Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
What is your objection to cause shredding of this thread? People expressing themselves shows their level of knowledge and experience. So long as their is no nastiness. Please reply John.
I would disagree with that statement out-of-hand. Because someone has an opinion doesn't mean anything about their level of knowledge or experience. Especially on the interweb!
-
"seems you are the one offended."
Please, don't transfer your hangups and emotions onto me. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm 'offended', and frankly this is getting old. Your style of 'little printed words' does tell a lot more about you than you think.
In THAT respect, yes, perhaps I am Kreskin or Carnak.
He's going to what he's going to do. It's sad people get so hung up on being offended that they can't see common ground. At this site, it's especially sad. Perhaps a harbinger of things to come, but I most certainly hope not.
-
Got news, the pads all come from the same supplier, regardless who vends them...
I like the distributor.
-
I reserve comment...
-
MS 1 endured well in our experiences.
Make sure oiling (accusump) is in order, and that the harmonic balancer is worthy.
Forward crash protection is also critical.
Engine power was not a problem. Handling was what put us to the head of the pack, and the engine kept us pulling away even in relatively stock 1977 EFI form (with MS1 fueling the stripped stock components.)
First engine was put out in a crash that broke the distributor.
Second effort was put out in a crash that tore the LF corner off the car.
Third effort was put out when the harmonic balancer separated and it cooked down.
In the third effort, it was total domination of the field till it cooked. To the point we were thinking we were going to get the curse because of the total domination of the field.
In all cases, stock EFI intake manifold, running MS1. On the third effort, there was a cheap regrind cam put in there and we realized we probably overdid it because even with the stickes on the car, traction was beginning to be a problem.
Keeping it simple, straightforward, and reliable pays dividends in any enduro.
-
No head work or cam change of any kind. All I did was swap out old, worn SUs for 40DCOE triples that I had. Of course it pulls a hell of a lot better! I don't have dyno results but I will post video comparing the SUs to the triples just for kicks. ... I plan to dyno test in the future.
I'll add that everyone who was in my car when the triples were on it (INCLUDING MYSELF) thought it made a LOT more power, and pulled hard as hell. FAR harder than after I put the EFI back on---until I went back to the dyno and was frankly SHOCKED at the difference.
The car was so smooth and quiet, it was making an honest 70hp more than when the 40's were on it.
As I said, estimates are useless, and the Butt-Dyno is a notoriously innacurate meter to gauge anything. At the minimum acceleration tests over a set distance (say 1st and 2nd gear WOT pulls even...after mods/tuning a decrease in time means 'net gain' an increase in time means 'net loss'.)
Until I experienced it for myself, firsthand, I would have NEVER thought those triples were making LESS power than what I retrofitted. Never, never, ever! It just did not FEEL faster after the mods. But the 1/4 mile times, and dyno (along with G-Tech actually) convinced me otherwise.
Beware the Butt Dyno!
I've done all of them, and apparently the scope of what was originally asked has changed along the way. If you are now considering 'blow through' why not 'blow through triples'---233 when tuned properly, double what you likely have in there now. But a PITA to set up and unless you get the stuff cheap...
-
I met a gent at the Australian Muscle Car Masters meet outside Blacktown some years ago. Mr. Justice, driving a tautly sprung 240Z that he'd driven down from Queensland. (Member of the QLD Zed Club)
He had three fused vertebra, and it was a chore for him to get into and out of the car, and with that suspension no doubt painful on the roadway as well.
All I could think of was that he was truly a dedicated enthusiast to suffer so greatly to attend an event, and then to take the time to show me things and really point out a lot of high-points this foreign visitor would have otherwise missed.
Many of us take for granted enjoyment in our hobby, and from time to time we should count ourselves fortunate to enjoy relative health, and prosperity to allow us to engage in this hobby unencumbered by the trials endured by many.
As a carpal tunnel candidate, I do not look forward to my future. I wish you well in the endeavors. There is nothing wrong with an automatic, especially if it keeps you in the car and gives you some outlet.
We all need something, and if it passes that this is not possible for you in the future, I wish you all the best in finding an equitable solution for alternate release. Like I said, 'we all need something' and hopefully you won't have to make a change.
Good Luck!
<EDIT> I also have to add that the comment on therapy is one to seriously consider. With my CT, I happened upon a massage therapist in Thailand who worked wonders. For the first time in 10+ years I awoke without the sensation of two ice picks being driven through my wrists. I long for the return to Thailand and that job site, as since that therapy I've been able to relate it to other therapists and they have been able to somewhat relieve the symptoms and keep me productive. But not so well as the one in Thailand. She worked wonders and I was shocked and amazed at how well it worked and how long the results lasted. It also helped me identify specific actions which aggravated my condition more than others. I had no idea before, so I can now avoid some things and keep myself 'useful' at work longer. Again, whatever the outcome, good luck!
-
Power comes from an ideal mixture being ignited at the correct time. What the mixture comes from, or what ignites the mixture is irrelevant. The stock SU carbs are not a limiting factor to power that can be had out of a mostly stock engine. I say pay attention to the small things, check your distributor is in perfect mechanical order, set to the ideal timing for your engine. Then sync and adjust the carbs. It's virtually free.
Agreed! Now we have THREE people weighed in on the thread saying the exact same thing. Don't hate me, just see what is being said!
"Free" has ALWAYS had the most 'bang for the buck'!!!
-
oh, and to rebut the WEB comments:
My engine started as a 225,000 mile engine from a 1980 280ZX 2+2 which was never molested.
I do not have the book he talks about, I started on SU's in 1979 when I had to learn the hard way about tuning SU's on a single draw-through Corvair Crown Turbo Setup sitting backwards in the seat watching needle positions and listening for detonation with a piece of surgical rubber duct taped along the back of the car to the seat where I was sitting.
That he's offended by my statement that 147 is 'middle of the pack'---well can't help that. In decades of watching L20A, L24, L26, and L28's run on the dyno, depending on what engine it would be, that is about right. It's sad that 'estimates' are fostered...that's not good. It dynos what it dynos...if you modified it further, dyno it again, and report the results don't 'estimate'---at least that's the way I do it. You're only as good as your last dyno run. "Estimates" are for benchracers and are useless as an example or comparison point. That he states that he got the results for only the cost of the book was exactly my point---why he chose to be offended rather than see we were agreeing on the point that you don't have to CHANGE ANYTHING to gain considerable horsepower is beyond me, perhaps he wanted to be offended. Don't know, don't care. Personally I feel it's a little sad that we agreed and he's pissed off about it and goes into the puffery he did (don't know me, don't know what I done, etc
oh brother! Whatever...)Norm the 12 Second SU Dude has no 'estimates' other than conversions of his 1/4 mile times. Devoid of dynos or timeslips, any estimation of gain is useless. The Butt Dyno is a notoriously imprecise instrument!
In the end incremental gains documented by verifiable empirical methodologies is what you are after, not some nebulous "Butt Dyno Measurement." Know where you currently are: if you have an L26 and aren't making at LEAST 120-30 to the rear wheels you are down on power from where you should be with a stock system properly tuned. Same for an L28 at 140-50. That WEB got 145 from an L24, that's a good number, never said it wasn't. It's about where it should be for a tuned engine. (What does WEB think of the guy with a freshly built 'performance' L24 that he just paid $5000 for with triple 40DCOE's and that spins 124HP on the same dyno he is running on at 147???? I posit that he has THE EXACT SAME THOUGHT AS ME WHEN HE SEES IT! And yes, this is ANOTHER example from my archives...)
But if you are running 100HP on an L28---or even an L26 consider STRONGLY the possibility that you have some T's to cross, and some I's to dot BEFORE you go spending money on 'another magic bullet' to up your horsepower.
And that was the point all along!
-
Oh, and to reinforce what I just said: PO took OFF EFI, put ON DCOE's in a 'bolt on fashion' and LOST power (like HALF TOTAL ENGINE OUTPUT) --- restored to a STOCK configuration and got 147.
This JIBES with WEB's comments that SU's are tunable to 140HP. Again, TUNED STOCK COMPONENTS. Now, WEB wants to play a semantics game in that thinking MODIFICATION OF CARBURETTORS is not a form of 'tuning'---I disagree. TUNING consists of modification of components so they are more suited to a particular application. Changing the timing advance or static timing is a TUNING tool. It is not a 'separate standalone modification'... it is all encompassed under TUNING. (I would think this would not be necessary to define, but whatever...)
The point being, either the stock EFI or the stock SU's are equivalent in power potential.
I have seen 192/196 HP at the wheels of SU'd cars. They had headwork and cams. They did NOTHING to their SU's other than possibly change a needle---again this being part of a TUNING process.
Let's remember what was stated and asked:
1)"I plan on slapping on a new carb setup on my L26."
2)"I'm looking for the biggest bang for my buck "
3)"I'm looking for input on power gains on carburated L series."
4)"Any input on the different setups is welcome, eg: SU's, triple webers, 4 barrel conversions, etc. "
Given those parameters the 'MAGIC BULLET' asked about in #4 is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to the stated purpose given in #2.
The answer, given #2 is in there (even though later is was said 'cost is not a consideration'
) is that TUNING WHAT YOU GOT will give you THE MOST POWER with NO COST FOR HARDWARE.To justify that, even if you got a set of DCOE's for 10,000 yen (what, in the day that was what they went for, now it's over $100) So lets say you got an HONEST 20% OVER what you got from PROPERLY TUNED SU's, you are looking at a cost of 0.65HP per dollar spent. While if you have (and likely you do) under or around 100HP now, and only spend time (no money) on TUNING the SU's and get to the same 147 starting point---you have a cost of ZERO DOLLARS per 47HP.
Seems to me this is a no brainer, but hopefully this explanation can make it a bit clearer what I'm saying.
I have given a firsthand example of bolting on carbs which lost power compared to stock. Even if they were tuned the most one could hope for was 165 versus 147-150. So 15HP for $100? Or 47HP for nothing. Or loosing 20HP for $100.
The choice is yours. Kids put too much emphasis on 'bolting things on the car to increase power' and that is just a cruel lie. It doesn't work like that. There is (as you hate to hear me say) no magic bullet.
Please don't get into the 'I can't see the forest through all the damn trees' attitude because I used EFI in my example and therefore you flush it. I have countless examples of idiots putting all sorts of carburetors on their engines in some quest for power as well... I just use that one because it's the most relevant today where people are looking (usually) to remove stock EFI for whatever reason thinking they will get some magic boost in HP with carbs, and without some competent tuning chances are damn good the NET RESULT WILL BE A POWER LOSS OVER THE COMPETENTLY TUNED STOCK SYSTEM THAT WAS REMOVED!
If you want ANOTHER example, I ran my 1975 Fairlady Z at Goya Tuning on Okinawa in 1988 with stock SU's and the L20A. The guys at Goya were hot to check out the engine because I spun their Bosch Eddy Current Dyno to 97PS... and the uncorrected power figure was over 100. This was comparable to most L28's that were coming in there with all sorts of 'power parts' on them. To think that my 2-Liter was making MORE horsepower than most L24's being driven around in 240's stateside was kind of a shock. This has been reinforced by countless attendances at Dyno Days in So Cal and worldwide where guys with stock Z-Cars, 240K's, Skylines, Leopards, 810's and the gamut of cars come in off the street and check their power point and get shocked. It really is amazing how poorly most cars are tuned. And really scary how low relative power output is even when tuned to 'stock' specifications. At the time, that car was the bane of the Squadron---bone stock and FAST. But as I have mentioned on many occasions, an ITS car is also 'stock' using all the same components. The difference is tuning, not changing to the latest go-fast goody.
It's always shocking to me knowing how much power a PROPERLY TUNED L-Series can make...and then the almost UNIVERSAL comment after someone spins a low number on a dyno: "Man, I need to get me a set of triples!"
Sure, spin 100 with the SU's, then put those triples and see 120...or maybe 130. Wow! But realizing that the stock stuff will give you 147????? Does that mean you HAVE to change to some 'magic bullet' component to get more power? To my way of thinking, that guy who spun 100, and then got 130 after paying big money and switching to a tuned set of 40's is down on power by 35HP! He SHOULD have had 140-145, and after triples 160-165! But he started at 100, and now has 130, and wonders why a 'stock' Fairlady Z with an L20A and baby SU's spanks his butt every time they line up at the track. (Perhaps you stand next to my open engine bay swearing in foul language after being beaten for the 14th time that night in your hot coupe--just swearing and cursing me because you can't beat me and there 'must be a cam in that engine!' Because you spent lots of money for bolt on power gains and ARE STILL SLOWER than this 'stock' car!!! Actual example of what happened to me at the Houston ZCON Drag Night!!!)Power gain is relative--have a poor starting platform and sure you will gain power. But it may still be BELOW what it SHOULD be with a proper starting point!!!
Unfortunately WEB and I AGREE that you DON'T have to do that, he just wanted to be offended by a post that was AGREEING with his comments and didn't 'get' that.
Hopefully you do now as well---don't read things in that aren't there, as you are stating re: 850 holleys, and humongo carbs. This comes from your own insecurity, and you aren't understanding the simple, frank answer you are getting from me is not rude, and it's not insulting. It's just stating facts. You asked a question, you got an unpolished direct answer. That is what I do, that is what I'm paid to do. Now, you want to pay me $150 an hour I can write you a detailed white-paper on the subject and can deliver it via e-mail. But you're not paying me, so you get the free version stripped of language meant to soothe an angry customer who realized he just spent $4000 for an induction system that gave him the same HP that his OEM setup was capable of, wasting colossal time (and money.)
-
"Tony, AFC said he simply liked working on his car, thats great. I provided him with an option that if he wanted to put in a little time working on his S.U.s that he could see gains as I did."
I'm not arguing, I'm pointing out that changing NOTHING you got more power. Nothing bolted on, nothing changed. MY POINT EXACTLY!
Asking amazing kreskin? No, you asked for power bolt ons from carbs: There aren't any. Contradictions? No, I think not. You asked from what I can tell what you can CHANGE---'what carbs will give me more power'?
None of them.
TUNING is what will give you the power.
And hence: QUIT LOOKING FOR THE 'MAGIC BULLET'---that being defined as some item you 'bolt on' and get power from. They don't exist. TUNING is, has been, and always will be where power comes from.
Rather than wasting time looking for alternatives which you will then bolt-on and get some miraculous response from...consider the fact that simple competent tuning and spending time with what you got will return as much or MORE than anything you 'bolt on'...
My message has been the same and from what I can see clear and consistent.
That WEB wants to make is some personal affront to himself---that's his issue. Nothing of the sort coming from this end. Although if there are more things you did to your car, and are claiming it's only from your wonderous tuning---for shame! We can only know what you tell us, and your post makes it sound like you read a book, tuned, and were rewarded with power like you should have. Bravo.
Chances are good you did better than the PO of my prior car who took the EFI off, installed 40DCOE's on a cannon manifold, and headers and was rewarded with 80 some HP. WOO HOO! LETS HEAR IT FOR THE MAGIC BULLET BOLT-ON'S! Because everybody knows headers add 20%, and Webers add 20%, and the car came with 142, so that means 28HP (20%) for the headers=170, and 34HP (20% again) for the Webers means that car has 204HP now! Oh, wait, it's only giving me 80 at the rear wheels and struggles with a 17+ second 1/4 mile...there must be something wrong with the dyno, right?
Put it all back to the way it was, run consistent 15.50's in the 1/4, and Dyno to 147 in a 2695# Car....
Yeah, it was the bolt-ons that added the power. I just didn't realize they had to be UN-Bolted to get that power back!!!
Follow this yet, guys? No contradictions. No impugning of character or minimizing of achievements. Just an example showing that 'magic bullet bolt ons' AREN'T!
And from my read of your original post Crain---that seems to be what you are looking for...
My contention is, has, and will be that is not where you need to concentrate. TUNING is where you need to be. Nothing appreciable will come from CHANGING induction systems. TUNING what you have will give you more, at less cost (bang-for-the-buck I think was what was one of the criteria...)
Seriously, do you guys who are offended and thinking I'm arguing getting this yet? I'm not arguing, I'm explaining. Or did the criteria from the original post change and we are on a different track now????
-
My stock L28 spun the dyno to 80hp with triple weber 40's, and header with 2.5" crush bent exhaust.
I removed and sold the webers, reinstalled stock EFI and stock cast iron manifold. Replaced the plug wires and did a general tune up of the engine.
That gave me 147HP to the rear wheels.
I removed all the 'performance' items and concentrated on TUNING not a 'magic bullet' and that is what you did WEB...
It's not the carburettors that gave you the power, it's the attention to detail and TUNING of what you had. Your power figures are middle of the pack and should be what is expected for a competently tuned STOCK engine.
If you want "MORE POWER THAN STOCK" you aren't going to get any appreciable gains with 'mindless bolt-ons'-whatever you install will have to be competently tuned as my example shows.
Webers, hey they're a bolt-on 20% increase.
No, they're not! And that is the POINT of my comments. He's looking for a 'magic bullet' and one doesn't exist. I got more from bone stock than a buttload of 'bolt ons' simply applied to the same engine.
Truth be told, the biggest pickup was spark plug wires.
There are no magic bullets. It takes work. Tuning is tuning as you say...but dispel the myth that you just bolt on something and you get "X" Horsepower---doesn't happen like that!
-
you got it, it's just stopping fermentation when necessary, and having enough oomph left to fizzify it.
If you let it go to max alcohol content, you lose fizz. If you cork it up early, you get more fizz (and with root beer not desirable like Coke, for instance) if you cork it WAY early---if it doesn't explode or blow the caps off or make them leak you get no alcohol to speak of, and waaaay fizzified pop!
-
Define 'top end power' when it falls off above 6500 compared to triples, and non-forged pistons effectively limits you to that rpm range so 'big gains' are not to be had with carburettion changes, period.
That is the long and short of it. This is just another case of someone looking for the 'magic bullet' component they can bolt on and pick up some miraculous horespower bump without dilligent work. Ain't happenin'...
The comment on buying the book and learning to tune the car and 'viola, 20-25% bump in power' is about as close as you are going to get---and that's not from some simple bolt-on crap. It's from learning to work with what you have and tuning it properly.
When will the myth of 'bolt-on horsepower' die the silent death it so rightly deserves?
-
No on no no you do not have to add yeast to get alcoholic root-beer! All you have to do is let the fermentation process go and off-gas for a couple of days before you tight-cap the bottles. What gives root-beer it's effervsecence is the fermentation process (at least home brewed, we didn't make syrup and soda water, it was made as a batch then bottled---it was flat going into the bottles, and the fermentation carbonated it.) you are right to say the carbonic acid kills it, and with so much sugar it really doesn't have any alcohol to make a lot of CO2 and pressurize the bottles --- well before any appreciable alcohol is produced. If it's too much sugar, the fermentation goes too hard, and likely the tops blow off or the bottles explode---no light in the basement keeps the process slow and gives time for carbonation to do it's work killing the bugs making the CO2. Too cold and it's like syrup and flat. Sometimes it gets high pressure and leaks out a bad cap which gave you flat alco-beer, yuk!
But leave that cap off and you will get alcoholic root beer. The longer you leave it off-gas, the higher the alcohol component will be obviously, but the closer you will be to the end of the fermentation process and resultantly get less 'fizz' in the root beer. Which really sucks. I hate flat root beer. Gotta have fizz. But having alcoholic root beer was actually a mistake on our part. Loose capped a few bottles in the 1975 batch and found them by accident but were smart enough to keep our mouths shut to the adults. The next year we loosecapped several dozen bottles (yes, we did not buy commercial soda pop other than coke or orange nehi, we bottled our own root beer!) out of a wallful of bottles (this helps when the adults drink a lot of beer, so you have lots of bottles to use for your root beer...)
The 76 batch was a resounding success. But the adults found us out by someone going down and grabbing from the 'sepcial shelf' wihtout knowing it...and our secret was out. They asked us about it...and there was denial... But they soon realized ANY bottle in that section of the wall (low to the floor where adults wouldn't normally bend over to grab from...) was alcoholic. The next year though we made a LOT MORE alco-beers as some of the adults liked it more than we did (I think it was the novelty, and the bragging rights to their beer-drinking friends: HEY LOOK WHAT MY KID FIGURED OUT!)
At that time technically it was illegal. I think it was in 76 or 77 that Carter allowed home brewing once again (holdovers from the stupid Volstead Act) and then they started making REAL beer (though illegal winemaking continually happened even throughout prohibition.)
I still have a bottle capper somewhere. Two as a matter of fact. It was a hoot while it lasted. I moved in 79, and it was 80-81 that I got the license to make the hard stuff for the bus. But that was discussed elsewhere...
-
Seen SU's twist a dyno to 192/196HP on L28's with headwork and a cam.
Had either of them run forged internals and run the rpms higher....I believe they would have broken 200.
But this:
"Any input on the different setups is welcome, eg: SU's, triple webers, 4 barrel conversions, etc. I'm looking for the biggest bang for my buck while I wait for the real power!! Also, please don't try to dissuade me from doing this. I don't care about the extra costs or how pointless it may be."
Sounds a bit of a contradiction in terms. "Best bang for the buck" and "I dont care about the extra costs or how pointless it may be." Seem to me to be totally opposite statements. Which is it? Best bang for the buck, or best bang, regardless? You have to make a decision. The power is pretty much in the head, not what induction system you put on it. The stock system I've seen run cars into the 12's, and spin well near 2X the stock horsepower on a chassis dyno (210 compared with an unmodified 120) --- and in that case, the thing that was changed was the head and the cam, not the carbs. Amazingly they were not altered in any way other than some needle changes for better mixture delivery according to the new cam profile. If they had been altered in diameter, and other tricks, more was available---but the point being, the induction system didn't make the power, it was doubled by headwork and camshaft.
You need to look elsewhere if you want meaningful numbers... carbs won't give you much above stock numbers without headwork.
-
Carburetion? Cranking Vacuum? Has he ever tried starting the car by spraying quick-start?
If the car fires off and runs till the priming is gone---which is common in low-vacuum carburetted setups, it's a matter of getting more fuel to keep it fired off. As long as you crank around 250 rpms that's more than fast enough. In reality you really only have to get one cylinder up to compression kickover with a good gasoline charge in it and standing on a ratchet is enough cranking speed to start an L6 when cold with adequate fuel. And after warmed and primed with good F/A in the cylinder, the same applies.
It only takes one to fire to get it started, the essense of the old hand-cranked startup.
If it's cranking, but not catching consider the vacuum is low and 'priming' in a more efficient manner may be the way to go.
-
As for Josh's comments, I would agree. Having distilled 500 gallons of Ethanol and running it as my 'sole fuel' for a summer it's a LOT of work.
And sugar beets were cheap ($20 a ton) and have an AWESOME sugar content. That was my base stock of choice. I found that it was economically viable when I mixed it with gas and applied for the tax refunds on the gasoline used. That extended the range, but wasn't really what I was looking for...
Making 500 gallons of alcohol is a shitepot of work for one person, especially when you use a woodfired still!
-
Richard, the sugar water brewed in the dorms doesn't constitute wine
So the revelation that putting the yeast in Kool Aid and letting it sit in the corner of the basement...then straining it after a couple of weeks didn't constitute 'Lemon Beer' as we called it back when I was 12?
C'mon, it didn't take college for you guys to figure out how to make alcohol out of common home components? We would always 'loose cap' several dozen bottles when making Root Beer, and then recap them tightly about 8 days later. Sure the fizz was down a bit, but man I think we INVENTED (literally) alco-pop! Root Beer at about 5%, if not higher bead draw...
And don't even get me started on distillation. Somewhere I have a personal use distillation permit for making alcohol fuel for motor vehicles issued in 1979 from BATF...as well as all the logs as required at the time.
What do you do when your great aunties had a grappa distillery in the back room, and who made their own wine...and had heirlooms from 'the good old days' when "Mr. Al" would come to the Wisconsin Dells and vacation.
-
Works now for me as well, thanks.
-
It wasn't a 'discussion', it was a 'definition'...
By definition pressure is only a manifestation to resistance to flow. If your turbocharger only flows X cfm (or pph), and you put it through an X sized orifice, then you will get X psi. Take that same orifice and try to push X+Y from a larger turbocharger and your resultant X+Y psi will be higher. People mistake the power boost as coming from an increase in the PSI, where in reality that is only an indication that there has been a FLOW increase in the system, and the resistance to it shows an increase. If it was BOOST that was making the horsepower---then when you take the second example (original head/orifice) and open it up on the larger turbo, and the 'boost' is kept at the original X psi, your horsepower would be LESS from the original first test, but it won't be because flow is making more get into the cylinder. And at the X+Y psi level similar things would be assumed: if it was boost that made the HP increase then at that elevated number with the ported head you would expect the same horsepower, but it won't be, it will be more, as more FLOW is generated and as a result more power is produced.
This assumes proper fueling in all conditions.
People say 'boost is what makes horsepower'---this is wrong thinking. The above example shows why.
Boost is only, and CAN ONLY EVER BE a measure of the systems' resistance to flow from a given flow source. Whether it be a roots blower, turbocompressor, or even a reciprocating first stage compressor (yes you can do that!)
Really, there isn't any discussion, it's a definition. This is 'Compressors 101' and the only practical way to explain pressure in a flowing system. This discussion applies to any fluid system. The problem is people apply STATIC definitions to a FLUID system (where pressure means more contents in a given confined space) and make assumptions accordngly. Can't do that.
-
I don't know why there is any length of straight pipe after the diameter transition piece and the first elbow---that's where you went awry. Many times I see the v-band right on the elbow. The 'turbulent air' exiting the turbine really won't 'straighten' to any great degree before the elbow, so putting any straight pipe there for any reason other than a known downstream obstacle (which can usually be compensated for in several other planes) is not required.
Take out not a bit, but ALL of the straight portion after your diameter transition piece. Make sure your T/C rod clears, and has it's OEM heat shield in place, and you should be fine. I'm with post #2: this is no big deal, cut and reweld. This is why mocking up on the car is generally preferred--you generally only do it once then.
Tacking it still requires two trips to the welder/fab guy... But it makes changes like this MUCH easier as you are grinding off four nuggets and not cutting the whole pipe and cleaning it of a full round weldment (this is going to shorten your transition piece you have now...)
Good Luck.
-
The later subframe upgrade is pretty popular in Japan--most of the cars that came to the ZCON in Y2K which had RB Swaps has the R32/R33 subframe swap done to them. Tetsu Takakamo and his RB26 powered S130 may have used a Z32 subframe---I can't remember now which he said he used. I think one or more of them were Z32 subframe-converted.
-
Michigan, you say... I'll bet you carried blankets in the front to keep the feet warm during winter: no insulation up front, and a heater tube running the length of that bus from the back to the front. Most useful vehicle I ever owned.
G
Actually, I would run out at -35F stomp the gas pedal and crank that 6V starter with 12V and fire it off...
Flick the GAS HEATER SWITCH and put it on 'high' followed by another dash back into the house (usually wearing a T-Shirt and shorts...) wherein I would scarf down a bowl of Cheerios, don my pants or proper footwear, and put my down coat over my arm...
By the time I got back out, the gearbox was sufficiently warm from twisting around at fast idle for 10-15 minutes that I could get it into first and reverse...and the interior of the van was over 80F!
I would drive to work even after as little as five minutes in my T-Shirt, while others were trying to get big blocks and small blocks of all sizes warmed from -40 to even 60 degrees to try and get heat inside their car. Heck, that gas heater only cost me 2 mpg on the highway on 'high'---(25 vs 27mpg) and it was the BEST EVER ACCESSORY OFFERED for an early split-windowed bus! If you lived where it got cold, they were a godsend.
I would LAUGH at people driving their 'luxury' cars in down parkas with scraped windows because the heaters didn't work after only a five minute warm up in the driveway!
One time, we got around 38" of snow overnight. I remember that morning running out barefoot (hey, it was warm enough to snow, it wasn't THAT cold!) and doing the STOMP-CRANK-LIGHTOFF routine, and while I was eating my Cheerios that morning, watched this perfect 38" tall dome of snow on the roof part in the middle, and slough off and fall to the ground on either side of the Bus.
Coincidentally that was witnessed by my dad... Two days later a cold snap hit, and two cels on his battery froze solid and old Tony had to give dad a ride to work. The heat inside really changed his thoughts on my 'misery driving in that air cooled thing' during the winter months! And he heard no end of 'sure, dad...if your car is dead I can give you a ride to work!'
Yeah, that old bus changed a lot of people's minds on a lot of things!
) is that TUNING WHAT YOU GOT will give you THE MOST POWER with NO COST FOR HARDWARE.
Will aftermarket 240Z springs work in a 280Z?
in S30 Series - 240z, 260z, 280z
Posted
Did you get "two different answers" there?