Tony D

The PCV is clearly defined elsewhere, and if you take a look again: there it is, emergency relief valve, the only COMPONENT not clearly identified! By looking at the other drawings defining the Emergency Blow Off Valve, you can easily see the same outline right there on the manifold, at the rear in front of the EGR, behind the A.A.C. Valve... To be fair it's a turbocharger safety component and shouldn't be on that List. The blow off valve is not really well defined either, but it's got one. But for a reference point for a guy who has no clue what he's looking at...EF30 CLEARLY shows the Emergency Relief Valve and it could have been circled with FAR better recognition than the prior examples (which were SCHEMATIC in function, not diagrammatic!) Had it been circled on EF30 (or the ECCS and EFI versions compared "what looks different between these two drawing's un identified components?") I think location confusion would have been over after that post. No?

One mans gouging is another man's reasonable. What price do YOU put on "no longer available" when you need it (as opposed to merely WANTING it?) Crack Whore or Call Girl: one could argue the call girl is gouging...and in the same breath, Crackie overcharging as well... All a matter of degrees. You want your Z to be available for $2 and a pair of shoes, or more than that?

Hahaha "Education comes after Anecdote in every dictionary, damn the physical laws, regardless of how well documented! It just doesn't apply in my example!" I have just summarised every response from here on.

You can lead a horse to beer, you can't make him drink!

Yeah, they are actually clear, the ambers look that way from a plastic piece behind the lens, not actually the lens itself...they are just clear.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No Phil, I'm merely "being pedantic"!

No, read my description, I can't make it much clearer without a photo...and they are already on the site. "AFM hanging upside down in front of core support, suspended from inlet piping by silicone hoses." The ECU on later cars and even the S30 is spaced AWAY from the kick panel... Even then they get toasty.

Am I missing it, or is it not an option? I see 'find all posts from this user' but no filter to ignore it in the general thread traffic. I don't ask for much, eh?

Taking this was a single-circuit braking system? The front and rear should be separate systems on most vehicles since the late 60's in most countries. Loss of one circuit should still allow you to stop with the other (in this case the fronts.) Are you saying it caused a total brake failure? Was there other modifications done to the braking system (remove porportioning valve, etc...) I think you may have more than one problem that needs addressing if this was on a car with dual circuits. I had a profound failure going downhill in a California Canyon when a deer para-jumped in front of my 62 Bus, precipitating a panic slam on the brakes and a failing of the master cylinder cups...and total loss of brakes. I had to negotiate the rest of the way to work using only my (thank gawd RECENTLY ADJUSTED) cable hand brake. When I went to replace the bad MC, it was replaced with, and the system modified to 1967 Spec with Dual Circuits. Better to have half-brakes than NO brakes! Good to hear you avoided catastrophe and the spectators none the worse for wear.

SEE HOW DIVORCE SCARS YOUNG MINDS PEOPLE!!! The Guilt. The Shame. The Haunting Memories!!!

You guys are mistaking SCHEMATIC DIAGRAMS meant to convey functional understanding of a system to DRAWINGS OR PHOTOS which actually show the location of the actual components. If you look in the Turbo Supplement for an 81, or the ECCS COMPONENT LOCATION DRAWING at the front of the ECCS System Section of the FSM, you will see the components circled and arrows showing EXACTLY where the things are on the actual ENGINE. One thing you learn early on with schematics in electrical circuits: wiring diagrams may bear no resemblance to what you see on a schematic, but it works just the way the schematic says it will. Same for the mechanical components. It's likely the screech and pop you heard was a surge event in the turbo.

THERE IS NO SUCH BOOK! FSM's are BY YEAR. What you got ain't an FSM, and you probably should follow the example of cgsheen and NewZed and get one from the free download site. BluDestiny describes it perfectly, right on the side of the intake manifold aft to the throttle body. It's bolted there, and is easily removed so you can adapt it to other vehicles that need an idle speed screw when doing EFI Conversions. I used it on my turbo EFI conversion, as well as a couple VW's and likely my Corvair when the time comes...

So they weren't stuck open, they were simply closed from lack of an electrical signal to make the solenoid coil work. Not having one of those in the glove box makes searches during traffic stops go much faster...

If you are as unfamiliar with A/C Service as your post suggests you are, you should leave the conversion to someone who knows how to do it. Don't mix refrigerants. Don't simply put refrigerants into a leaking system, find and repair the leak.

To This: "Contrary to what people believe the small turbo does not become a restriction, it does become a pressure multiplier. With the increased inlet pressure, it flows more than it would if the inlet pressure were lower." Please look up the definition of "Stonewall"---there IS a limit physically as to what diameter and blade spacing into what torridal diffuser (and flow path dimension) will ultimately flow. You will not put the flow of a T67 through a stock turbo housing without restricting the T67's flow. This gets to the differences between 'flow' and 'pressure'.... You raise the inlet pressure and flow increases. But ULTIMATELY the presence of PRESSURE at the smaller turbo's inlet SIGNIFIES RESTRICTION TO FLOW! Multistaging for flow is best done in pure parallel for simplicity. COMPOUNDING is not the way you want to do it in low pressure applications, it's just NOT efficient. There may be an argument for two stages between 45-75 psi, it's a strange range to be in, and they may derate two stage machines to operate there....but nobody is pumping 45psi into an L-Motor, that would be well into the 1500HP range. Show me one high-flow industrial compressor below 50PSI design pressure that is two-stage. They don't do it. For 100psi there is an argument between 2 or three stages, and above 100psig to around 200-250 the argument is made over 3 or four stages, between 275-400 4 stages is standard, with 4 stages being a standard offering in most 350 psi applications. At 5 stages, 700psi is easily attainable. If there is an EFFICIENT way to do it, it will show up in Industrial Compressors well before automotive applications as the marketing and costs for driver power drive the market. 1 or 2% will make or break a sale. In some cases, Japanese have a culture of making things technologically complex to it's own end. That's not really engineering, it's masturbation. if you can get it done with fewer parts....DO IT!

Yes, there is a functional break in semantics and engineering terms versus Salesmen Hype Marketing Babble. i don't know how much wider than 1700-6500 you want to get, as that's what I had with my 350-375HP L28. not peak horsepower, but wide torque. The new hybrids and compressor wheels make it possible that the same turbine wheel driving a newer compressor design would flow to over 475HP now, with the torque being above a set level at 1700 rpms. Additionally, there was a prior device on the marked 'Turbo Group Fueler' which incorporated an inverse-rpm boost fueling scenario. At 2000rpms you ran higher boost than you did at higher rpms, and fueled accordingly. The sizing of the turbo then was difficult, but with the new wheels today, that really has promise for 20psi+ at 1700rpms (possible on a stock L28 with a 0.48A/R T3 housing) tapering back as rpms climb keeping torque constant and flat. Sequential turbocharging is complex, and the 'benefits' have yet to be proven over current technology turbocharger wheels. The Ford Diesels now run dual compressor wheels off a single turbine driver to keep inertia down and increase flow to TWICE what was possible with the same size single. The exhaust power is plenty to turn BIG wheels for BIG torque boost at lower rpms. Adding a second turbo generally adds nothing but failure points and complexity.

All requested information is in the Megasquirt EMS Sub-Forum at this site.

Cardboard makes a nice pattern for a galvanized tin box...

Hanging AFM upside down in front of core support from piping using the silicone hoses. ECU mounted with screws.

I basically gave away six pairs of those in the late 90's under the logic of "how many do I really need"? As most here know, I have recovered from that flawed logic and no longer sell or give things away. I keep it, and add to the pile.

I think you're mistaken, that header from Japan looks like it fits LHD Cars, the Fujitsubo does not, it's out considerably closer---in fact within 12mm from the frame rail on the left size. The location of the flange is the giveaway, while this comes out somewhat, it tucks back next to the block/transmission joint area. I don't see that header being an impediment to the linkage, the Fujitsubo: no WAY! But that one? I think it flies...

Wow, yesterday I had a missed call from Japan, and a voicemail. Dead machine in Hiroshima! That would get me there, and then the following weekend I would be free in Yokohama before shipping out to Brunei. I'm buffing the Z-Buddha's Belly for good fortune and a PO to divert me there for Yokohama Nostalgic Two-Days!

Yep, looks like the B'ville Car's "belly pan" exhaust. Normally with the 2.8 we run dumps off the header as the twin 2.5's drop a bit of HP. With the 2.0, we can run the twin 2.5's and not see any difference. Mufflers, oh Pete... How The Man oppresses us!

1100HP single turbo L28's have existed since the early 80's. And those are the endurance-race ones, Drag Racers made even more (sub 10 second full body ZX's), Exactly how much are we looking for here to justify it?