RTz

Unbelievable.

Do you have a boost leak? What's your timing like? What are your AFR's like? Is the motor in generally good health/tune? Explain ♥♥♥♥ boost? What is the sequence of events prior to the symptom? Other relevant history? Other mods? Etc, etc, etc. If you give us a thorough account, we stand a chance of giving you a thorough response. Cause and effect.

Damn.

I'm told there is an O-ring at the mating surface. I've been eyeballing that sensor for a week or so, and since I have no self-control, I ordered one. Should be here in a couple day's. I'll post pictures when it arrives for confirmation.

That's the sensor I frequently run across. I wouldn't be afraid to try it. Though not boost friendly due to mount style. The Audi IAT curve wouldn't be that hard to come by methinks.

Some observations and opinion... Early GM MEFI used a central plenum location. GM abandoned that location years ago. Most GM IAT's seem to be either in the airbox or the intake tube upstream of the TB. All locations are a compromise. I'll agree that the closer to the valve, the more potentially accurate the reading, but its not realistic with current technology. If your tuning is such that you can keep you're AFR's consistent with varying temperatures, you've won, regardless of location. Transitional pressure changes shouldn't be an issue if the filter settings are correct. The insulation idea, used in conjunction with a Bosch style sensor, might backfire... if its heat soaked long enough to bring the insulation 'up to temp', it will take that much longer for it to return. I was looking at the Audi 1.8T IAT sensor and it seams very well isolated. Might have to snuggle up with it...

Congrats! Shhhh, dont tell anyone... I've done the dance myself.

Machining is is like a lot of things... there are usually a number of accepted way's to do any one thing. That said, the below picture illustrates probably the most common way to machine the mains and throws... In this example, three 'centers' are spot drilled on each end of the blank. Install a Faceplate and Center in place of the lathe chuck along with a Center in the Tailstock. Capture the blank in the Centers (with the Tailstock) and use a Faceplate Dog to drive it (usually Faceplates and drive Dogs come with the lathe). Now you have a means of rotating the blank on each of the three centers. Obviously it will 'wobble' when machining the throw's, but speeds should be low anyhow if using steel. Finally, part off the end cheeks when the mains and throws are completed. Again, there are numerous methods to achieve the same thing... use your imagination Hope this helps.

PM Roostmonkey, I believe he's building another batch.

I think building a small crankshaft on a mill wouldn't be much harder than a lathe. An upright rotary table with a matching 'tailstock'... and away you go. The biggest drawback might be finish quality, but I think a home-built crank polisher would wrap things up nicely. Just my dos pesos.

Christmas 2015? One of my favorites is the scale Offy... . . . . . . I have the complete prints for it. I keep telling myself 'someday...'

I introduced my grandson to machining over the last couple day's, as he seemed to have a sparkle of interest. The first project was a simple pair of spacers for SuperDan. They were perfect for learning how the machine 'moves', basic safety, cutting tools, and the thought process. He built a pair that were identical to within one half-thousandth on his first go! Well then... time to graduate onto something a little more fun. We decided on a 1" piston. His work is an impressive first effort at any age, let alone 13... Some in-process work... Facing... Grooving the ring lands... Milling the skirt... He insisted on valve reliefs ... The Mad Machinist at work.... Finished... . . I'm not sure which one of us had more fun! He's already talking about building a conrod.... Its not hard to imagine where this is going

There are a couple alternatives listed here... http://www.zccjdm.com/catalog.php?ref=azcarbum&recview=11&dt=43033&disp=name

That's contrary to the OE's. They are normally tuned to 'fail rich'. I too share the opinion that closed loop should be pulling fuel, on a leash of course. I'm curious what issues you have run into with this method?

I don't know what you're building, but google Lokar. I frequently use their products and have no complaints.

It depends on which EMS you choose. The Nissan CAS is a pretty good system, when used correctly... but not all EMS systems are compatible. By "ignitor chip" I assume you mean ignition ignitor. Some EMS's will have them built in, but most of the high-end systems will not, to allow the use of the OE ignitor, 'x' brand, or CD ignition. The MAF can 'disappear' on virtually all of the aftermarket EMS's.

Brad, Add me to the list of 'enquiring minds'.

A single competent EMS, with careful planning, could conceivably run both simultaneously. However, there's no doubt you'd get better results with two separate systems, especially if you choose a lower end EMS.

Twin flathead's showed up at the Portland Historic's a couple years ago.... . .

Yep, Wolf

Sure did. If the correction was in random order, I would have thought along the lines of plenum wall proximity, but the correction being sequential, sounds more like protrusion. Reinforces my beliefs on velocity stacks... without due testing, protruding velocity stacks may work against you. P.S. I like his stand on actual track tuning. Mindful datalogging, with subsequent dyno tuning, have produced negligible gains in my experience.

Believe it or not, Braap's a pretty nice fellow. What he's trying to say is that you have a LOT of reading to do... feel free to help yourself and, though we do stray, try to be mindful of the thread topic.

Gave me a couple things to ponder, and confirmed a few others... thanks for sharing

Tony, Do you feel there are any positive anti-reversion effects in that scenario?