I’m servicing the OEM V6 Distributor and the stationary pole piece (the six ‘fingers’) was extremely oxidized with a mound of ‘rust’ in the bottom of the distributor housing.
With the part cleaned, I was wondering if there is a ‘better way’ to protect or diminish the decay than ‘bare metal’.
You guys know way more than I ever will learn and wanted to hear from the forum before going forward…. VN
I have the same issue. I periodically use a Dremel and wire wheel to clean them up. What also helps is to put a thin film of grease over the shaft and coil fingers. As a bonus, grease on the shaft before putting the rotor on will help next time you have to remove it. Kit
Any silicone oil/grease or Permatex brake grease will prevent this and won't "eat" plastic parts. PBG won't run under engine heat. Many silicone types will run and enough get away then rust but likely slower.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
I’m servicing the OEM V6 Distributor and the stationary pole piece (the six ‘fingers’) was extremely oxidized with a mound of ‘rust’ in the bottom of the distributor housing.
We've all been there. I posted about this 15 years ago.
No, this isn't some discarded distributor I found laying in a ditch in a bone yard. This is the distributor out of my '86 GT that I bought a few months ago. (The car had been sitting for six years.) I can't believe the engine ran (and actually ran well) with all this corrosion in the distributor.
I certainly didn't expect the distributor to be looking this bad!
Would "washing" it with WD40 be okay? Does anyone think that I'd be foolish to continue to use this distributor, even if I clean it up?
...and this is what my distributor looked like after I cleaned it up, as reported in my ICM heat sink thread. It continues to operate just fine (with the same ICM no less!) a decade and a half later.
The oxidation inside the distributor is caused by Ozone. Ozone is created anytime an electric charge passes through air. There are minute electric sparks between the end of the rotor button and the plug wire terminals inside the cap.
On the same thought as Kitskaboodle, I coat the top of the shaft to make removal of the rotor button a little easier, except that I put a thin film of Ant-seize on it.
by Patrick You want to be using proper heat sink compound/thermal paste between the base of the distributor and the ICM.
Got it and thanks for the heads-up!
After rereading the manual NOTICE of "silicone grease", I cross out grease and added 'Hear Sink Compound' which I have a tube of Dow Corning 340
quote
by fierofool On the same thought as Kitskaboodle, I coat the top of the shaft to make removal of the rotor button a little easier, except that I put a thin film of Ant-seize on it.
Thanks for the idea!
When I'm done with the distributor, I'll try to "Upload Media" as it be will my first attempt... VN
by fierofool The oxidation inside the distributor is caused by Ozone.
By searching the internet for "ozone in the distributor cap" - many results point to:
A) Properly coat/protect the parts
quote
by theogre Any silicone oil/grease or Permatex brake grease will prevent this and won't "eat" plastic parts.
Check ✓
B) Better VENTING to remove the ozone faster (some marine engines use vented caps with fine screens) 'Someone' put a 1/2" hole in the cap (lower than the terminals) and saw the distributor cap and rotor life went up dramatically.
I'll look at the two stock screened vents on the base and think about widening them..... VN
I'll look at the two stock screened vents on the base and think about widening them...
Unless you use your vehicle commercially, like as a taxi cab for example, and it's running eight hours a day every day... I don't know why you're this concerned about ozone inside the distributor cap corroding anything.
You saw how bad my distributor was. I cleaned it up, installed a new pickup coil, applied new heat sink compound (and a heat sink)... and I haven't been inside that distributor again in the last 15 years. I should add that I transferred that distributor from my '86 GT to my '88 Formula when the Formula became my daily driver (as well as my autocross vehicle). The engine runs great with my ratty looking, ozone infested, rusted out distributor.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 05-08-2023).]
There is a product called Evap-O-Rust that is incredible for rust removal. Remove the loose rust, soak it overnight and you will have bare metal in the morning. Fantastic on rusty tools as well. It is a chelating solution and not an acid solution. It solubilizes iron oxide and does not touch the base metal.
------------------ formerly known as sanderson 1984 Quad 4 1886 SE 2.8L 1988 4.9L Cadillac 1988 3800 Supercharged
I think that centrifugal force might throw any grease off the rotating parts, leaving them bare. Probably some sort of plating solution is in order.
Also, I think the new style star type distributor (versus the bent-finger type) isn't too rust-prone. I don't remember seeing any excessive corrosion on my new style distributor, but then again, it hasn't seen decades of service.
[This message has been edited by pmbrunelle (edited 05-08-2023).]
Originally posted by pmbrunelle: I think that centrifugal force might throw any grease off the rotating parts, leaving them bare. Probably some sort of plating solution is in order.
Also, I think the new style star type distributor (versus the bent-finger type) isn't too rust-prone. I don't remember seeing any excessive corrosion on my new style distributor, but then again, it hasn't seen decades of service.
Dist RPM is 1/2 of Engine RPM so not as "bad" as many think.
Another reason to try PBG. (Green label) Very thin coat may still spun off but only a film should help the rust problem.
Sil oil/grease would spin off easier but may still work.
Important Note: Magnet parts don't need bright metal to work but if parts are rotted thin then metal and pickup can't see the magnet pules. So When cleaning, don't clean all rust. just lose big stuff on magnet parts and "grease" them Or rust converter, Forget name/type right now, greenish clear liquid. Not others that are thick liquid like naval jelly etc.
If have dist out and took apart, could nickle plate them. or maybe Cold Blueing then oil etc. Either shouldn't cause major clearance problems. only parts are press onto another might get very tight.
by Patrick The engine runs great with my ratty looking, ozone infested, rusted out distributor.
Back in high school, we had a saying “Show or Go” but I really enjoy both!
quote
by sanderson231 There is a product called Evap-O-Rust that is incredible for rust removal.
Thanks for the tip!
quote
by theogre Important Note: Magnet parts don't need bright metal to work but if parts are rotted thin then metal and pickup can't see the magnet pules. So When cleaning, don't clean all rust. just lose big stuff on magnet parts and "grease" them.
I purchased a GM 10497450 main shaft so hopefully a film of green label PBG will protect or diminish the decay than ‘bare metal’.
Back in high school, we had a saying “Show or Go” but I really enjoy both!
I'm more interested in "Go", but when I wash my Formula, it doesn't "Show" too bad... and nobody but nobody can see the surface corrosion inside my distributor that affects nothing.
I'm closing the loop on this thread which asked "if there is a ‘better way’ to protect or diminish the decay" of the pole piece and the rotating magnet piece.
The results was "properly coat/protect the parts" so I painted them. (Except the tight clearance area of the magnet projections and the pole piece)
Given that the distributor was apart; I added more venting area plus a small heat sink for the ICM as many members posted ‘heat’ issues.
I hope my “Show AND Go” efforts will diminish the corrosion; the 'real test' will be time at the next distributor cap/rotor change.... VN
1. After shutdown, the engine and the rest heat cycles to cool/cold drawing in air and Often means Moisture Too. Then water can condense on everything inside and rust metal parts.
You may never see "wet" parts but still happens. Thin coat of oil/grease, or paint, will resist this problem too.
2. Other things including some cars has/had vented caps or somewhere else. Why? Ozone and Ionize Air and Dirt are a problem just to run the engine because functionally tries to short out the ⚡ high volt side causing ignition miss or worse. May not easily see a "vent" but most distributors are not air sealed but try only to keep out "water" in them.
V6 and other w/ dist on top of engine shouldn't have problems w/ vent(s) like above. But If try that on Duke and many others... Likely will have problems driving in bad weather because how mounted and more exposed to road water. Worse is Duke w/ stick trans as trans don't "shield" the Dist letting more water hitting it.
Paint works but has a bad habit of lifting off if damage or skipped the tiniest area as that spot will rust and rust grows under.
Given that the distributor was apart; I added more venting area plus a small heat sink for the ICM as many members posted ‘heat’ issues.
I hope my “Show AND Go” efforts will diminish the corrosion; the 'real test' will be time at the next distributor cap/rotor change.... VN
Totally useless if you understand basic thermodynamics. What temperature is the distributor? Pretty much the same temperature as the metal of the engine block where it's mounted. If your little heat sink were to work, then you'd be effectively cooling the entire engine with that 1 sq inch heatsink. Is that what you believe you're doing? And do you really believe that little heatsink is going to offset the heat soak from that big 300 pound block of iron it is attached to? Also what temperature is the pocket of air next to the distributor with the decklid closed that that miniscule amount of heat is supposedly being displaced to? Pretty much the same as the temperature of the engine.
The reason a laptop computer has a heat sink for the chip is because the chip is hotter than the rest of the computer and hotter than the ambient air. That distributes the heat to the rest of the computer and its surrounding air.
The Fiero ICM is generating heat and can get hotter than the rest of the distributor if it weren't mounted to the distributor, but when solidly attached, the grease distributes the extra heat to the distributor body and to the engine itself. However, the distributor isn't going to get cooler than the engine it's mounted to.
Let's remember GM tried using an air blower on the distributor (and the alternator) and removed it in 88 because it wasn't doing anything. Notice they didn't even bother trying to add a heatsink. Surely that would have been cheaper than the blower motor, piping etc which they did try.
Totally useless if you understand basic thermodynamics. What temperature is the distributor? Pretty much the same temperature as the metal of the engine block where it's mounted. If your little heat sink were to work, then you'd be effectively cooling the entire engine with that 1 sq inch heatsink. Is that what you believe you're doing? And do you really believe that little heatsink is going to offset the heat soak from that big 300 pound block of iron it is attached to? Also what temperature is the pocket of air next to the distributor with the decklid closed that that miniscule amount of heat is supposedly being displaced to? Pretty much the same as the temperature of the engine.
The reason a laptop computer has a heat sink for the chip is because the chip is hotter than the rest of the computer and hotter than the ambient air. That distributes the heat to the rest of the computer and its surrounding air.
The Fiero ICM is generating heat and can get hotter than the rest of the distributor if it weren't mounted to the distributor, but when solidly attached, the grease distributes the extra heat to the distributor body and to the engine itself. However, the distributor isn't going to get cooler than the engine it's mounted to.
Let's remember GM tried using an air blower on the distributor (and the alternator) and removed it in 88 because it wasn't doing anything. Notice they didn't even bother trying to add a heatsink. Surely that would have been cheaper than the blower motor, piping etc which they did try.
If you understand anything about thermodynamics, you might accept the possibility of a thermal gradient existing between the ICM base and the engine block.
Originally posted by reinhart: Let's remember GM tried using an air blower on the distributor (and the alternator) and removed it in 88 because it wasn't doing anything. Notice they didn't even bother trying to add a heatsink. Surely that would have been cheaper than the blower motor, piping etc which they did try.
GM Deletion of the Engine Blower has 0 relation how it works. 88 V6 had CS130 w/ 2 fans to cool, 1 you see, 1 inside. Also had other "minor" changes for 88 too. GM change or deleted many things like engine blower just to save money. The blower and outlet pipes cost many Thousands for GM to have them made plus install cost and time on car factory line.
88 V6 had CS130 w/ 2 fans to cool, 1 you see, 1 inside. Also had other "minor" changes for 88 too.
The insulating jacket on the 88's exhaust Y-pipe is also WAY more effective in keeping engine bay temps lower (than the '85-'87 little heat shields), especially in the vicinity of the distributor.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-02-2023).]
If you understand anything about thermodynamics, you might accept the possibility of a thermal gradient existing between the ICM base and the engine block.
Sorry I don't have enough blind faith to believe there is a cool pocket of air that will cool a one pound piece of metal (with a 1 sq inch heatsink) solidly mounted to a 300 pound piece of metal.
If you want to conduct a before and after experiment by putting a heat sensor inside the distributor with and without this miraculous heatsink, I'd love to see it.
Sorry I don't have enough blind faith to believe there is a cool pocket of air that will cool a one pound piece of metal (with a 1 sq inch heatsink) solidly mounted to a 300 pound piece of metal.
If you want to conduct a before and after experiment by putting a heat sensor inside the distributor with and without this miraculous heatsink, I'd love to see it.
I don't have blind faith.
I accept the possibility that the distributor base temperature may remain close to engine block temperature, as much as I accept the possibility that the distributor base temperature retains some "independence" from engine block temperature, subject to external influences.
Unless you provide a bit more meat (paper analysis of thermal resistances, power sources, or physical test) to your argument, I think both ideas are worthy of consideration.
Personally, I'm happy living with this ambiguity about the distributor base temperature influencability.
Declaring something to be true, does not make it true.
[This message has been edited by pmbrunelle (edited 06-03-2023).]
Originally posted by Patrick: The insulating jacket on the 88's exhaust Y-pipe is also WAY more effective in keeping engine bay temps lower (than the '85-'87 little heat shields), especially in the vicinity of the distributor.
That too. Main Point is saying "GM deleted the blower for 88" means nothing to older models but most still believe that crap as "gospel."
But at same time... Heat shields block IR from Exhaust "lighting up" whatever behind. So don't = part may get some convection heat to mean shield to little or nothing. Is why Simple shield(s) between exhaust pipes (and cat for Fiero and some others) and Starter is often way better protection then insulation wrap on the starter. Plus since Shields allow air flow on both sides so Starter gets air to cool after it runs.
Fiero have a lot of air flow in the engine bay any time the car is moving just 5-10MPH vs many cars then and now. (actual temps see https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/141784.html ) When in slow traffic or stop at long lights etc... you may have more hot spots from Convection or IR getting other things hot and lack of air flow those can't cool off. But all other vehicles have same problem here.
Originally posted by pmbrunelle: I don't have blind faith.
I accept the possibility that the distributor base temperature may remain close to engine block temperature, as much as I accept the possibility that the distributor base temperature retains some "independence" from engine block temperature, subject to external influences.
Unless you provide a bit more meat (paper analysis of thermal resistances, power sources, or physical test) to your argument, I think both ideas are worthy of consideration.
Personally, I'm happy living with this ambiguity about the distributor base temperature influencability.
Declaring something to be true, does not make it true.
While the Distributor gets some Convection and Contact heat mounted to the Engine... It gets Air Cooling like many others because of Air Flow when car is moving as said above.
So "Thin" base plate isn't easy to get engine heat to the ICM. If attach HS there right, can put heat down then air flow cools. If you think any Heat Sink won't work... Duke DIS Brick has very small ones cast into the tray Bolted directly to the Block and ICM for later models. May not help a lot but GM spend Big money to redesign this part means more that you claim does nothing.
Where it lives is "buried" under the Intake... Note that New ones are flat same as old ones where hits the engine. I drilled some divots to reduce metal contact at those spots. Maybe other ways even "better" ways but have own issues and in a bad way like if insulation is crush shrink etc. because the Tray sets CPS clearance to the crank wheel.
Correctly attaching thermal couples etc right to "prove" a point is way beyond most people. I could mod the kit for heat v bay link above because have K-type Tcouple interface but not going to mod my spares or someone's dist to get temp at bottom of ICM then attach HS and repeat test.
[This message has been edited by theogre (edited 06-03-2023).]
I accept the possibility that the distributor base temperature may remain close to engine block temperature, as much as I accept the possibility that the distributor base temperature retains some "independence" from engine block temperature, subject to external influences.
Unless you provide a bit more meat (paper analysis of thermal resistances, power sources, or physical test) to your argument, I think both ideas are worthy of consideration.
Personally, I'm happy living with this ambiguity about the distributor base temperature influencability.
Declaring something to be true, does not make it true.
The claim is: "Adding a 1 sq inch heatsink to the underside of the distributor is an improvement to the factory design".
Those that believe this need to prove the point that they are wiser than the GM engineers. It's really a tough point to make because the cost of said heatsink would have been probably 25c at the time of production. So yes the burden of proof is on those that are trying to "improve" the factory design which was made by hundreds of automotive engineers that would have to weigh whether a 25c addition would significantly decrease distributor temps and thereby increase reliability and reputation of the car. We're talking a design that was in place on dozens of cars over all GM divisions and over a course of decades, yet I'm unaware of any GM car or any other manufacturer for that matter putting a 25c heatsink on their distributors. Now Ogre has pointed out that on DIS systems some engineers added some fins to the base. That then begs the question, why wasn't that attempted on the distributors just a few years earlier if it also would have helped distributed systems? It was undoubtedly thought of, even tested and it didn't do anything....it might have actually made it hotter by pulling in heat from exhaust pipe heated ambient air.
Further, the fact that engineers chose to add a fan and piping in earlier V6 models shows that (at a cost of probably $25 rather than 25c for the heatsink): 1) They were aware of the distributor IM being sensitive to heat failure, 2) They attempted to try to find a way to cool it. 3) Surely there would have been one engineer in that meeting discussing cooling methods where the fan and piping system was hashed out, that would have thought to put a heatsink on the distributor base if they thought there was a chance to make it cooler and at a drastically smaller cost...yet they didn't.
The claim is: "Adding a 1 sq inch heatsink to the underside of the distributor is an improvement to the factory design".
Show us where that claim has been made.
And while you're at it, show us this "1 sq inch heatsink" you've referred to numerous times.
quote
Originally posted by reinhart:
Surely there would have been one engineer in that meeting discussing cooling methods where the fan and piping system was hashed out, that would have thought to put a heatsink on the distributor base if they thought there was a chance to make it cooler and at a drastically smaller cost...yet they didn't.
They needed to address multiple heat related issues. Just putting a heat sink on the distributor would've done dick all to cool the ignition coil and alternator.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-04-2023).]
Tony A. Gaskins Jr. “Too many people have full opinions, with half the facts”
Please get your facts straight reinhart and this is YOUR claim, not mine:
quote
Originally posted by reinhart: The claim is: "Adding a 1 sq inch heatsink to the underside of the distributor is an improvement to the factory design".
I agree with theogre about “Air Cooling”
I suppose many will remember air cooled motorcycles from the ‘70s. The cylinders and the heads had long fins to ‘cool’ the engine which air flow draws out the heat. When not moving, they got overheated, but a FEW mph of air was enough!
Back to the “1 sq inch heat sink” A few ‘real’ facts – it’s 1” x 2” and has 72 ‘fins’ which the total fin square area is nearly 3.5 inches.
quote
Originally posted by theogre: Fiero have a lot of air flow in the engine bay any time the car is moving just 5-10MPH
So to me, I believe that air flow in the engine bay and my ‘tiny’ heat sink (compared with Patrick’s HS) will STILL be assisting to transfer heat away from the ICM; or as Patrick said: “it won't hurt”. VN
One comment I wanted to add for future heat sinks that members here might wish to fabricate/install on their distributors... don't be afraid to extend the heat sink beyond the "front" of the distributor base. The larger the heat sink (within reason) the better.
This is the heat sink I made and installed 15 years ago. Still using the same ICM all these years later!
And yes, I know the long screws look goofy. I left them that way on purpose to aid in the cooling... and besides, they can't even be seen when the distributor's in place.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-04-2023).]
They needed to address multiple heat related issues. Just putting a heat sink on the distributor would've done dick all to cool the ignition coil and alternator.
Both you and vintage nut have made the assertion that adding a heat sink will improve on the factory design. Did you not? If not, what's your claim then, that A) "it will make no difference adding this heat sink" or B) "it will actually make it worse adding this heat sink"? It seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. If you don't believe it will improve upon the design made by hundreds of GM engineers over dozens of car lines and 6 divisions, then why did you do it? To make it look cute?
His heat sink is about 1 sq inch. Yous is larger. So now your second claim is 1) Adding a heatsink is an improvement to the factory design considered and rejected by hundreds of GM engineers, AND 2) The bigger the heatsink, the better. e.g. If a 1 sq inch heatsink is good, a 1000 sq in heat sink is even better. Again no one has shown any evidence that it works, let alone that it works even better as the heatsink gets larger.
Further your assertion that because you have a car with a cute little heat sink where the module hasn't gone bad means your cute heatsink works is dumb. I have a 35 year old IM without a heat sink that hasn't failed yet. So using your logic, the heat sink is ruining them quicker? Further I live in a much hotter climate I imagine than you. Again it's dumb but I'm using your own logic against you.
So again, if you think youv'e improved upon the design of 100's of GM engineers, the burden of proof is on you to show it. I'll stick with the wisdom of the engineers at this point. If you want to use empirical evidence rather than seat of the pants "it looks cool so it must work", then I'd be happy to consider it with an open mind.
Even when you're told in plain English what size the heat sink is, you continue to report the wrong size. Is your math really that poor, or are you simply being obstinate?
quote
Originally posted by reinhart:
It seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
Oh, the irony.
Run a google search for ICM heat sink and you'll see plenty of examples of factory ICM heat sinks from GM, Ford, Audi etc. But of course, you know more than engineers from around the planet.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 06-05-2023).]
Run a google search for ICM heat sink and you'll see plenty of examples of factory ICM heat sinks from GM, Ford, Audi etc. But of course, you know more than engineers from around the planet.
Sorry but based on his own picture. I can say for a fact it is not "2 sq inches". It may have started life as 2 sq in but after the mods it certainly isn't. I was trying not to further embarrass Nut. I just grabbed a spare distributor and there isn't even 1" of distance between the underside edge of the pole and the flat edge of the base which is why he had to cut a row of fins off to get it to fit. Further accounting for the significant area removed by the screws it's less. So did you even look at the picture?!? LOL More bad guessing Patrick? At best it's 1.5 sq" accounting for the removed fins. Or in your mind does it still count as a heat sink area with fins removed?
Regardliess you are really good at missing the forest for the trees. Rather than defend your absurd claim that you know more than GM designers you focus on whether the cute useless heat sink is 1" 1.5" or 2". You avoid the massive problems with your claim and try to distract with your irrelevant focus on whether the heatsink is 1 sq" or 1.5" sq". Pretty typical pattern of behavior by you and shows you have no leg to stand on as to whether the cute little thing works or not.
I checked the google image search you sent. I had previously said "I'm unaware of any manufacturer that had a factory heatsink on an IM". So I stand corrected out of the thousands of car models with distributors it looks like there were perhaps two or a handful of apps. I never said I had scoured every single car on earth and knew for a fact than no one anyone ever tried it. I think we can agree that at best 1% of car applications used one. Is that fair? Again you love focusing on the tree and miss the forest. It looks like there was one distributor module application that had a heat sink from Ford and one from GM showing in your search results. So the fact those two automotive manufacturers used it in basically one application only reveals 1) They knew about the option to do so, 2) They decided it was only helpful in the rare 1% of the time. We don't know the circumstances for these applications. Were the modules near an air duct etc? Were the modules of a different design? So does that hurt or help your argument for the Fiero?!? It hurts it, because you now confirmed GM knew about the idea and didn't use it and it means they didn't see any improvement when testing or modeling. 99% of the images in the search were jerry rigged by seat of the pants people such as yourself thinking they were smarter than the hundreds of GM engineers.
So again. Any proof your cute little gizmo works or is entirely based on your narcisistic belief that you're smarter than 100 GM engineers?
Just like an "ad hominem" attack is a non-argument, saying that something was designed by hundreds of engineers is irrelevant to the technical issue at hand.
A technical debate should be debated based on the technical issues only.
The credentials of whoever designed whatever apparatus have no bearing.
Branching off to the "hundreds of engineers" comment, I doubt that it took hundreds of people to decide upon a cooling method for the Fiero distributor.
Greg Locock over on eng-tips once wrote that him and one colleague were the mechanical engineering staff during the design of the Ford Capri. The duo took care of everything, suspension, steering, doors, windows, body.
It's pretty weird to think of automotive engineers as wizards whose designs should not be touched or criticized; we're just... people. Don't put us on a pedestal.
One comment I wanted to add for future heat sinks that members here might wish to fabricate/install on their distributors... don't be afraid to extend the heat sink beyond the "front" of the distributor base. The larger the heat sink (within reason) the better.
This is the heat sink I made and installed 15 years ago. Still using the same ICM all these years later!
And yes, I know the long screws look goofy. I left them that way on purpose to aid in the cooling... and besides, they can't even be seen when the distributor's in place.
I believe the results of 15 years of service with zero failures says that the solution for the elimination of excessive module heat has been solved with Patricks heat sink design. .
------------------ " THE BLACK PARALYZER" -87GT 3800SC Series III engine, custom ZZP /Frozen Boost Intercooler setup, 3.4" Pulley, Northstar TB, LS1 MAF, 3" Spintech/Hedman Exhaust, P-log Manifold, Autolite 104's, MSD wires, Custom CAI, 4T65eHD w. custom axles, Champion Radiator, S10 Brake Booster, HP Tuners VCM Suite. "THE COLUSSUS" 87GT - ALL OUT 3.4L Turbocharged engine, Garrett Hybrid Turbo, MSD ign., modified TH125H " ON THE LOOSE WITHOUT THE JUICE "
is 'accurate'. 
