Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
But with around 500 WHP, things go by REALLY fast, and you cant watch. My car will go from 4k, to 8k REAL quick, and I cant monitor my WB autometer guage that fast. So I datalog.
Where did I hear that mentioned in the past?
Unless you have the ability to really load the engine up so it takes TIME to accelerate through the load cells, datalogging is the only real option to see what is going on with the car. Even with that 38% grade, it's still pretty quick...it just gives us more cells in the log table to evaluate the situation instead of grabbing just a few cells and trying to make a quick decisio.
-
The stock stuff is barely grade five, grade 8 in shear loading for 400# is way overkill unless you are planning on lifting it with something like a pair of 4-40 screws...
-
Save your money till you know if it's allowed or not!
If you have a coupe, you will compete in F/GT, where the record is around 158, our record is similar in F/PRO.
Nice thing is in F/GT engine swaps ARE permitted, so you can do a N/A RB30, and still compete in the "F" Class. You also can run the G35 motor for the "E" Class, the Q45 motor for the "D" Class, and the Titan motor for the "C" class. Run the L20A or RB20DE for the "G/GT" and then sleeve the RB for a 1500cc six cylinder and run in "H/GT"! It's really an intriguing possibility actually. But given the vagaries of the board's decision at this point....I might start with a 1979 280ZX Slicktop Standard Model. Better Aero, same engine possibilities, and same parts availability!
I have a 79 280ZX 2+2 Slictop, 83 280ZXT 2+2 (with slicktop roof on it), and another 79 Coupe coming Wednesday....got the idea I was planning on maxing out the S30 Capabilities before moving on? If they disallow the G-Nose it only leaves us competition in the G and H Classes. That means the fully prepped and ready to go "F" motor has no chassis that will be competitive. HELLO 79 SLICKTOP 2+2!!!
PM or E-Mail me if you want some specific information on prepping to the LSR rules, etc. I'd be more than glad to help. And I have a 'spare' one-piece G-Nose that might be available if you are serious about the attempt (it's the 'crash spare' currently! LOL)
-
i thought you were going to tune it on the street ??????
JeffP did most of his low-pass tuning, up to about 70 mph on the street. I already talked with Bryan about doing tuning on that range of power sweeps and saving his dyno time for the 70-140mph passes. It just becomes impractical to tune (not to mention seriouly unsafe) those boost ranges on the street.
One the primary reasons is the Datalogging. There is absolutely no way to watch anything you are doing on a flatland pull from 70-120 in fourth gear. If Bryan's car is like JeffP's (and I am laying money it is) he will simply start smoking the tires at 75-80mph when the boost comes on unless he ballasts the back of the car and has a heavy passenger in it. This is my purpose in Jeff's car: Ballast. The FairladyZ DOES have a traction advantage in that the torqueover is slightly better because of where a single-driver vehicle has it's weight (on the right instead of the left).
To keep Jeff's engine making steady slow sweeps, we simply increase the Grade Percentile and it makes for a pull slow enough that you can WATCH what is happening all the way, and then look at the Datalog afterwards to confirm what you will need to do to the AFR or spark or whatever. Without running at LEAST a 17% grade, Jeff's engine will pull 70-120 in less than 4 seconds. Even at 13-17% grade, the passes are only slightly slower. I'm guessing Bryan's car is accelerating harder from 70-120 than most cars are doing 0-30!
Bryan, you may want to go JDM and get a G-Nose on that car to keep the front end glued to the road at speed. You will start getting light at 170 with that open maw. Time to read the Aerodynamics Threads!!! One drawback to tuning on the street has, is that the vehicle operator steadfastly keeps one hand on the wheel while making passes. Where is the car going to go that you need to steer?????? And KTM is correct, he knows where we are tuning, and if the strap breaks, no amount of steering crankage is going to do anything but fold the wheels into a specific angle when you hit that concrete wall 12 feet in front of you!
I jsut got my United FF update. I have enough for Two Supersaver 25K mile awards in the lower 48. So that means I have the ability to set up the video. Please e-mail or PM me with your schedule so I can coordinate it: turbotony@excite.com. Thanks! Peace.
-
That Autometer works BETTER than my STOCK gauge in the Wife's 260Z!
I have a red paint mark at around '3/8' tank where half actually is...
I replace the tach on that car because the Autometer was $40 cheaper than a stocker, and was more accurate above 2000 rpms. Below there, welll....
nice writeup.
-
we're all pulling for ya.
Puns are my sole domain!
Brilliant one, though!
-
If you want to set up time in SoCal aroudn MSA Bryan, I'm sure JeffP and I can arrange a "Dyno Day" where we rent the Mustang Jeff tunes on for a whole day, and we split the cost. I know a couple of other people who might be interested, and we can set them up as 'alternates' in case something breaks, or we all get the results we want early and quick enough. I wouldn't want more than three or four people, and if I'm operating the Dyno it knocks $25 off the hourly rate...
With the Mustang, we can set the grad for inertial runs so you have plenty of time to loiter at a load point. As well as setting RPM points we don't want you to exceed, and the Dyno will Autoload to prevent the car from accelerating past that point.
You think your exhaust glowed on quick Dyno-Jet Inertial Passes! Wait till you hold the load for five seconds and let your EGT and AFR stabilize!
Frankly, doing the test in Febuary would probably be better. It's not racing season, and the ability to get the dyno for a whole day, as well as having cool days for great air density is better. Peak Power, highest loadings possible.
-
The Electromotive Cars pushing 800+ HP were not 2.5L GTU cars. They were 2.8's (probably 2.8 bored .040" as allowed by rule, and for valve unshrouding).
But as to this:
"The Electromotive cars had completely different combustions chamber designs that were re-shaped, re-welded and had many many hours of skilled work, massive valves, porting and polishing that humbled the best builders and not to mention a very custom cam. "
Up till last year, the same people who worked on the Electromotive heads were available to do the SAME THING to your street car. The head, along with the Cam designed by the same person who did the Electromotive Cam Development work all set up and ready for delivery was around $2400.
You can get the same cam to day, from the same supplier.
unfortunately the head builder will not longer do L-Heads, he's moved on. But truthfully Dave Rebello is getting similar flow numbers from STOCK SIZED VALVES, so don't put much credence in old porting technology. Porting technology is moving on, and with NC Machinery the consistency one can achieve on a port-to-port basis is astounding.
As for welded combustion chambers....someone here who I am not at liberty to divulge is doing some pretty nice combustion chamber reworking. I have seen photos, and I am salivating to see the results!
In the quote from R&T above, note there is obviously some 'understatement' saying the engines eventually made 700HP. That would be rock-solid reliable for a 24 hour race '700hp', afterall, 720 hp is only a 2.7% error in stated horsepower...hardly worth mentioning or parsing.
But just like the L28ET makes 180HP, you KNOW the engine is capable of MUCH MORE for short bursts. Or even prolonged bursts.
The difference in spark control technology now is the primary reason that increased, RELIABLE power is available from the L-Engine.
Bryan, what gap are you running on your plugs? You may want to consider .020-.025" as anything wider may get the spark kernel blown out at boost. It may be spark generation related, but usually guys running higher boost for the first time don't realize the gap needs to be closed up from what an N/A engine normally runs.
-
The Electromotive Cars numbers come from people talking to the Dyno Operators who ran the testing back in the Competition Days. 820 for Sprints and Qualifying was a number given. 750 for Enduros. The published data was in the Road and Track test, and was given at 7500 rpms and 21.6psi of boost. Of course, that would have been valid numbers, had they only run the engine to 7500, and only run 21.6 psi of boost in competition.
The Porsche 917 had coarse acme screwthreads on their boost controller, and in a 270 degree arc, the mechanics had written in yellow paint marker in a clockwise fashion the numbers "600" around 7 o'clock, "800" around 11:30, and "1100" around 2:30... The driver, with a twist of his wrist could almost double the output of the car. Same goes for Electromotive. You knew the engine was tested to well above what you 'needed' in a race to simply win, but if you needed to make up some time, or put on some distance for a maintenance interval you cranked it up.
My only concern is the Turbo Longevity at 17psi. They are stock 280ZXT's and above around 12psi they are grossly inefficient, and with the thrust bearing design they don't live long. I believe mine surged at 23psi, so I limited my boost to 21 on the stock turbos.
I think the 'proof of concept' is complete. I think it's time to quit screwing around and put some .43 A/R exhaust turbines on there to get your spool point down a little, and upgrade to a T4/T3 Hybrid design so you flow a lot more air for the exhaust you produce. I think there are great gains, and the T3/4 hybrids are cheap enough...and you don't have to worry about grinding the Intake manifold, or putting a spacer on the exhaust manifold to clear it! While it's possible that a single 280ZXT Turbo can make 300 hp, and since you have two of them the flow capacity should allow that...I think you need more flow from the Compressor with better efficiency at the 17-25 psi range, along with slightly less turbine area afforded by the .43 A/R housings. For a Nissan .43 A/R (or maybe it's .48) Exhaust Housing that is a direct bolt on retrofit to the turbo cartridges you currently have, they were on L20ET's as well as the LZ18ET---both JDM engines.
Now, to watch the Videos...
Oh, and when I told JeffP about the numbers last night he said "I'd be happy with those numbers. First run on the dyno? F**k yes, I'd be happy with those numbers!"
First time I think I ever heard Jeff say he's happy with ANYTHING automotive related! LOL
Good Job Bryan. 'He who will not be named' must be practicing puckering... my United Tickets have blackout dates, but not the Southwest Tickets...I wonder when SWA will start flying to ATL? muahahahaha!
-
would anyone happen to have the plastic bases and the sprung mounting parts that go under the fender? maybe from a set of mirrors that got sold or damaged? id like to get a pair of these if anyone has em. used or new.
thanks guys.
Watch E-Bay they are on there all the time. Around $200 for a used set.
ON ANOTHER NOTE...
Would it be worth my time to do a 'layover template' on some of my fenders? I have some early S30, as well as Late S30 fenders around where I could lay a template over it and copy the holes directly. The early holes are round, the later Electric Controlled Mirrors are 'teardrop shaped'... The template should scan properly, and be a simple alignment with fender front edge and hood edge. "This side up for Right Mirror, RHD" kind of annotation. That would give exact hole dimensions without having to use your plastic bases as the template for figuring out the centering of the holes.
Whaddya Think?
-
TIT and TOT were monitored, but we focused mostly on TIT as that was our direct goal for monitoring EGT. I can't even remember the delta on that setup.
As for backpressure, with the last build, at 23psi, the backpressure in the manifold was 23psi...
Now, with a turbo flowing more, external wastegate, and tubular header to the turbo, and making probably 100 more RWHP at 17psi that we previously did at 23+ psi I'm thinking our backpressure in the manifold is O.K., especially given the way the engine starts breathing and pulling up top!
If I had a better (read Digital) EGT Gauge for TIT and TOT, comparisons would probably be more valid... I don't know if I wrote those down. I'm thinking I didn't as the stuff I did write down I seem to be remembering pretty well... BAH!
-
Stock lifting points are from the lifting hook at the front right part of the head, and the rearmost exhaust stud (where the lifting hook is probably gone).
I have gone from front lifting hook to EGR bolt with no problems on more than one engine. That way lifts it reasonably evenly if you aren't using a load-leveler.
Remember to unbolt the motor mounts. Don't laugh...it happens!
-
Dynojet's are inertial? Haha.. no wonder they suck so hard.
Dave
Apparently there are upgrades you can do to them now to give a load-point constant load. I just haven't seen one yet to compare with how the Mustang works.
Then again, the Mustang place straps it down and lets us alone. For $75 an hour with me as the operator, it's hard to argue with price, either!!! Not many places just turn you loose on their $40K dyno and say "let us know when you want to get off, we have someone coming in at 1300, so you have to unstrap by 1230 regardless!"
-
I just got off the phone and confirmed with Jeff P my recollections.
Originally he was running the base tune in the 11:1 range, and we had the timing set. Generally it was around 19 degrees at full rpm and 17-20psi of boost.
That original tune was glowing on the dyno. I did confirm that we did not touch the timing, as we were in the 'fuel trim only' mode since our goal was to lean it out till it stopped making more power. We were concentrating on the AFR's near and past the torque peak of the engine (basically 4000 to 7500 rpms).
We kept pulling fuel, with bins past the torque peak in some cases in the 12.8 to 13.2 AFR range being where we settled on. That is to say our process was to go until we either got detonation or we started seeing instantaneous torque drop. At either point, we then backed off .2 or .3 AFR points and left it alone to move to the next loadpoint bin.
So that means we were actually close to 13.5 to get best torque. That would seem to follow the EGT logic from the articles above, the 11:1 for some reason had very high TIT and TOT (not measuring individual cylinders, just turbine in and out) at the 11:1 AFR for some reason. The only thing I can figure is some sort of 'post burning'.
Once we were above 12.5, the differences in TIT AND TOT observed were 'insignificant' on our instrumentation, so it may well have followed the same trend given the 25 degree and 50 degree trends. I used to have access to a 12VDC powered Industrial Engine Exhaust Gas Thermocouple Panel that I would use...digital readout of temperatures accurate as heck. Unfortunately we didn't have that, or the numbers could have been trended closer.
Any reason why his engine would have shown higher temps at 11:1 (only after torque peak) than at 12.7 to 13.5?
Hope that cleared up the mystery somewhat. We definately were not screwing with timing to get EGT's down, it was set and left alone will we got the AFRs more optimized. We were loosing too much power at 11:1, and felt AFR was where the most traction would be achieved power-wise...
-
So in 4.5 hours I will be able to call JeffP and give him the update?
Just got off the phone with him, and now he's waiting for the call as well!
Hurry UP! I'm doing the pee pee dance waiting for the results!
LOL
-
Yes, we would poison our O2's on a regular basis, but it took a while to do it. We had laid in a supply of sensors figuring each racing weekend we would need a new one. Four years later, we still had one left. Five Events a year, plus runs at Bonneville. And I suspect some we changed were fine, but 'due to the new season' we installed a new one. We changed EMS systems, and the new system didn't use the same sensor, so the lone spare sits in the box with the TEC unit...waiting for a street car I guess.
-
Japanese were doing that decades ago, it was a popular "Rice" addition to have the big vents on the back end of the fenders...
You knew the big dogs when they actually had vents that were connected to the engine bay! Some of the Twin Turbo Cars had electric fans under there to pull air through the engine bay...carburetted blowthrough setups don't like all that heat under the hood!
-
Then instead of crossing your fingers start PRAYING they allow the G-Nose as a production part. There is considerable meddling form the Roadster Contingent, and the original bright outlook for the G-Nose continuing on it's 35 year tradition of being allowed on ALL Z-Cars as a Production piece is in SERIOUS Jepoardy now...
Pray to Jeebus the G-Nose is allowed, or you might as well toss it all and build a G-Class Motor (1501 to 2000 cc's) as the S30 will be uncompetitive in F/Pro without the G-Nose that let it set the record in 1975, and for us to break that same record in 2000/2001...
-
You, sir, are mistaken.
Search and you will see the story from day one in the pages here...
-
As Tony mentioned, its reasonably straight forward on a static dyno... and thats the key. With the dyno holding you at a specific RPM, you can tune for MBT (mean-best-torque). I wouldn't even begin to try it on an inertia dyno.
ARGH! I appreciate you noticed I mentioned Mustang! Andy is a big fan of the Dynojet inertial and I DO NOT LIKE tuning on that machine! I MUCH prefer the Mustang. The ability to simply HOLD a point while I try different things just lets me think stuff out...
I mean, we put Jeff's car on a 35% grade and were making passes from 80 to 120mph. Eventually we started toying with some of the Mustang's features that allow it to automatically increase load to prevent the engine from accelerating past X-Point. That was kind of scary... We went back to manually loading the engine at between 15 and 20% grade to allow an 'acceleration' style run. But there were times that I just kept increasing the grade till Jeff gave me the signal that the loadpoint was in the same box he wanted to tune and then he started fiddling while I was watching instaneous torque.
At the load points in the upper ranges of the Map...that meant 17psi at 6800, 7000, 7200 rpm and just letting it sit there while he made adjustments.
What is wild is how when you let the thing sit at a loadpoint for a second or two, you realize that 'fast instrumentation' is not all that fast, and that there is no way in HELL that I would ever want to seriously tune on an inertia dyno under boost because stuff is lagging so bad... You can 'fudge' your numbers a given ammount and get close...but when you can do it right, why not, Eh?
-
D with threat of A
You will need other independent shops to make sworn statements condemning another local shop for small claims...
Who doesn't weld Stainless with Stainless wire. Stainless to Mild I can see a neophyte screwing up on and not using like 309...but stainless to stainless. Man!
Sad thing is you may have to run the exhaust to a failure point to have some real 'damages' or proof positive that it's defective if the other shop owners won't sign on the dotted line fer ya!
Then again, if it's under $1K, do you really want the added stress of getting the satisfaction of a court saying 'your're right'? You STILL have to collect from him, and that will be all on you as well.
You can ask him for whatever you can get back on it, and walk away never to deal or think of him again. I have bosses like that. There is a point where beating the dead horse simply isn't fun no matter how much gore splashes onto you, and you simply want to just walk away, have a beer and go to sleep.
So to speak...
-
That must be some shaved head or welded combustion chamber!
14.5:1 in the 2.8, ran four years at El Mirage and Bonneville. Limiting factor was when the pressed in piston pins walked in the small end of the rods and kissed the block, scoring it. Till that point, and even afterwards it was running fine.
The L20A, well it's lower compression simply because we can't 'pop' the top of a 79mm piston big enough to fill enough of an E88 cylinder head to get the compression we wanted...which was 15.5:1. We will probably make a head in the off season that will remedy that situation.
We run a standard starter in either case. If you are running some sort of Garden Tractor Battery to start your car, and also run EFI, then use a Gear Reduction Starter as the draw on a smaller battery may cause EMS problems.
Race gas is obviously required at these levels.
Generally it's rod bearings that take a beating and require replacement with high CR engines especially if your oiling is marginal. On my Drag VW's we would beat out bearings after as little as 8 runs. Though now I realize this may have been detonation causing the problem.
Since this clip was shown to me, this is about what the Bonneville Car Sounds like... There are You Tubes of it making passes at El Mirage, but meh...this is someone else's so why not generate some hits for them as well?
-
However, I think it's extrordinarily difficult to 1) determine what AFR is best at each RPM/load point and 2) to tune to the desired AFR once it's know. For that reason I make some broader generalizations on what AFR to run at what load point.
Yes it all takes time, but once you get a general idea where the peak power is produced, you simply decide how much 'peak power loss' you can tolerate and set your AFR's up accordingly to give the margin of safety you desire.
We were making passes on the Mustang till we reached peak power, then moved timing around in that area to see what effect it had. Sometimes retuned AFR, then went back and checked for repeatability. Once spark and fuel was optimized we went to the next series of bins on the load chart.
In the Lower N/A portions of the map, we were leaned out quite a bit for economy, and like you said, JGK, under boost we went a bit more conservative with both timing and AFR.
And now we get to do it all over again with the new EMS system!
-
I believed all the same things.
Trust me when I say...
We did not TOUCH timing. We were working 'one variable' at a time. We had a timing curve that was not detonating (FINALLY) and were working FUEL ONLY.
Lance said something similar to what Mack said, it just doesn't all burn...it gets a free ride out the exhaust valve and down the exhaust.
I did not believe him either, and actually Jeff was quite insistent up to that point that we run the recommended 12.5 AFR across the board with minor changes.
After torque peak, we pulled fuel and the EGT's dropped, and power came up.
EVENTUALLY we went to timing after seeing diminishing returns on the fuel, and STARTED to advance the timing...but ran out of shceduled time on the dyno.
Everyone says you can run your whole table in about 2 hours start to finish. I will agree with that. After that two hours you are simply playing around doing things you are curious about...or are too hard-headed about it and are trying to force an issue that will not be resolved without further work in other areas. It was a little of the last two. I think we completed 95% of his fuel spark table in 45 minutes on that run (which lasted ultimately 4 hours I believe), but after that we were curious about what Lance had said to do, and why some things were happening that we couldn't explain.
The last part took Jeff many hours in the garage with a dremel tool and an O-Scope to finally make up his mind...
Let's just say 'back to square one' regarding fuel maps and timing maps...only this time the system being programmed will not be 'Nissan Based'!
Oh, on the EGT and lowering it by richening up the mix...this is basically what I did for years on my non-intercooled blowthrough setup. So my logic for believeing the same things you guys are talking about was rooted in personal experience as well. Add fuel, then take it out till peak or desired EGT is achieved. I would never have thought the EGT would have dropped taking fuel out where we did. There were 'four blocks' on Jeff's map that stayed in the 11:1 portion, and they were the ones where we physically could not get enough load on the engine quick enough to get into due to some air density issues the day at the dyno. So he left them pig rich knowing as we all do 'Rich is Safe'.
Lance is a bit out there, you talk to the guy for about an hour before you realize where he is in regards to engine performance and management. It takes a while for me to get up to his speed...and till then I guess he tolerates my stupid questions. Once we are on the same page, though, then he goes into warp speed explaining things again thinking now you will keep up...and it's back to 'Stupid Tony Questions' again! The guy is out there, in more ways than one...but man he's got the Engine Management Stuff down in a scary way!
Bryan, you may want to go JDM and get a G-Nose on that car to keep the front end glued to the road at speed. You will start getting light at 170 with that open maw. Time to read the Aerodynamics Threads!!! 
twin turbo for 280z or zx anyone?
in Turbo / Supercharger
Posted
Yet people still ask me why I like FairladyZ's so much more than US Spec Vehicles....