Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
My bet is combination of detonation and lack of oiling flow.
But some 'experts' say I shouldn't listen to those sources as apparently they're inveterate liars...
But it sounds plausible to me.
-
I use studs and nuts, another option is to use socket head cap screws (Allen Screws). Those Allens ate nice! No clearance problem at all, and nice hardened washers make for a nice clean looking assembly!
Brian,
Anything you need you can get at McFadden-Dale Hardware in Anaheim, Corona, Ontario, Sant-Ana...etc.
-
Remember that by opening the pilot screws out further than recommended, instead of getting the larger pilot jet, you SET UP the lean transition!
The transition ports use the pilot jet as fuel source. The recommendation on pilot jet turns out is a calculated annular discharge area that is not exceeded, allowing all additional fuel flowing in through the pilot jet to be available to the transition ports.
It is predicated that if you need a lot of fuel at high vacuum idle, it should be available through a set area and adjustable through a very narrow range of adjustment.
Corollary to that is if you need big fuel at high vacuum, you need it in transition. Open those screws up, beyond recommendations, you rob transition fuel available.
The limit on turns FORCES people to change the jets (for proper operation)
You look at a 1973 GSS Corolla with an 18R-GR making 140HP out of two litres, the Mikuni PHH's from he OEM were set up EXACTLY as stated: pilots barely open, huge pilot jets....but it drove like a Corolla with a single carb, silky smooth no bogs no coughs.
Instead of reinventing the wheel, listen to those guys that designed them! They aren't Rochester YH's, turning the screw out further will not make your job any easier... In fact, thes niggling things show up and confound people repeatedly.
-
GT35R produced 2-3psi at any speed going WOT. Full boost of 17-25 was available like clockwork at 3,200. Depending on pressure, the basic R ran out of boost (stonewalled) at 7,000 up at 17psi, upping it to 21, only resulted in the same Hp being developed at 6,800, with power flat to the limiter setting at 7,200. Trying 25 psi, the upper rpm limit was only around 6,500, flat to 7,200.
I begged for a low boost run at 8 or 10 psi to determine actual horsepower peak, which should be in the 8,200 to 8,500 rpm range. Actually with the "X" replacement he is now running 21psi to 7,400 rpms and not running out of Air yet, nor is the power tapering off.
At 8psi, at 4,500 rpms this setup was making 380ft-lbs of torque and that was not torque peak. Everyone should remember that while the head flows 220CFM, the stock intake manifold Jeff is running drops that to only around 190CFM. The design exercise for quantification of what is possible on the stock L28ET Manifold is not over yet, but it's working fine to 7,400 rpms and 700+RWHP! One day the ITB's will be employed, that should uncork a few more horses as well, but require a bigger turbo for ultimate HP, or I project similar HP between 10-15psi, at a peak around 8,000 give or take. Should be a funner ride than now, and easier to modulate spreading out the power more like a larger N/A engine.
With the next larger model, there may be better power, but until we retest the X on the same dyno we don't know... The Ford Lightning MAF is running out of resolution, and comparing our PPH air intake, Jeff is really impressed at the increased flow the RX produced over the R in the target18-25psi range. Garret says the thing is capable of airflow supporting 100 more HP than previous model (GT35R)
From the MAF raw data (calibrated independently) we believe it!
As far as horsepower goals, Jeff wanted 600RWHP, but after my prodding and "over helping" he finds he's surpassed that and now it becomes a test mule for the Bonneville project, which requires horsepower in great reserve due to altitude and temperature during competition. We'll chart a peak on this setup, then simply build another engine with the uncorked intake and a bigger turbo with spool above 4,000 and turn up the boost! That should give us more than enough power for a Red Cap. At least I hope it will! So far testing has borne it all true. The Electramotive boys know their stuff, they have not steered us wrong yet! The ultimate power isn't really what they gave us, it was ancillary support systems where they really opened our eyes. Without that knowledge, the power becomes treacherous! Things want to go boom!
Jeff's engine, after all, is only a streeter. It's not competition spec by a LONGSHOT!
-
Agreed, but with re-machining a quite advanced hybrid can be made utilising the stock housing.
The test was also a beta for a boost control system that controls the compressor end separately from the turbine end. I. The end we decided to shelve the idea as we neither had the time to develop it, but the idea revolved around controlling wheel speed to as close as constant as possible, and control waste gate to that end, whilst using overboard ump to keep pressure in the appropriate highest efficiency map (which self-shifted to follow different speed maps for the compressor wheel.
It was an incidental discovery. It was not what we were actually looking or, but it shocked us when it was revealed.
With a bigger wheel in there, backpressure upstream is quite a bit lower than the paradigm in all the books... Meaning cams can actually be a bit more aggressive than previously thought.
-
Hahaha! Awesome!
THAT hole is typical on the sixes! Always #5!
-
Anything south of US 2 is down South.
Anything south of US 10 is The Deep South.
Anything sout of I-10 is Mexico or Cuba.
-
Bigger pilots, less screw opening. Yep!
-
Don't waste your time Ray, this ilk can't read what's written, no use trying.
I had an idiot in Japan argue what I went through Shaken-Sho inspection in a Suzuki Jeep I bought off him somehow illegally. We had installed a reed valve 360cc engine while that idiot had spent three years trying to duplicate the rotary-valve 360cc engine he had in there. He was convinced "those damn japs lied to me they said it had to be the (exact) same engine in there to pass!"
When I said "it is, it's an LJ36,"
He started screaming how it was NOT the exact same engine as what came out!
The old engine was in the back: "See! LJ36, it's the exact same engine!"
This guy just got more pissed off because his mental acuity simply couldn't comprehend "LJ36=LJ36"...
No matter which way you tried to explain it wasn't chicanery, he would have nothing of it.
He never would. There was a reason he was in mortuary affairs I guess!
-
Interesting place for a crack to happen...
-
Trailer it across through Windsor to Buffalo. Unless you have a thought that the price you will get the work for there is that much cheaper... But shipping those parts to the car to drive it back? I'd pass and just flat tow on a set of wheels, car dolly on a pair, or trailer it with what it's got!
Done this more than a few times.
Detroit IS East, btw.
-
There is a VW Bug with a Olds Toronado engine up in Green Bay.I have seen it. Next time I am up there, I will have to get a photo.
That MAY be the conversion we did back in 79/80! It was in the UP/ Northern Wisconsin area last time I knew about it's whereabouts.
-
I shy from telling people to read plugs as generally they will do it wrong, and draw incorrect conclusions.
In fact, most "plug read" engines are several percentage points consistently rich and down on power.
People read the exposed extended tips, and don't use an illuminated loupe to read the ring up inside the plug (which is where you need to read it!)
Reading the extended portion near the ground electrode where it runs hot and burns off deposits results in a lean reading, and is very variable. That base ring is very consistent in comparison. Universally we are to,d by people looking at our plugs "you are too lean!" But our dyno testing shows otherwise.
Once you know to read the bases with an illuminated loupe, it doesn't take too many plug reads on a dyno seeing the results to know "what looks right" for a particular family of engines.
As long as the junction of the sensor is in far enough for the intake louvred to pick up a sample... You can always have your bungs turned down on a lathe to allow deeper setting of the sensor in the exhaust flow.
-
When it's opened, add your swirl pot and anti-slosh baffles.
A proper weld will NOT require sealant to seal!
I believe the original is pinch welded, so trimming for a lap may be easier to "disguise" the fact that you opened the tank.
A straight edge weld would be easily accomplished with no filler, but would be visible to even casual observers.
-
Been there, done that, bought the ITB's...
"Never assume used jets have not been altered."
My nephew routinely drills his jets on American Iron, and laughs at the guys who think he's ACTUALLY running an "XXX" jet wherever!
-
I'm not getting into the re machining of the STOCK housing to accommodate aftermarket wheels, but the post was mostly to stick a pin in the C Bell contention that exhaust backpressure is much higher than intake manifold pressure which is why "you don't want to port the intake or run a cam due to reversion"...
But then again, this guy WASN'T talking about a huge aftermarket turbine wheel was he? The difference between a .48 and .63A/R on a stock engine is quite profound.
Try to get 16-17psi boost on a stock .63 A/R hot side and compressor wheel before 2,000 rpms without MASSIVE timing retard!
This was the context of the discussion.
If you want to parse the actual technical bits of JeffP's test, no I'm sorry your assumption is incorrect. Boost came on at 3200, and with the waste gate held closed to watch intake -vs- exhaust pressure the exhaust backpressure never significantly exceeded the intake charge pressure, right up to 7,000 rpms. Dumping pressure overboard on the intake compensated for the non-linear flow. Could we use more of the boost, would that result in higher backpressure? From what we saw, yes maybe, but not in the 4:1 ratios suggested by some "authorities" who are quoted as definitive sources on Turbocharging.
Yes, with a set of staged waste gates you can dump all sorts of flow around the turbine to prevent backpressure and allow very small wheels to get earlier boost... But that isn't what's being talked about. The overboard internal waste gate on the stock turbine was easily enough wired shut.
We were at no time anywhere near even a 2:1 ratio!
Turbo Hotside and old side compressor technology has progressed immensely in even the past ten years much less the last 20!
-
Talk to the boys at Electramotive. Their publicity in Contemporaneous Magazines claims 750HP at 21.6 PSI at 7,500 rpms. When you read (or talk with in person/over the phone) the driver's comments about driving the car (another "Tony" I might add, who had experience in CanAm BBC's BTW...) he stated the Electramotive 280ZXT was the first car he'd ever driven that would/could light the tires at the start of the back straight at Riverside and boil them to the braking point while accelerating the whole way. That doesn't happen with 750HP...I too would like to see more evidence of these 1100 HP L-series of the early '80s. You know a time when making 800 HP from a BBC was very impressive, forced induction or not. I'm not saying that it's impossible, I've just never seen any evidence of it, and have not seen anyone repeat such a feat in more recent years with more available technology and know-how.
Talk with the dyno man, or the builders Knepp & Campbell, they can tell you the engine actually easily ran 9,000RPM's, and routinely ran 30PSI of boost, 7,500 was not even the power PEAK of the engine!
These guys are all still around, and they have phones. They appear regularly around at events. As long as you are a credible seeker, and not some time-wasting un credentialed monkey...they WILL talk with you now that the car is not racing competitively. In fact, the reason they shared the knowledge was precisely because some people still compete heads up against full factory sponsored teams, and they felt a kinship with those people (after checking them out thoroughly before sharing, and apparently being satisfied they were not idle Internet time-wasters.) Electramotive was a privateer who received little to no technical assistance from NMC whatsoever. Everything they did technically to the engines was purely their cumulative engineering experience. The direction they steered JeffP & I in was NOT expected. But following their recommendations we have an L28 that makes 735RWHP (SAE Tracability) at 21 PSI, at 7200 RPMS, has NOT reached a power peak in testing, and runs a GT35XR (or whatever that update to the GT35R was acronymed) out of air well before peak power with a camshaft known to be good to peak power at 8,500...
So you do the math.
If that's not enough in endurance racing....what does a full-bodied 280ZXT weigh, and what horsepower does it take to get a 9.6 0-400 meter time out of it? There were at least three in the "L-Engine Shootout" issue of Carboy, October 1989.
To put it bluntly, as I usually do, if you don't know this it's from simple lack of trying! Anybody with credibility can approach these guys and get the straight scoop. As to "why nobody has done this recently" excuse me if I take offence for two people participating in this thread who have duplicated as near as possible, or EXCEEDED those numbers.
Like anything on the Internet, you can choose to believe who you want. In this case, keeping you mind closed to those who DO know, and have tried REPEATEDLY to pass on the knowledge results only in the perpetuation of your own ignorance. It's the interwebs, there will always be a few that no matter how hard someone tries to help, they just stick needles and barbs. Better to be an arse, than and ignorant arse I guess. I'm guilty of being an arse. Simply ignore me and you won't have your comfortable paradigm challenged.
While Logged in, click the drop down next to your name in the upper right corner of the screen.
Click on "manage ignore prefs"
Put my screen name in there.
You will NEVER be bothered by my stupid threads, or any past stupid threads I have ever made. I beseech thee, if it so offends your sensibilities after me having repeated this same information I don't know HOW many times, JUST EFFIN' IGNORE ME and let those who WANT to learn, do so without this repetitive chest-beating "I can't find it, therefore it is highly improbable" B.S. it really does get tiresome after posting the same information repeatedly...
For Christ sake, John Coffey has talked to these same people and chimed in on this in the past. Go and do your research!
-
Well, it was my original point of contention:
...to which I responded:
I think I was pretty clear on this point, but then had to elaborate further (see Tony's "Ibid" post).
........
...and btw, that's a much more polite response than you are likely to get from Tony, seeing as how you did just call him a liar.
Who? What?
I'm Sgt. Schultz here...
Enlighten me what I lied about, I don't see anybody disputing anything I said.
If I missed something, I'll just chalk it up to sour grapes or ignorance on whomever...those two usually cover 99.999% of such claims.
-
Exactly, where is this crack?
-
"Blowing Black Smoke" on an un catalysed L-Engine is very low 10's and into the mid 9's AFR!
That is a DEFINITE "way too much fuel" condition!
Short blasts really don't give you accurate indications of fuel delivery. Really if you had a long gradual uphill grade so you don't accelerate so fast, it makes getting things stabilised in the system easier.
You would be amazed by what looks good for short blasts, but as mile marker three at WOT passes at B'ville you start seeing some strange things happen!
That's where that dyno comes n, you can only get "so" close on the street. Holding the max horsepower load point for 5 minutes straight is a bit impractical in most metro areas, and frowned upon universally by all law enforcement!
-
Get the FSM, don't fly blind.
That's like going to Annie's in Bangkok without your special raincoats...
-
I'd reinforce the collector where all cylinders merge, or further back (6-8" max sounds about right.)
You are looking for a feedback signal for the ECU, and if you examine where OEM's put em, it's in the collector or as close downstream as possible to the collector.
For an ANALYTICAL TUNING APPLICATION (Stationary Dyno) you want as close to the exhaust valve as you can get. This is a different dynamic, and you CAN'T use a single cylinder trim the entire bank, much less the entire engine! Unless you have a single-cylinder engine, this makes "as close to the back f the exhaust valve as you can get" incorrect for your application. It would be the same as putting a single O2 in a primary tube! (Maybe OK for EGR, but not the O2 sensor!!!)
The further down the pipe you put it, the more latency you will have in response to transient changes. We have our Bonneville Car using an O2 sensor IN the collector and the secondary O2 for the Horiba Analyser used on the Dyno about 3" downstream on the other side of the collector flange. We get almost identical readings when doing dyno pulls. Response is VERY fast, and the catalogs fom both sensors synchronise with each other very closely.
When we used a Horiba in the tailpipe at the back of the car, our maps were off across the board. Until we realized we had to hold a load point considerably longer to let the reading stabilise at the outlet of the pipe.
Ideally we. Would have had fast acting WBO2's in each cylinder to check and trim the ECU accordingly, but at some point with a 40 year old + engine (and being current record holders) you just shrug and say "why waste the money?" If we were contested, maybe... But we're fat, happy, and resting at the top right now waiting for all those stock 180mph 240's all the kids swear they have to come bump our record and do more development. Already got a sacrificial header ready to install bungs!
-
I run a 3" Aluminum.
The Boyracer driveshaft looks like a polymer-bonded unit. The two tubes are bonded by vulcanised rubber of various durometers depending on how much torque you want to absorb to save components downstream in the drivetrain.
This was the ONLY way Porsche kept the 917's on the road. The axles were constructed like this, and the telescoping and torsional absorption provided by the elastomeric insert was the only thing that could transmit the torque without shattering.
Curiously, if that shaft is constructed properly, with enough overlap inside the tubes, should the elastomer fail, the driveshaft just "sags" it can't come out and vault you. Some guys I know drilled holes to allow putting a screw in should it ever delaminates so they can wedge the pieces together and at least limp home from the track, or drive back onto the trailer.
Carbon Fiber does not require a driveshaft loop due to its construction.
Our times showed improvement going from 2.5" steel to 3" Aluminum. I forget how much, but you could feel the weight difference. We isn't think it would make that much of a difference, but it did!
-
And now that it has been brought to my attention how to do it, I suggest the following to those noobs who don't appreciate humour, or the WAY someone answers their question.... In stead of whining in the post:
1) While Logged in...
2) By your username on the top right, click the drop down...
3) Click the 'manage ignore prefs'...
4) Add the screen name of the offender to your ignore list...
PROBLEM SOLVED FOREVERMORE!
Just be wary that I think this may affect searching for previously posted solutions, and you wouldn't want o compromise your moral indignation by accepting advice from such an insensitive and coarse individual!
Couple turbo swap questions
in Nissan L6 Forum
Posted
Spade connections are interconnect for fuel pump to kill in a stall.
Helps prevent immolation after accident.