RTz
-
Posts
2941 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by RTz
-
-
Heavy,
Looks like I came dangerously close to copying Cary's car... I'm going to spend some time looking things over. Thanks for the link.
-
Looking at the bottom (white) trace, the IAT is dropping SLOWLY (with the throttle opened). About 40 degrees over a 10 second period. If that was a REAL reflection of air temp, it would drop virtually instantly when the throttle is opened. At least, thats how I see it. Looks like the sensor itself is heat soaking.
-
I’m going out on a limb and try to explain something that I have very limited knowledge in, so if I’m way off base, please set me straight….
Dude, you're always OFF base
-
So in this case what would be really dangerous would be a big dip in the road, or a "G out" as we mountain bikers refer to them.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. My guess is that it wouldn't hurt the strut. I'd be more concerned about the stress on the A arm, particularly the forward mount and link.
-
All the stiction reduction is pointless if you introduce a bunch of side load on the strut itself.
How is this different than the side loads from cornering?
-
So this is a LT1 block verses a LS1 aluminum block?
Specifically, an '85 Vette block verses an LS1
-
I didn't include this in one of the other, closely related, threads becuase I felt this was enough of a tangent... don’t want to steal any thunder.
The details are intentionally non-existant.
The blue circles are the pivots. Pivot locations are in roughly stock locations, but likely raised to keep the RC’s in check.
The strut assembly is, at this point, unmodified.
The “bracktery†is meaningless. I only included it becuase I thought it made it a little easier to visualize.
The goals:
Less stiction...
Elimination of all bushings. Replaced with ball joint’s, bearings, etc.
Lighter weight...
This will be tough, I think. I’m not hell bent on it, but weight is definitely a concern.
Fully alignable...
...and preferably conveniently alignable. Some sacrifices in convenience may have to be made.
As little structural modification to the car as practical.
Thoughts on load paths, stress’s, pro’s, con’s, and any likes or dislikes are welcome.
From above...
-
Brian Bills (BrianV8Z), Paul Ruschman (BRAAP), and myself were hanging out in the shop today. I talked them both into participating in a ‘myth busting’ session.
We weighed one each of said motors... well the short blocks anyway. Both engines comparably outfitted.
Pictures tell a thousand words, see below....
.
.
The verdict?
The LS1 weighed a measly 4 lbs less!
Granted, there are many other considerations... heads, alternators, flywheel/clutch package, exhuast manifolds, intake manifolds, etc, etc. But, in the end, the single largest component, and arguably the largest potential contributor, shows no significant weight savings.
Obviously, this is not a scientific, lab grade test procedure we've concocted. The main goal was was to see if they were similar in weight... the answer appears to be yes.
P.S. We did weigh a pair of intake manifolds... the LS1 and the Offy pictured below. The Offy was 3lbs heavier... add another 8lbs for a carb.
-
D. i had wheel spin all the way through first, and then in second, and STILL trapped my speed at around 108 MPH, which is a high 12 second time for an NA L28
Bubble,
To clarify, you are using a Lonewolf intake?
I'm not having a go at you, I'm just curious why your signature say's 13.9 @102.7... is this a different car than the one you're describing?
-
I drive my LS1 with 8ms dwell at idle to 4 ms at 6 k RPM with 90 % saturation, but current is near 10A at 7K RPM. On my Autronics ECU.
Welcome to the thread,
As I understand it, the Denso 580 coils have a built in safety feature... at around 8ms they dump their charge to protect themselves from overheating. Obviously, this means they will be firing when they are not supposed to. It sounds like you getting dangerously close to crossing the line.
They should be fully saturated by around 5.8ms. If you're getting 90% saturation at 4ms, why do you run 8ms?
-
240hoke... Ahh... but you DID open this post. You must be... umm... curious??
He is kinda cute
-
-
One thing on aftermarket ECU's, to contemplate for a moment, go the best you can afford, even if you can't afford it.
Most definitely. Just keep in mind that, once you get ino the high end systems, its not always clear which is best. Frequently, there is no right or wrong answer. They will ALL run you car well. It boils down to the 'extras' after that.
Another one, the ECU is only as good as the installer/tuner.
You could say that about 3 more times!!! Too many people miss that 'little' piece of the puzzle.
Anyway, this LS1/2 coil thing is a bolt from the blue, looks like the winnah!!! Much better option than coil over plug in any form.
There are also some aftermarket coils that may be better than the LSx stuff with nearly the same configuration. Check out Mototron. I'm not certain I like thier stuff, but the coil 'packaging' is used by others. Pantara EFI has coils custom built to his specs in that same housing. I'm going to take a hard look at his coils on the next project.
P.S. Looking over the Motec literature, It appears the M600 will drive LSx coil's directly. Should contact a dealer to be certain.
-
MoTec M600 looks like it will do the job itself? http://www.motec.com.au/m400m600.htm
I'll look into the link tomorrow, as its getting late here.
-
Low blow... you edited in the middle of my response
-
Another option?
There are always options. If you've purchased a system, then I suspect you did so with deliberation. If not, tell me what you're looking for.
Use LS1/2 coils which have built in ignitors and run them directly off an aftermarket ECU?
Wolf3D will drive them directly. I would be VERY suprised if Motec will not.
Might need an ignition expander to do that?
Not necessary with Wolf. Again, I'd be surprised if necessary with Motec.
If you find it more convenient, you can always email me direct... ron@primeems.com
-
As I got into it.. I kinda figured you had some scrap 1" and 3" stock you started with... It turns out to fit very well indeed...
You're on the right track. Go about 10 times deeper, getting progressively less 'exciting' and you'll be there
-
NO NO NO!!!!!! They are NOT FREEZE PLUGS!!! They are CORE plugs…
The core plug Nazi has spoken!
:biggrin:From the previous thread (Garrett's), I always felt there was a missing link. The thermostat makes sense to me. The combination of a closed, or mostly closed, thermostat with a leaking head gasket, would seem the right 'recipe'.
-
They moved the diff back in 9/71, or on the 72 model year if you prefer.
Jon,
I was trying to establish the link between the diff. moving and the strap mounts being different. It makes sense. I was just wondering if anyone could actually CONFIRM that with their '71.
-
I've had mine installed for about a year now, the only problem I had with the install was the top hole for the poly mount was off. I ended up slotting it a bit to get it just right.
Interesting Garrett,
That mount was born partly out of the need to re-align the U-joints in a JTR car. Are you using it verbatim or have you modified it to retain stock angles?
-
Thank you Pete for comming up with the highly accurate measurements... unless they are Ron's original work then Thanks Pete for making them soo easy to find!...
Drawings are mine... No biggie though. Thanks for the solid write up.
-
Mine originally had the diff in the pushed forward postion. So maybe they changed the arrestor strap mounts when they went to the pushed back diff.
Its looking like that is the answer... the first two years having the forward mounted differentials.
Can anyone confirm a '71?
then I thought about JohnC's words that there is nothing on a Z car that requires 1/4 inch plate.Exactly... but it implies a solid design in the first place. Said another way... If it needs to be 1/4" plate, it needs to be REDESIGNED. Yes, I'm admitting some substantial improvement could be made with this mount
If you knew how fleeting that design was, you'd probably chuckle. Its only strength is that its easy, quick, and cheap. If I were to build another, it would be very different indeed... it would cost 3 times as much, take 10 times longer, and require a machine shop -
I just finished one too. 1/4 plate is massive overkill. Used 3/16 for the top and 1/8" plate for the sides.
I look at it this way... a healthy SBC could make 380ftlbs. If you get traction in second gear at torque peak with, for example, a T5 and run a 3.54 butt gear, this equates to approximately 2600 lbs of force pushing up on that mount. Would you jack up your ENTIRE car from that point, repeatedly for 20 years? Overkill? Yeah, probably. Massive overkill? I’m not so certain. Especially if you consider the weight penalty is less then 1.5lbs. I concur though... the 1/8” 'legs' are probably PLENTY sufficient.
-
BJ,
Don't panic yet. I was about to question Pop... The original mount for Pete P. was built ON a 240Z ('72) and the drawing is a direct reflection of that part. And, if I'm not mistaken, Petes car is also a 240Z. I'm not sure where the discrepancy is. Pop N Wood, what year car is yours?
Rear suspension design. Looking for opinions.
in Brakes, Wheels, Suspension and Chassis
Posted
Is that something you can share with us?
...and, as far as I know, the only way to reduce it significantly under braking is inboard brakes.