Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
Look at the power under the curve, it's not manifested by peak horsepower gain. It's manifested by more torque down low where a street car is driven.
Like I said, I have it installed where my BONE STOCK ENGINE will not run WITHOUT PINGING on premium fuel.
The cost of installing the methanol system allows me to run REGULAR fuel (not premium) for daily driving whitout having to retard my spark (and the terrible drop in power of the already gutless L26 in lower rpm driving) and n fact allws me to run 15 degrees initial like I could in the old days when premium fuel was premium fuel.
There is no reason to compromise on torque when the methanol/water mix will allow you to run REGULAR pump gas, as well as get increased drivability.
I mean, if you want a gutless wonder go for it. But for the cost the economics are hard to argue. In the case of a stock L26 (or in most cases the stock HIGHER compression L24 with an E31 head!!!) it allows you to run the car on regular fuel without retarding timing (performance loss) for a modest investment.
On a turbo car, the torque increase down low is massive over simple race gas in the same application. The prejudice against it as an 'improper detonation aid' should vanish as the realization is made the current systems do more than simply blow liquid into the intake in hopes of suppressing detonation through simple chamber cooling. This is a supplemental fueling system which affects both power delivery curve as well as allow usage of more economical fuel for a daily driver. Driving hard I might go through half a gallon a tank. The turbo car uses a lot more. That system shown would likely work fine and is about 2/3 the cost of what the Snow system costs, so that would only improve the economic performance I experienced in terms of payback also realize my economic model was about 2X (conservative) on what real-world consumption really is... During the winter I can scale back on injection as it's not needed as much.
Try that with a compression change.
IMO dropping compression is a radically complex answer for what likely will be a part-time situation. Getting 100-octane equivalency is not hard with one of these systems and the performance you will get returned will be surprising. If you are making WOT runs and worrying about running out of methanol and giving that warning, then you also have to warn people about clogging a jet on their Mikuinis or Webers. I've seen FAR more detonation to death scenarios from a clogged jet than someone disregarding the low tank level light and then going on a bone-headed run. You will hear it baby ping far before you will do damage. I can't drive my L26 up a grade at more than 1/2 throttle without hearing it ping (even with the header and opened up exhaust now...) If you keep in it after audible pinging, you deserve what you get. I believe that warning is as much a Red Herring as a clogged jet warning for a Mikuini or Weber owner!
-
Meth injection a waste of money?
In the VW world, Gene Berg would run 7:1 CR's while all others would run 3 points higher. Of course his engines made nearly the same power...but lasted 150K miles.
As for wasting money, depends on what your costs are I suppose. If 100 octane is $6 a gallon, then running a full tank is $84.
If it costs you $3 for 91 octane, and $5 for a one gallon tankful of Methanol 50/50 wiper fluid (the most common mix) and gets you the same octane performance, or allows even more advance for a cost of $47 a tankful ($37 a tank saved...)
That means in 16 tanks you recover the cost of the methanol injection unit. Let me see, I run through two tanks a weekend while home, so in 2 months of driving I get my costs recovered.
Being I can drive (potentially) 52 weekends a year. then that means 44 weekends at $37 saved per weekend: $1628 a year versus running racing gas.
I need to see how this is defined as 'wasting money'...
(Keep in mind I'm inveterately cheap and run 87 all the time, so that means I save 0.20 a gallon over premium which STILL PINGS in my L26, but 87 and washer fluid doesn't... I had it on the Corvair for the same reason---to run REGULAR which didn't ping, versus running Premium which DID STILL PING.)
-
Did I read that right? Two head gaskets in less than 5 miles? And you're optimistic...indeed you truly are!
What kind of torque wrench are you using on the head bolts? When it blows in that short a distance, either insufficient torque (wrong make up or bad wrench) or excessive warpage is where I'd look, costs be damned. Hoping a head gasket will fix a 0.020" warp won't make it so!
Good Luck.
-
constant tuning with an EFI system is like constant tuning with carburettors.
Some people can buy a 340 Chrysler and drive it 215,000 miles with Air Cleaner changes and never more than an idle readjustment every couple thousand miles.
Other people have the cover off and are in the jets on a weekly basis it seems.
Same with triple carbs, I have set the synch and locked my arms in 1985. To this date, other than idle screw checks I have not had to rejet or readjust anything.
If you have o2 correction, and the correction tuning parameter set properly, 'fiddling constantly' will not be necessary. If you are, there is something going wrong with the engine.
Most new ECUs incorporate long and short term fuel trim to tailor the base tune to the engine. It's why many new car diagnostics start with 'disconnect the battery for 30 seconds to reset the computer'... it sets it back to square one where the car should run, and then let you go from a known starting point. It lets the ECU run on a very poorly maintained engine without skewing outside emissions parameters. This should not be a car on this forum---they are likely overmaintained. There shouldn't be variances that big that would skew a MAP based system enough to change parameters that much (with correction turned on)---now, if you aren't availing yourself of O2 correction...then why bother with EFI?
-
Batch fire is over 3500 on that ECU, not below.
-
I don't think I would catagorize 8.5:1 CR as 'high compression'...
-
3.5 psi at idle, rising equivalent with boost. Webers work at 3.5 psi, and all you need do is run the pressure via a boost-referenced regulator to keep it 3.5 psi above boost.
less that that, and you loose float bowl level and run lean, more and you run higher levels and consequently rich.
Read Yetterbens' threads on his buildup (start of something awesome) and what he went through with his blow-through DCOE18's.
I preferred Mikuini's myself, and went to EFI for the stuff you will read about in Bens' thread. Thing was, I didn't have to change my fuel pump when I went EFI! Just the regulator setting.
-
-
Second: The quote you use to vilify me, was taken out of context.If you refer to the entire post, you may recall the phrases:" I'm a bit perplexed", and "I'm personaly baffled". These statements indicate a lack of knowledge, and or understanding.
The intended inflection was one of looking for a clarification/explanation/edification.
R.I.F.
Indubitably it is, and this is why you have chosen to say 'my theories are all shot full of holes' yet proffer absolutely nothing in response to my query as to exactly what I said was incorrect.
Abusive rant? You were the one getting personal, and then coucing is from the 'gee shucks I don't know nuthin man' perplexed commentary. If youre so perplexed, what exactly am I wrong about in this situation? How have I misled the gentleman?
If you want to chuck stones in a non-helpful manner I'd suggest you don't. Jumping in a thread to profess ignorance helps nobody.
Ron, I did get up on the wrong side of the world. And when I see stupid commentary like this I should take it to PM, but in this case, it's not worth it. I institute a self-ban of a week for my misbehaviour. But idiots need a smacking now and again and you moderators can't have all the fun. That agression can not stand.
And as for 'reputation of abusive rants'---get your f-ing forums staright. If you have a hard-on from a forum where i no longer post, and haven't for some time now-you need to leave your bigoted ideas at the door. This ain't there, and what I posted was not abusive nor conceited. If you can't take questions in a mature matter, don't post inflammatory things about someone and then expect not to go challenged.
As you have admitted, you have nothing to add---and have not responded to what 'holes' which are applicable.
If you are suggesting the guy to go a returnless system, you damn well can state that instead of nebulous commentary and stone-throwing.
I'll go to Thailand for a week in exile. So goes my self-expurgation from the forum for my outburst.
-
We had our first DNS at El Mirage this past weekend. Andy bumped the new extinguisher actuator plunger and, well....there went a $600 charge for nothing.
I guess there's later in the year. We got, after all the hemming and hawing, reduced to GT class by the Roadster Contingent. A 2+2 is no longer considered a 'production' vehicle, so we will be unable to better any of our former records.
Now Coupes (which were always GT) will compete with 2+2's in the same class. A great step forward in the inclusive environment on the dirt. Nothing like being scared your DOHC Monza has to compete with an aerodynamic brick with a 50 year old Japanese SOHC engine design. Gawd forbid...
-
L28ET pump since 1985 on HKS Blowthrough and Mikuini 44's.
-
I know, it's a 5amp PWM circuit that controls that stuff on the Fords. MS has a PWM driver compatible...
-
but 25 lbs is allot of boost
Sigh... still fixated on pressure.
-
Additionally, the loss of fuel pressure to "0" will indicate a leak somewhere---usually the fuel pump check valve. There are check valves that have low open pressures which can be installed in the line to replicate the action of the in-pump check valve. This will aid in the loss of pressure. If you loose pressure, you will have issues.
Then again, the three second power-on of the fuel pump (and maybe a light on the dash triggered by a 37psi pressure switch in the rail) before starting will also negate the hard-starting issues that come with 'no fuel pressure' in the rail.
-
I understand, and tend to agree with Tony D, but what I see with NEW cars tends to shoot some holes in some of his therories.
Firstly: Anybody who is putting ANYTHING I have said about a 40 year old system to use in a MODERN returnless system is an idiot. They are two different animals. For someone to actually think ANYTHING I have EVER discussed was meant to apply to a modern system...foolishly stupid is the most polite way I can phrase it. Who the hell would make such a stupid leap of (il)logic?
Better put your money where your mouth is with that above comment and show me ONE Thing I have stated which is incorrect, not factual, nor based on firsthand observation on the fuel system beiong discussed in this thread (And I don't recall the car in question having a modern Returnless Fuel System).
You think the heat and the fact of a returnless fuel system has ANYTHING to do with it? Do you understand the impetus for a returnless system (EVAP Regulations)?
Since you are so up on them, please tell the rest of the forum how they control fuel pressure.
Please tell them when the car is off, on these returnless fuel systems, what happens as the fuel injectors heat soak?
Edify us as to what happens should the anti-return valve in the fuel system malfunctions due to a small speck of dirt in it, or whatever...
NOW....
Understand that the older systems have a return line, and the FPR is part of the issue that CONTRIBUTES to the problem. The fuel pressure is NOT ALLOWED TO RISE and keep the vapor from forming. The FPR releases the hot fuel back to the tank, and eventually as the heat soak goes away, you see a DECREASE (then resultant flash to vapor) of the fuel.
Were you to clamp the fuel supply and fuel return line on the car in this post when you shut it off, it would react EXACTLY like a current returnless system, the fuel would NOT turn to vapor.
If you are going to throw nebulous B.S. commentary about me not knowing what I'm talking about, you damn well better puke up some specifics and discuss it rather than throwing nebulosities or calling them 'theories'! I don't think you know as much as you think you do. About the new, or old systems. You have the typical attitude of someone who works on new stuff and hasn't a CLUE about any historical problems or perspectives. You may work on the new stuff all day long, but that doesn't mean you know anything at all about what we are discussing here on a nearly 40 year old system. Don't ascribe my 'theories' to a new fuel system, I have NEVER discussed a returnless system, so I have no 'theories' to espouse about it--other than the questions I posited above. I know the answers, the question is do you, Jasper?
-
sticky vote #2
-
The Harrison/Delphi V5 series uses a variable swash plate on the pistons, much like hydrostatic pumps. This is old technology, been in play for years in hydraulics. Apparently it has finally trickled down. From what I can see they use a pressure-balancing bellows.
So is this the pump you aim to use? Toyota is also using a Variable Displacement unit which may fit in a standard Sanden footprint. If not, then what I stated still stands about accessories, all they do is affect state change, the item doing the work still overcompresses and wastes energy--using a non VDP the selection should be the smallest pump available to compress the medium for most efficient operation with system capacitance sized for anticipated transients.
-
I have to go with KTM on this one, the height of the pressure plate fingers for proper engagement is what determines the height, and even though there are four collars shown in the photo, generally there are two which will work in all situations.
"Short and Long"
The difference between the other two of 'medium length' will ONLY matter if you have some funky non-standard clutch assembly which has a thicker build depth on the clutch facing, or when it's very worn and you want to get right to the rivets before having engagement issues.
There are actually many more collars that what have been mentioned, each with their own part number, and what it ends up being is fractional millimeters of clutch life at the very end of the discs service life.
In most cases, if you have retrofit an adjustable slave ROD, it will not matter one whit unless you get the absolute shortest collar and fit it to the shortest PP assembly (finger height distance-wise). Then the rod may not be long enough, even with the adjustment all the way out for proper disengagement of the clutch.
Selecting the wrong collar is not the end of the world, there are different length rods out there to fit to the slave which will acoomodate for this as well, about 5mm different (longer or shorter) on this rod and you will get proper function restored without having to drop the tranny and put in the right height collar.
Unfortunately I am too far away right now (Jakarta) to be able to go out with a depth mic and measure the T5 housing, but the PRESSURE PLATE height on an L28ET Diaphragm is exactly the same no matter what tranny is in it. The T5 argument is as simple to resolve as this: measure the engine mounting flange distance to back of throwout collar distance near the input shaft furthest riding point, and compare with the N/A five speed. You will find, in addition to the pivot ball distance (the last adjustable point in the system, fulcrum point) that the combination will be a Nissan Standard Distance.
This leaves the installed height of the diaphragm the ONLY factor in determining which length collar to use. Someone stating "N/A 5 Speed" needs to remember these cars are 40 years old, and can have any number of components swapped in the past. That you have an L28 Five speed does not mean it's got an L28 clutch cover and collar in there, especially if it's in an early 240---some people have swapped clutches from their existing L24/26 to their L28 because it was still a good clutch. No reason not to do it, and it works fine.
If you get it wrong, alter the rod length. The only time it gets critical is if you get the longer collar and you physically have a 'crush situation' and that should not happen with the Datsun automotive collars. Which is what upsets me about Eric's illustration above... they are giving an irrelevant distance (or have it diagrammed wrong)---the operational / functional distance is from the collar engagement to the bearing face---there is plenty of backspacing to accomodate any collar in any tranny. They also left off 'A' series 5 speed... When you start looking at it from fork to bearing face (the effective working length when pivoted on the fulcrum point) you will find FAR more pertinent information, and 2 or 3mm difference will not make a shite bit of matter. Forklift stuff doesn't count.
-
What is the control scheme on these compressors, sliding valve driven by PWM?
-
My symptoms are that the car will not restart after it has been sitting for 5-15 minutes on VERY hot days. ... It does keep pressure for several hours, although I have been planning on replacing the check valve.
No, it does not. You are TOTALLY missing my description on what is happening.
You show pressure but what you have in there is fuel which has changed state. That gasseous fuel does NOTHING to start the car when you crank it. It needs liquid fuel, not gasseous vapors. And those little millisecond pulses will not get those bubbles out. And those superheated injectors will do their thing to keep liquid fuel flashing to gas for a little while as well. See, in the dead-headed injector, fuel can not FLOW THROUGH THEM! So any gas trapped in there has to be displaced. Gas compresses but since it's at the same pressure as the regulated fuel, it doesn't go anywhere.
The FINAL solution to the problem was side-feed injectors. You don't see the issue in cars with that style injector, because the fuel is ocntinually flowing THROUGH the injector OVER the body and cooling it, instead of simply being pushed in the back-end and being let shoot out the front!
Your gauge shows pressure, but it's not FUEL thats' in there registering. It's boiling petrol with the FPR bleeding the displaced petrol out of the rail and back to the tank.
Wrap the rail properly, isolate it properly from heat, and you will not have this issue. Priming pulse will take care of 99.999% of the starting problem. Just bypass your 's' terminal with a spring loaded switch so you can 'crank' the car for a couple seconds without the starter turning. 3 to 5 seconds usually does it. This is VERY simple to fix, and not that big a deal. You don't need to spray freon or R134 or whatever whiz-bang Hydrocarbon they are selling these days. You just need to circulate the fuel out of the rail and then live with a slight stumble on startup.
I mean, how often does this really happen? Filling a tank of gas takes longer than the time period, so no issue there. Doing a splash-n-dash might exacerbate it.
If it was 'vapor lock' it would happen when running. And in the S30 and S130's as long as the engine is idling, and fuel is flowing, there is no gasseous bubble formation. It's only after it stops and fuel cooling flow stops that the temp can rise above 200F and cause an issue.
-
Nobody makes variable displacment compressors for that small service in portable applications. They are far too expensive.
Variable orifice works on change of state. It still relies on overcompression and accumulation/capacitance for fundamental operation.
Only large stationary plants use variable displacement compressors to lower the electrical load required to compress the refrigerant to the required pressures and volumes to accomplish the BTU transfer required.
-
I would almost go back to the .63 and get back 1000rpms of powerband and see if the plugs do the same thing there.
Usually boost threshold GT35 is around 3400? So now 4400???
With a cap of around 6500, that is sounding awfuly 'peaky' to me.
You got nothing better to do Phil, put the .63 back on there with the new plugs and satiate all (my) curiosities. If it works, you just picked up 1000 rpms of hard pull.
If it doesn't you're only out a couple hours of your life. That's one nights drinking...
-
Xnke, what you are missing in your assumptions is that a 'more efficient cooler' somehow will change the BTU's that need to be rejected. It won't.
And the compression required (lower head pressure or not) will still be the same.
It's why I said the work done is the same. I'm not going to get into polytropic head calculations, but you aren't changing anything, the cabin will still have X BTU's to remove, and the condenser will still have X BTU's to reject. If you have a bigger condenser, this doens't make that any different. You may be exchanging them quicker, but you still have to compress and cool again to remove it.
You are confusing excess capacity with efficiency.
You touched on the ONLY thing that would really make a difference: A Variable Displacement Compressor.
In fact, operating a compressor at the lowest possible head pressure CONTINUOUSLY is the most effective and efficient way to operate this system. The FO system would work, with the evaporator core temperature controlling a varialbe unloading piston (or various other capacity control scheme on the compressor) to keep it loaded 100% and ONLY compressing what it NEEDS to compress to accomplish the BTU rejection/adsorption in the system. In this case the accumulator would act to dampen transients. This is how larger industrial systems with complex PLC control schemes work. FAR more space required than available in the engine bay!
This is why I chose the Geo Metro Compressor---it would be operating near capacity all the time---it's the SMALLEST compressor that will accomplish the job. And THAT leads to EFFICIENCY.
Making cores flow better, increasing their heat rejection only allows them to be SMALLER to do the same job. If you OVERSIZE THEM then you loose that efficiency as you now have unrequired system volume, blah blah blah...
I just spent three days programming a system integrator that allows 3 500HP variable displacement compressors track a dynamic plant load---each compressor having approximately 35% turndown, and each compressor supposedly having a 50% total load capacity. System pressure was designed to be X kPa, and I successfully tuned the system to run a X-250kPa much to the System Engineer's Consternation. He too believed he needed large storage, but if the control system is good enough and can respond quickly there is no need for any overshoot, or undershoot, and reservior (accumulator) capacity just becomes a luxury. This setting saved this plan ungodly amounts of Kw. I do this stuff every day and have a pretty good handle on system dynamics. The exchangers don't change the BTU's in or rejected. And ultimately THAT determines comrpessor size.
IMO, with the compressor you have you are solidly in 1970's technology by oversizing the compressor by a factor of about 3X. This is terribly inefficient.
Exchanger modifications will allow you to exchange BTU's but the medium to exchange these BTUs must be compressed and expanded to do this function. You will overcompress, then depend on accumulator volume to dampen them. If you want EFFICIENCY, any engineer will tell you go with the SMALLEST possible compressor and ADD CAPTIVE VOLUME (capacitance).
The COMPRESSOR is the key to the efficiency equation. Anything else is window dressing, it is at the change-of-state portion of the equation, and this is a zero-sum game. BTU's in and BTU's out. The energy used comes from compression to ENABLE change of state. You need to get efficiency out of the compressor.
-
Different subject altogether. Later cars used Oil Pressure to maintain the fuel pump, earlier cars used a set of contacts in the AFM.
Does this car run at all?
300zx ecu, misfire, below 3000 batch fire? HELP!!!
in S30 Series - 240z, 260z, 280z
Posted
Is your tachometer accurate? How do you know your 2700 rpms is correct? Do you realize the injectors go from double-pulse per cycle batch-fire to a single massive pulse above 5000 as well? Can cause fuel delivery issues as well...5225 or some bizzare number.