more power 453t
4BTSwaps.com is the premier Cummins Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 31

Thread: more power 453t

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    norristown pa
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default more power 453t

    Iv been playing with a 453t with larger inj. and have been changing around diffrent housings on the to4 and have decided that it needs a larger turbo with n90 injectors, it smokes like a freight train, but pulls well. I know that the 2 cycle will not tollerate much drive pressure, so they use a large turbo that has a lot of lag, but it is the only? way to control drive pressure. there has to be a solution with todays better tech. than with the old school way. If I cant find a way to get rid of the smoke I'm limited to about factory hp levels. The 2 cycles are so touchy with back pressure , that even a muffler makes a huge diffrence on how well it runs.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    4BTSwaps.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Supporting Member 2StrokeGMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Duluth, Mn
    Posts
    270
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    Have you measured your pre turbine back pressure? They go to the bigger turbine housings partially to control backpressure but mostly to control boost pressure. T04B turbos are most efficient at 12-20psi, any more and discharge temps go to the moon. T04E's will do a little more but not much. Tap a hole in your exhaust manifold and run a 1/8" copper line to a gauge and check what the drive pressure is compared to boost.

  4. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    1,152
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 33 Times in 31 Posts

    Default

    I messed around with back pressure checks on my 4-53T with stock T04E and the 5C60 injectors as I had originally built the exhaust with 3 1/2" tubing, plus a Donaldson oval high silencer muffler , plus tailpipe over the axle exiting by the right rear bumper . I had bought a pressure guage reading inches of mercury at a local swap meet so I ran a quarter inch steel tubing in the cab with the guage attached so I could monitor it . I don't remember readings that well but it was well within Detroit speck limit . Later when I had to make a repair on the 10 year old system, I redid it with 4" from muffler inlet to end of tailpipe. It dropped back pressure down some to almost nil . But I never ran any tests when I put the N 70 injectors in it about 3 years ago ,but I never noticed any performance gain...........plus it seemed to be making oil so I went back to the 5C60s and had a Williams ex co-worked do the tuneup. I thought it ran better than ever pulling my camper to the point of slipping the clutch over 2000 RPM . It's been semi-retired since late 2011 while I found another cab and had body and paint work done . Itching to get it out again this summer .
    2 stroke's point is on the money-------------gotta have instrumentation to see what baselines are ...........then make 1 change at a time !

  5. #4
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Oregon Coast
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    junkmandan,

    Just a little memory test for you?!? What cylinder liners are you running (.74 or .84 ports)?? What compression ratio (I know that you are using trunk pistons)?? Are you running standard or advanced cam timing? Which camshaft? I'm thinking of running a poll to collect info on members various configurations and see if Grigg might add it into the FAQs.

    Thanks,
    David
    Build in progress: 1984 Ford F250 2w/d Supercab, 4-53T w/ an intercooler (from a 7.3 p/s), Spicer ESO66-7B, 3.55 rear axle

  6. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Flint, MI
    Posts
    130
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Dont mean to just jump into this thread but the subject of back pressure on a two stroke diesel has me scratching my head,
    I {think} know that the NA diesels like the 6.2s and 7.3's like a little back pressure, and the turbo models could care less.
    but does that stop there with IDI's or does that contiue into the DI world {never seen a NA DI}?
    and then what about two strokes? do the NA's like some back pressure, or none at all to help speed up scavenging?
    ch
    92 D250 Cummins, H1E, airhorns!,soon to be fuller 13 speed and 3.07 http://www.cumminsforum.com/forum/89...first-gen.html
    1996 2500 4x4 nv4500.... V10
    72 IHC 1110, 392, 727, 353 detroit diesel nv4500 soon
    1988 v3500 sold

  7. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    norristown pa
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    2 cycles use air box pressure for scavaging just to run as they dont have a piston stroke for exhaust. hense the back pressure has to be lower than the boost pressure The net boost pressure is the boost minus the back pressure for turbo engines

  8. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Linden, TN
    Posts
    199
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    I think y'all got it wrong. More back pressure (or drive pressure) keeps more boost in the cylinder, and also makes it harder to push all the exhaust out. The more drive pressure you have the higher the pressure in the cyl at the close of the exhaust valve, and a real good thing as long as you got all the exhaust out. You can easlily increase airbox pressure with an exhaust restriction. That's half the turbocharging on a 2 stroke.

    Now add air to the blower, that will increase it's intake density and it will pump more air per rotation, to the point you can break it. A turbo will NEVER out-run a blower (to the point you have more pressure on the intake than you have on the output) because the blower just takes bigger gulps of air with increased feed pressure and moves it to the other side. More air in equals better scavenging, to help overcome the increased drive pressure. As long as you move enough air in to scavenge the cyl completly, and have a high backpressure, you will have a cylinder full of clean pressurized air capable of burning huge quantities of fuel and making huge HP.

    Now on the the finer things, like blower rotor load... Let's just make up some numbers here (I won't tell ya where I really got 'em from!). We have 55lbs drive pressure, and that creates about 35 lbs boost through our poorly matched and inneficiant turbo setup, now, the blower is going to take that increased air density, and working against the back pressure, will create 65 lbs of airbox pressure, Wow!, thats awsome, especially since it still moves enough air to scavenge 140mm's of fuel! The only problem is you have the blower creating 30 lbs of boost. It was never designed to do that, and the worst problem is the power it uses from the engine to do so. The equation for calculating the power reqired to drive a supercharger is (0.004 hp/cfm*psi boost)/compressor efficiency. So lets just say our little engine uses 460 cfm at our imaginary rpm and boost levels, we're creating 30 lbs of boost, and a typical 2 lobe roots blower is 50 percent efficient, and now this is going to scare you, it takes 110 hp to run the blower. That eats a LOT of fuel and lowers efficiancy. That is where a bypass valve comes in, it equalizes the pressure across the blower, alowing air from the airbox to recirculate to the inlet of the blower, unloading it. Now all you need is an efficient turbo, with as close to a 1:1 drive/pressure ratio or better as possible, so the blower has to do as little work as possible.

    Hope I didn't scratch yer brains too much here!

    Lawrence
    Last edited by ShaferDiesel; 02-11-2013 at 08:35 PM.

  9. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    norristown pa
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    interesting on the working of the roots charger, doesen't it have a fixed ratio like 1.2 x1 so no matter what you feed it i times it by it's ratio? but isn't it's power usage also the amount of extra work to push out the last charge, that is still expanding? on a stock level hp engine, the blower power usage uses up extra fuel, lowering milage,however for our usage, if we can get more total hp out of the engine, no matter how much the blower uses, wont that be better. people have talked about this before,about a clutch on the blower drive and a large turbo but I dont think it would work for an auto engine.

  10. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    norristown pa
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    ps i also know that doug doring either grinds his own cams or has them done. we just have to find out what he did. I cant get over that the cummins guys are getting what they are with the 4bt that were 105? hp to start with . there has to be 100 150 easy hp hiding somewhere!

  11. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Linden, TN
    Posts
    199
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greasfittn View Post
    doesen't it have a fixed ratio like 1.2 x1 so no matter what you feed it i times it by it's ratio?
    Yes, it's usually 2:1 on a turbo engine.

    Quote Originally Posted by greasfittn View Post
    but isn't it's power usage also the amount of extra work to push out the last charge, that is still expanding?
    Yes/No... The exhaust opens before the intake, drives the turbo, and hopefully the pressure decreases enough by the time intake opens you only need 5 lbs more airbox pressure then drive pressure to scavenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by greasfittn View Post
    on a stock level hp engine, the blower power usage uses up extra fuel, lowering milage,however for our usage, if we can get more total hp out of the engine, no matter how much the blower uses, wont that be better.
    That's why I run without a bypass (and shred blowers) for sled pulling! For automotive use, 10lbs airbox pressure is very adaquate for cruising down the road, and a turbo only can easily accomplish that.

    With my truck set up for sled pulling, I'm running 50 lbs airbox pressure at 60mph flat no load on the road, at .38 (IIRC) lbs/hp-hr, the engine uses about 3.8 gallons per hour extra fuel just to run the blower. I normally get 30 mpg with a properly set up system, add that 3.8 gallons to that, and I only get 10.3 mpg. While this is not totally accurate, it's close and makes the point. Yes, run a bypass (it does the same thing as a clutch would do) and have it rigged to gradually close with fuel rack position. This is what I'm planning on doing with my truck, using a TPS sensr on the rack, a microcontroller, and an old 6.0 powerstroke EGR valve...
    Last edited by ShaferDiesel; 02-11-2013 at 08:36 PM.

  12. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Linden, TN
    Posts
    199
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greasfittn View Post
    ps i also know that doug doring either grinds his own cams or has them done. we just have to find out what he did. I cant get over that the cummins guys are getting what they are with the 4bt that were 105? hp to start with . there has to be 100 150 easy hp hiding somewhere!
    I talked with doug just before he shut down the DDRA, and was going to send him my $100 dues to join the DDRA so he would let a few of his secrets out, unfortunatly, that never happened.

    I also talked with Jack Bivens before he dissapeared, and got a little very usefull info out of him. He was a great guy, but I didn't know enough to understand all the language he was using. Oh to just sit down and talk engines with these guys for a couple weeks. Maybe someday I'll have half their understanding!!!

  13. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    norristown pa
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    well I have a personal friend that owns his own race engine shop he built his own dino ,wrote the computer program to run it and is now doing indy car engines dirt track,drag and puller engines however they are all spark ign. engines. I have the use of the dino any time that it is not being used. his company is hg . in limerick pa. we have talked about rootes power usage, and you are right it is brutal. he just doesn't have any 2 cycle experance to share. Ive been bending his ear about this project a long time. we have had a cam reground, changed liner intake heights and now are working on the injectors-timing issues.

  14. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    norristown pa
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    ps I raced with you guys a the rice and holman diesel drags at atco in 1979? with my 1951 f600 dump with a 478t toroflow and won my class still have the trophy and the time slips 23.45 at 59 mph there were a lot of homemade trucks there either big rigs or homemade whatevers

  15. #14
    Supporting Member 2StrokeGMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Duluth, Mn
    Posts
    270
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    Lawrence, have you logged compressor discharge temps during a pull? Also you can use an external turbocharger wastegate for a blower bypass. A 60mm should be adequate and put a spring in it to open at 2 psi or so. No need for electronics.

    You are right on with the backpressure thing. 1:1 is just enough to hold the charge in and with a perfect turbo match you can get it lower than that however without cam timing changes it may not provide any advantage.

  16. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Duanesburg NY
    Posts
    987
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaferDiesel View Post
    I think y'all got it wrong. More back pressure (or drive pressure) keeps more boost in the cylinder, and also makes it harder to push all the exhaust out. The more drive pressure you have the higher the pressure in the cyl at the close of the exhaust valve, and a real good thing as long as you got all the exhaust out. You can easlily increase airbox pressure with an exhaust restriction. That's half the turbocharging on a 2 stroke.

    Now add air to the blower, that will increase it's intake density and it will pump more air per rotation, to the point you can break it. A turbo will NEVER out-run a blower (to the point you have more pressure on the intake than you have on the output) because the blower just takes bigger gulps of air with increased feed pressure and moves it to the other side. More air in equals better scavenging, to help overcome the increased drive pressure. As long as you move enough air in to scavenge the cyl completly, and have a high backpressure, you will have a cylinder full of clean pressurized air capable of burning huge quantities of fuel and making huge HP.

    Now on the the finer things, like blower rotor load... Let's just make up some numbers here (I won't tell ya where I really got 'em from!). We have 55lbs drive pressure, and that creates about 35 lbs boost through our poorly matched and inneficiant turbo setup, now, the blower is going to take that increased air density, and working against the back pressure, will create 65 lbs of airbox pressure, Wow!, thats awsome, especially since it still moves enough air to scavenge 140mm's of fuel! The only problem is you have the blower creating 30 lbs of boost. It was never designed to do that, and the worst problem is the power it uses from the engine to do so. The equation for calculating the power reqired to drive a supercharger is (0.004 hp/cfm*psi boost)/compressor efficiency. So lets just say our little engine uses 460 cfm at our imaginary rpm and boost levels, we're creating 30 lbs of boost, and a typical 2 lobe roots blower is 50 percent efficient, and now this is going to scare you, it takes 110 hp to run the blower. That eats a LOT of fuel and lowers efficiancy. That is where a bypass valve comes in, it equalizes the pressure across the blower, alowing air from the airbox to recirculate to the inlet of the blower, unloading it. Now all you need is an efficient turbo, with as close to a 1:1 drive/pressure ratio or better as possible, so the blower has to do as little work as possible.

    Hope I didn't scratch yer brains too much here!

    Lawrence
    Makes perfect sense to me. Blowers suck power. I also believe turbocharger technology has come far enough to where we can hit the sweet spot between backpressure and boost. I think VGT is the key.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaferDiesel View Post
    Yes, it's usually 2:1 on a turbo engine.


    Yes/No... The exhaust opens before the intake, drives the turbo, and hopefully the pressure decreases enough by the time intake opens you only need 5 lbs more airbox pressure then drive pressure to scavenge.


    That's why I run without a bypass (and shred blowers) for sled pulling! For automotive use, 10lbs airbox pressure is very adaquate for cruising down the road, and a turbo only can easily accomplish that.

    With my truck set up for sled pulling, I'm running 50 lbs airbox pressure at 60mph flat no load on the road, at .38 (IIRC) lbs/hp-hr, the engine uses about 3.8 gallons per hour extra fuel just to run the blower. I normally get 30 mpg with a properly set up system, add that 3.8 gallons to that, and I only get 10.3 mpg. While this is not totally accurate, it's close and makes the point. Yes, run a bypass (it does the same thing as a clutch would do) and have it rigged to gradually close with fuel rack position. This is what I'm planning on doing with my truck, using a TPS sensr on the rack, a microcontroller, and an old 6.0 powerstroke EGR valve...
    Using a TPS to do this also gets you close to what you need to run a VGT controller But why do it this way instead of running a DD bypass endplate?

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaferDiesel View Post
    I talked with doug just before he shut down the DDRA, and was going to send him my $100 dues to join the DDRA so he would let a few of his secrets out, unfortunatly, that never happened.

    I also talked with Jack Bivens before he dissapeared, and got a little very usefull info out of him. He was a great guy, but I didn't know enough to understand all the language he was using. Oh to just sit down and talk engines with these guys for a couple weeks. Maybe someday I'll have half their understanding!!!
    I would gladly sign up for this. I'd hate for all that knowledge to die with him. You think he'd start it back up if we got a bunch of people in on it?
    ------------------------------------------
    Bunch o junk.

  17. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Linden, TN
    Posts
    199
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    My reason for using a tps is so you have a bypass system under "normal" driving, and then when you put the hammer down, it closes the bypass and gives you double boost.

  18. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Duanesburg NY
    Posts
    987
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaferDiesel View Post
    My reason for using a tps is so you have a bypass system under "normal" driving, and then when you put the hammer down, it closes the bypass and gives you double boost.
    never would've thought of it that way..... i'm still trying to take the blower right out of the system when my boots in the boards.
    ------------------------------------------
    Bunch o junk.

  19. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    norristown pa
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Im still not getting it what shafer diesel says "by the time the intake opens you only need 5 lbs more of airbox pressure than drive pressure to scavenge" . but doesn't the air box have about 20 or so lbs of pressure? we want more than 5 lbs . we need it to stay in the cyl and not blow out the x valves. Its a shame that one of the greats in the 2 cycle world never did variable cam timing in the past. or did they and they aren't tellin?

  20. #19
    Supporting Member 2StrokeGMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Duluth, Mn
    Posts
    270
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    He is talking about when the piston uncovers the inlet ports on its way down the pressure in the cylinder needs to be lower than the airbox by a few psi. If the residual pressure is too high combustion gasses will flow out the inlet ports into the airbox. This hurts power and can overheat the liner causing cracks between the ports.

  21. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Linden, TN
    Posts
    199
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 14 Times in 9 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2StrokeGMC View Post
    He is talking about when the piston uncovers the inlet ports on its way down the pressure in the cylinder needs to be lower than the airbox by a few psi. If the residual pressure is too high combustion gasses will flow out the inlet ports into the airbox. This hurts power and can overheat the liner causing cracks between the ports.
    Just one more reason why a low port liner is a very good thing, it gives us more time before the inlet opens to drive the turbo.

  22. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Duanesburg NY
    Posts
    987
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShaferDiesel View Post
    Just one more reason why a low port liner is a very good thing, it gives us more time before the inlet opens to drive the turbo.
    What is considered a low port liner? I noticed when I took my 453t apart the piston barely went below the liner ports at the complete stroke bottom. Are the turbo liners low port liners?
    ------------------------------------------
    Bunch o junk.

  23. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    380
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts

    Default

    the low port [silver] liners measure .74" tall, the standard port liners are .84. I looked at your pics, the 803 liners are standard .84"
    2002 Silverado 1500HD 4x4
    453T powered
    9A90's
    ZF6

  24. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Duanesburg NY
    Posts
    987
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intimidated View Post
    the low port [silver] liners measure .74" tall, the standard port liners are .84. I looked at your pics, the 803 liners are standard .84"
    gotcha. would it be worthwhile to mix and match? IE - trunk turbo pistons and low port liners?
    ------------------------------------------
    Bunch o junk.

  25. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    ontario
    Posts
    380
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts

    Default

    gotcha. would it be worthwhile to mix and match? IE - trunk turbo pistons and low port liners?
    thats a good question. I debated that when I overhauled mine but ended up putting .84 port liners in to be safe as I couldn't find any info on swapping to low port with trunk pistons at the time.
    2002 Silverado 1500HD 4x4
    453T powered
    9A90's
    ZF6

  26. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,582
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Does anybody have any experience with making a To4b/To4e hybrid turbo? From what I've read the to4e is more efficient than the to4b. I was thinking if the compressor housing off the to4e and an aftermarket inducer would improve his boost on his to4b and clear up some of his smoke. What do y'all think?

  27. #26
    Supporting Member 2StrokeGMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Duluth, Mn
    Posts
    270
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    You can use the trunk piston with short ports. The piston compression heights are the same. The top of the port is lowered to shorten the opening. The T engines with short ports have the Turbo camshaft with different exhaust timing to compliment the change in intake port timing.

    On the turbo thing. The T04E is only slightly more efficient than the T04B. Probably not worth the time to change it. Anything over 20psi on either turbo and your going to have very high discharge temps. A T04B v-trim wheel is good to about 450 hp on a gas 4 stroke engine between 15-20 psi. On the diesel it will be lower.
    Last edited by 2StrokeGMC; 02-12-2013 at 10:56 AM.

  28. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Duanesburg NY
    Posts
    987
    Thanks
    66
    Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2StrokeGMC View Post
    You can use the trunk piston with short ports. The piston compression heights are the same. The top of the port is lowered to shorten the opening. The T engines with short ports have the Turbo camshaft with different exhaust timing to compliment the change in intake port timing.
    So to see any difference I'd have to change the cam?
    ------------------------------------------
    Bunch o junk.

  29. #28
    Supporting Member 2StrokeGMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Duluth, Mn
    Posts
    270
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    To see max gains yes. Since you have it apart I would put them in anyway. It does add .100 to the effective stroke so even without a cam swap it should still gain some torque.

  30. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    norristown pa
    Posts
    78
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    also add an intercooler .My set up is an 05 f550 rto613 dana135 2.77r&p with the 6 0 intercooler I ordered a t70 charger, and will see how that is. most everyone of the swaps that I have seen they dont use an intercooler! I don't know why.

  31. #30
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Oregon Coast
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne64SS View Post
    So to see any difference I'd have to change the cam?
    Wayne,
    If your engine was factory equipped w/ a turbo, you should already have a turbo cam. Check the #s stamped near the end of the cam. It should be 8926194. Or post the # here and I (or someone else) will look it up for you. Also, not all turbo engines came with short port liners. My 4-53t and Grigg's silver 3-53t both came from the factory w/ tall ports and Advanced Timing!?! Still don't understand all this: tall port vs. short port, and: advanced vs. standard timing!!??!!?? It would be fun to have the parts and a degree wheel to map all combinations out, then we could re-learn some of the technology that died with the engineers that created these wonderous engines.
    David
    Build in progress: 1984 Ford F250 2w/d Supercab, 4-53T w/ an intercooler (from a 7.3 p/s), Spicer ESO66-7B, 3.55 rear axle

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts