my opinion, I respect you for wanting to keep the ole 225 alive, they just dont make things like it anymore.

Considering the slant had a max HP of around 145hp, if you turbo you may get another 100hp and its going to cost alot to get where a 5.9 Magnum is stock. If you look at a Mag 5.9 they had 245 stock and I believe the slant cant touch the 5.9's tq with a turbo either, slant 215 vs 330lbs.

I only say all of that in case money and fabrication time is a concern. If neither are then I would find an old Offy 4bbl slant intake, just had one on Washington DC Craigslist the other day. Then go with a Fast or other aftermarket TBI EFI system, very few sensors are needed and can be easily adapted.

I dont know if anyone has answered you yet, I havent had time to read all of the replies. You Dak trans should be an A518. A500's were behind V6's and not used in 4X4's. 42, 44 and 46Re then RH were 96 up when the PCM's started getting involved in shift points. I prefer the 518 and 500 2 wire, 3 wire on later.

Oh and, Ive worked on dozens of Mag 5.2 and 5.9's. You are correct that they dont get the best mileage and as youve already pointed out, power and mileage drop off considerably in higher mileage engines. I have found a few problems that once fixed brings back noticeable power and mileage. First off is a major problem with all magnums, the intake pan gasket. Ive replaced one on a 178k 5.2 and picked up over 5mpg right away. They allow 1, a vacuum leak that the PCM will richen up to compensate for and 2, oil blows by and fouls plugs very quickly. Second, theres almost always a crack between 5&7 valves. Needless to say that kills quite a bit of power and to top it all off theres usually cracks between other valves also. Chrysler should have recalled all magnum heads but knew it would be too costly. Long and short, that said, my 178k 5.2 was in my work truck pulling up to 1k miles a day, Iron Ram heads, 1.7 roller rockers, double roller timing chain and gears, Mopar single plane intake (no pan to leak) and a mild ported throttle body, it was no problem to get 22mpg and if I had all of my tools out of it could beat a few stangs but my 3.2 gears limited stop light action.

 

[K-Note72]

At best, if all other plans fall through, I'd get one of the older LA 318/5.2s and not the Magnum (the 5.2 in my 91 Dakota is either the last or second-to-last year of the LA series). I've heard of the Magnums having a few more problems, like what you stated. No 5.9 for me, obviously their mileage is even worse, like in the low teens. Had a guy on another forum claim he got 29mpg from his 360 on a good carb tune, but his claim stunk of bullsh*t to high heaven.

From what I've seen with my 5.2 its torque is more than enough when called for. If the slant idea doesn't pull through then I'll just opt for scavenging the block and efi parts from my Dakota and bolt on a turbo. It was a helluva good first rig and totally dependable, but the body is worse for wear and was thrashed on by the previous owner.

Until then, I'm working on a deal for a project car that has a slant/904 setup, and the slant would be coming out so I'd first take a shot at using it first