Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

173 blue motor, anyone built a hot one?

Started by _UXTorri78_ , Oct 10 2012 09:50 AM

Next

Please log in to reply

26 replies to this topic

#1 _UXTorri78_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2012 - 09:50 AM

hey all, i have a 173 blue motor and would like to get some decent power out of it. has anyone built one before or have any formulas or tips on them? at this point it has a gtr-xu1 red motor head on it (re drilled to suit the blue block). i think it has around a 35/75 - 40/80 size cam? havent pulled it apart yet so unsure. and ive heard the 173 blues are the best base for a high performing holden 6? id like to build it so its got a fair bit more power. cheers guys

Back to top

#2 yel327

Oh My, Don't you post alot

Members
13,573 posts

Joined: 10-February 08

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:00 AM

There are a few guys here that have done them. I think they bore them to 3.625" (186/202) bore and put a blue or black 202 crank in them, essentially making them a STD bore 202. Just the extra cubes alone will make it go harder. Then add the normal stuff you do to a 202.

Back to top

#3 _Bomber Watson_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:53 PM

And get the high comp 12 port back if your planning on driving it

Cheers.

Back to top

#4 _STRAIGHTLINEMICK_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:37 PM

As yel327 said you will definatley get more useable power by turning it into a 202 so really the best option is to find a 3.3 black engine which will have the good crank,starfire rods, and the black head already has a good short turn radius cast into it.And if you use a modified holden 12 port manifold and a 2bbl holley and build the engine to suit you can run 14s in an lh/lx

Back to top

#5 rodomo

To advertise here, call 13TORANA

Members
18,026 posts

Name:R - O - B Dammit!
Location:Way out west of Melbourne Awstraylya
Joined: 10-December 05

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:44 PM

.And if you use a modified holden 12 port manifold and a 2bbl holley and build the engine to suit you can run 14s in an lh/lx

????

Attached Files

manifold.jpg 130.67K 5 downloads
tonight 001.jpg 94.13K 8 downloads

Back to top

#6 _oldjohnno_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:47 PM

Or this. Good power and exceptional mileage with a 4412...

Posted Image

Back to top

#7 _Bomber Watson_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2012 - 08:19 PM

I see you have left the lower edges of the spacer sharp and put the back side against the back wall of the manifold, i think?

Are the edges you left there to shear wet fuel out of the air stream?

I would usually be inclined to radious them, but im learning about this wet fuel shearing thing......

Cheers.

Back to top

#8 _STRAIGHTLINEMICK_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2012 - 08:20 PM

Or this. Good power and exceptional mileage with a 4412...

Hey Johnno I'll take this one thanks,I like the sideways mount carb it may have better distribution. My fj ran 13.89 @94 with one of these manifolds and a 500 2bbl.and 13.70 with a 6004bbl ,then sugested this design to Aussiespeed for their new 4bbl manifold.I tested the prototype on the fj it ran13.47 with only a manifold change and then 13.42 with a 450 4bbl.

Back to top

#9 _STRAIGHTLINEMICK_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2012 - 08:29 PM

????

Yep thats the way,how does it go?

Back to top

#10 _oldjohnno_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2012 - 09:26 PM

I see you have left the lower edges of the spacer sharp and put the back side against the back wall of the manifold, i think?

Are the edges you left there to shear wet fuel out of the air stream?

I would usually be inclined to radious them, but im learning about this wet fuel shearing thing......

Cheers.

It was later further modified with a big radius and some more widening of the runner entries, with a moderate improvement in performance. Part throttle distribution is very good and you can get away with a very lean cruise a/f. But the thing that really got my attention was how little fuel it uses, even when cruising at 3800 to 4000 rpm with 4.44s... There's more flow to be had with more work but it's getting to the stage where it would make more sense to just fabricate the manifold from scratch.

Back to top

#11 _STRAIGHTLINEMICK_

Guests

Posted 10 October 2012 - 09:38 PM

It was later further modified with a big radius and some more widening of the runner entries, with a moderate improvement in performance. Part throttle distribution is very good and you can get away with a very lean cruise a/f. But the thing that really got my attention was how little fuel it uses, even when cruising at 3800 to 4000 rpm with 4.44s... There's more flow to be had with more work but it's getting to the stage where it would make more sense to just fabricate the manifold from scratch.

Yep i agree the response with the small runners was great,ran 60ft times comparable to 2" su s but was restricted at the top end.Still i think this is the best choice for a 2bbl manifold.

Back to top

#12 rodomo

To advertise here, call 13TORANA

Members
18,026 posts

Name:R - O - B Dammit!
Location:Way out west of Melbourne Awstraylya
Joined: 10-December 05

Posted 11 October 2012 - 07:13 PM

Yep thats the way,how does it go?

I changed this set-up to tripple SU's (that are not properly tuned yet) and the gain was 1 second a lap @ Sandown

Edited by rodomo, 11 October 2012 - 07:14 PM.

Back to top

#13 _oldjohnno_

Guests

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:41 AM

I agree that these are the pick of the two-barrel manifolds for a 12 port. But the importance of porting should also be mentioned. In stock form they flow fairly poorly and limit rpms pretty severely. The good news however is that with a few hours of grinding you can get massive flow improvements - increases of 40 to 50cfm are possible and this makes a huge improvement to the top end.

Back to top

#14 _Inj gtr202_

Guests

Posted 12 October 2012 - 12:25 PM

It was later further modified with a big radius and some more widening of the runner entries, with a moderate improvement in performance. Part throttle distribution is very good and you can get away with a very lean cruise a/f. But the thing that really got my attention was how little fuel it uses, even when cruising at 3800 to 4000 rpm with 4.44s... There's more flow to be had with more work but it's getting to the stage where it would make more sense to just fabricate the manifold from scratch.

when you say lean cruise a/f ratios... what kind of number are we talking here?? I know with the set up I'm running anything over the 14.5ish mark is not gonna happen.

Edited by Inj gtr202, 12 October 2012 - 12:39 PM.

Back to top

#15 _oldjohnno_

Guests

Posted 12 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

when you say lean cruise a/f ratios... what kind of number are we talking here?? I know with the set up I'm running anything over the 14.5ish mark is not gonna happen.

That's a bit surprising; I'd have expected EFI to handle that easily. Once it was warmed up it would run cleanly well into the 15s, though we did later bring this back to around 14 at cruise.

Back to top

#16 _Inj gtr202_

Guests

Posted 12 October 2012 - 05:16 PM

That's a bit surprising; I'd have expected EFI to handle that easily. Once it was warmed up it would run cleanly well into the 15s, though we did later bring this back to around 14 at cruise.

Do you know what approx timing values are present on this particular motor during light throttle cruising? The reason I ask is I'm trying to trim some fuel out of my tune. I'm not changing any full load timing values or fuel values as they are good.

At about 2,000RPM and under high vacuum I'm running at about 35deg adv.

Sorry 4 the thread hijack Matt.....

Back to top

#17 _Bomber Watson_

Guests

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:52 PM

Another hijac whilst we have the old farts attention......

What about 9 port head manifolds?

You all recon mounting a 500 sideways on an old water heated manifold, or a later model exhaust heated without the exhaust heating manifold work?? I have a few of the later type ones, and a few water heated ones where the water goes in and out at the back of the manifold and the water jacket is fairly small.....

Only asking because i only have one dick and need to piss with it, and at the moment for the chuck together im working on i need to run a 9 port....

Cheers.

Back to top

#18 _STRAIGHTLINEMICK_

Guests

Posted 12 October 2012 - 06:55 PM

I agree that these are the pick of the two-barrel manifolds for a 12 port. But the importance of porting should also be mentioned. In stock form they flow fairly poorly and limit rpms pretty severely. The good news however is that with a few hours of grinding you can get massive flow improvements - increases of 40 to 50cfm are possible and this makes a huge improvement to the top end.

I did a bit of porting , radiused from the holley adaptor around as far as the die grinder would reach and matched to the head at the top by raising the manifold and widening the sides.The floor was left higher than the intake port as not much happens there and the mismatch can help with reversion.did u test at the track or dyno?

Back to top

#19 _oldjohnno_

Guests

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:19 PM

Testing was done on the flowbench and using trap speeds. It takes a lot of grinding to make them flow well but you can't complain about a 40cfm increase (which from memory is something like 30% more flow). The cross sectional area reduces quite a bit as you go back from the gasket face so you end up having to take material from all the walls. There's also a big step in the floor of the centre pair. Because the ports are so small and you need to go in deeply you need 6" shanked carbides to reach right in. I also used one of those little portable linisher thingys (Powerfile?) to get right in there. The floor is a very active area with a 12 port, especially in the "inside" corner - the highest velocity in the whole port is in this corner.

Edited by oldjohnno, 12 October 2012 - 07:21 PM.

Back to top

#20 _STRAIGHTLINEMICK_

Guests

Posted 12 October 2012 - 09:11 PM

Testing was done on the flowbench and using trap speeds. It takes a lot of grinding to make them flow well but you can't complain about a 40cfm increase (which from memory is something like 30% more flow). The cross sectional area reduces quite a bit as you go back from the gasket face so you end up having to take material from all the walls. There's also a big step in the floor of the centre pair. Because the ports are so small and you need to go in deeply you need 6" shanked carbides to reach right in. I also used one of those little portable linisher thingys (Powerfile?) to get right in there. The floor is a very active area with a 12 port, especially in the "inside" corner - the highest velocity in the whole port is in this corner.

Sorry johnno ,I meant that nothing happens in the lower part of the intake port as it radiuses down to the manifold face.I filled the intake port there and raised the top of the port and gained flow on the flow bench and raised the manifold to match. It would have been good to try your version .

Back to top

#21 _UXTorri78_

Guests

Posted 12 October 2012 - 10:40 PM

Haha guys that's no worries at all for hijacking, it's giving me heaps to think about and consider for my motor. Hijack away haha

Back to top

#22 _oldjohnno_

Guests

Posted 13 October 2012 - 03:35 AM

Do you know what approx timing values are present on this particular motor during light throttle cruising? The reason I ask is I'm trying to trim some fuel out of my tune. I'm not changing any full load timing values or fuel values as they are good.

At about 2,000RPM and under high vacuum I'm running at about 35deg adv.

Sorry 4 the thread hijack Matt.....

I haven't actually measured it but I could if it helps. I'm guessing though that with full vac advance it'd be well into the 40s...

Another hijac whilst we have the old farts attention......

What about 9 port head manifolds?

You all recon mounting a 500 sideways on an old water heated manifold, or a later model exhaust heated without the exhaust heating manifold work?? I have a few of the later type ones, and a few water heated ones where the water goes in and out at the back of the manifold and the water jacket is fairly small.....

Only asking because i only have one dick and need to piss with it, and at the moment for the chuck together im working on i need to run a 9 port....

Cheers.

I've never tried it so I don't really know. Haven't done anything much with 9 ports for many years. Provided it has enough runner area it should work, but if the area is a bit down you might be better off with a 350.

Edited by oldjohnno, 13 October 2012 - 03:37 AM.

Back to top

#23 Heath

I like cars.

Administrators
18,374 posts

Name:Heath
Location:Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne
Car:Heavily Modified UC Sunbird Hatchback
Joined: 07-November 05

View Garage

Posted 13 October 2012 - 11:08 AM

Sorry for the late reply here... but :clappin:

That's more like it!

Now put a wall between the two throttle plates

Edited by Heath, 13 October 2012 - 11:08 AM.

Back to top

#24 _oldjohnno_

Guests

Posted 13 October 2012 - 01:54 PM

Now put a wall between the two throttle plates

I think that would only further limit the top end. At the moment, with a 500cfm 4412 it wants 71 mainjets, and that's after the MABs have been drilled. With stock MABs it wanted 68s. Out of the box is 73's, so you can see that the engine breathes well and there is plenty of signal. If anything it could use some more carb cfm. For a stock engine though a divider may work or perhaps just a 350.

Back to top

#25 _Inj gtr202_

Guests

Posted 13 October 2012 - 05:26 PM

I haven't actually measured it but I could if it helps. I'm guessing though that with full vac advance it'd be well into the 40s...

Thats ok.. cheers anyway, I'll start playing with the cruise timing once I get the fuel dialed in how I want it. At the moment it still has the odd fat spot and lean spike.