Fuel pump - external and for 200bhp

Fuck all worthwhile in car breakers. Go get yourself a proper aftermarket one.

Depends what car you have really, a calibra turbo fuel pump for instance would handle that.

most external bosch pumps should be more than capable. cav's & calibra's spring to mind, simply because you can pretty much yank em off :D

considering the size of that turbo , yes, a real shame :P

1970s SWB Land-Rover. Will look for a calibra/cavashonk pump. :)

Heh! Will look for a dead cavashonk then. Will any one do, or am I looking for a 2.0 or 2.0 turbo specifically?

Cheeky monkey. ;-) It has an affinity for hedges with the curernt

35hp@ the wheels, 150@the wheels will be more than enough of a handful

- for now!

Manifold is an old M16 turbo Rover one, rather than the T16 one - so has the T3 sized flange for future use and its getting WI and an old GTi-R intercooler front-mounted from the start, again ready for future use and abuse. Until then its running a T25 on lowish boost and 10:1 compression, with lots of attention to chargecooling and fuel/ignition settings - should make for an efficient alternative to a 3.9Efi from a RaRo. Insurers see it as a smaller than std engine - so no premium problem, LOL!

Facet? Good for 200 bhp, certainly.

RPI are worth a look, they know lots about your engine:

Given the price is from about 37 quid and up, I'd be tempted not to bother with breakers. If you do, you are after a carb pump, I think the injection ones go to higher pressures and return flow which is not what you'll be doing. So sommat like an SD1 as a donor would probably do.

Apparently >Hi,

AFAIK the pump on the 2 ltr and the turbo are the same but I will have a look in my little blue book later and get you the specs (if I can find it :-S )

I'm fairly confident that either would be upto the job.

IIWY I would drop that compression now. Not simply because of the potential risk of detonation, which you are obviously aware of, but because you will want to push that boost up after about a week :D.

How many DOHC 4-cylinder V8s have you seen on rpiv8.com then... ;-)

The clue was in the "suitable for 200bhp, 3bar fuel rail pressure and ~8psi boost" section. :P

Firstly unless you are running a completely adjustable 3D igntion computer you have no chance of running a 10:1 CR without pinking and engine damage. You just wont be able to hear the pinking at higher rpms to dial it out without the use of a 'scope and at least one good knock sensor. Besides, you'll want to wind up the boost past the ~5-6psi which will be the limit on that CR within a few weeks to get more power.

There is only one production engine which runs a 9.8:1 CR thats turbo'd and thats the VAG 1.8 which had the 5 valve head especially designed with a very low squish area to discourage detonation.

Tim..

Doh, it was the SWB landrover reference that made me think it was a v8.

Although the fuel pumps won't care what engine type it is.

Diesels excepted of course!

My Volvo is 9.5:1 - is that high?

:)

On 95 octane fuel. U/L blended with certain things, or LPG go a long way to aleviate the poblem.

Bear in mind that I have here a 10:1 CR motor that was run with a T25 quite happily - until it got rebuilt (due to a blocked crankcase breather!) by Glyncollen motors (swansea) who connected the wastegate actuator to the crankcase (!). No boost control, no overboost cutout, shonky OE intercooler, 10:1 compression and it went for 5k before a ringland was lunched. Even then this is more due to the rasied torque/cylidner pressures than it is to do with detonation/pinking - there were none of the telltales to say pinking was a problem. Not a pretty sight, but here's two different broken pistons (one from a 10:1 nat asp, the other from the 10:1 turbo, and one from teh turbo that was 'driven on' with a broken ring until it sounded mega-unhealthy. Yuo could say I know it'll work?

Besides - the actual engine used is a £20 jobbie, its the rest of the setup I'm spending money on ATM - engine can be changed when it blows, and everything except the crank/block/flywheel/clutch can be changed in situ and without jacking it up.

Pics:

No - it runs low boost and retards ignition/lowers boost to maintain a flat torque curve and cap cylidner pressures - that's more why it runs

9.8:1 than the head design at a guess. Heads designed to burn lean efficiently whilst normally apirated also work well to avoid pinking/konock when under boost and normal fuelling.

Cheers for the advice, and yes when I find a way of getting stronger than std 9:1 comp pistons and a larger snail I WILL crank up the boost until it blows to pieces just for the fun of it, but I (think) I know what I'm doing. :o

That'd be great thanks.

Heh, see other post - rest of setup will be good to go, engine is a cheapo item which I will kill in the name of experimentation once I've a better one sorted.

We'll see how it goes, but suspect it'll not need to go any faster (vmax wise), and more power will simply result in even bigger clumps of molten Michelin XCL sticking to bystanders. ;-)

Its more the other way around. The 150/155 versions with the 9.8 CR have boost reduced as revs build to keep detonation at bay by lowering cylinder pressures, the natural consequence of this is a very flat torque curve but a very boring engine to drive, yes it pulls from no revs upto medium but never comes alive- bit like a low blow diesel...boring.

Tim..

It is for what is a moderate to highly boosted turbo motor. The stock 2.0T runs 0.8bar boost; for 180brake. If you chip it they run 1-1.1bar and make

200-215brake and really fly.

Of course Volvo use a very sophisticated ecu with individual timing per cylinder, ionisation knock control, variable intake cam timing, cunning cooled egr (to lower cylinder pressures and temps) when under boost and a whopper intercooler to keep charge temps right down.

Tim..

Not driven a chipped one, but I'm told that they'll keep up with a stock T5 due to the shorter gearing.

Hmmm. My Rover Turbo makes 200brake, from about 0.7bar (slightly variable) as standard, at 8.5:1 compression.

...which is exactly why it's such a nice drive.

Precisely. The less "work" you need to do to make good progress, the better.

Yep - great isn't it !

It doesn't need to - it's working most of the way through the rev range, instead of being a nasty peaky lump that you have to work, in order to remain in the powerband (think VTec).

both 2 litres, both produce almost identical torque, the rover revs higher, so produces more power. Boost is more directly related to torque than to headline power. The difference in TE between 8.5 and 9.5 cr is approx. 3%, so any variation due to that is well within variations due to other design factors, and is negligible.