Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
Er yeah, it's not 18-22psi, it's 18-22 inches Hg. I'll lay money on it.
If you have a stock EFI Z with that low a vacuum, it's affecting the fuel delivery. Check valve adjustment...
Mine is anywhere from 12 to 20" Hg depending on what cam I'm running. I want to say the stock L28ET in the 260 has something like 35kpa at idle.
Good Luck.
-
Looks like Alan has this well in hand, I'm in late to the party again.
Believe it or not, I bought an L20A complete factory service manual off e-bay for $5 plus shipping. They are out there, early manuals that combine the specs for L24/L20A.
Like Alan says, there are several models, so know which application you have!
Good Luck!
-
Get a big enough turbo, and it will be no restriction at all. Then just run N/A ITB's, and tell all the Honduh boyz you got "An N/A Turbo!"
The ultimate Ricer Mod: A turbo so big, hung on a high compression N/A Engine, but totally non functional in any way shape or form other than asthetic!
What direction is this board turning????
LOL
-
what "yard" are you going to that has multiple ZXT's in it?
Ohhhhh, one right up the 60 from Hacienda Heights!
Matter of fact, the guy I told about the BW T-5 on the car drove from Diamond Bar to get it that morning. He was closer than you, but not by muuuuch....
Muahahahahaha!
-
"The problem was the plugs were arcing out against the block, not firing inside the cylinders at all. Try running your motor in pitch black and rev it up, check around the plugs to make sure they arent arcing out."
This is common on Stationary Lean-Burn Turbocharged Engines.
This is a GREAT reason to install your plug boots with Dielectric Compound. Not only does it make the boots easy to get off, but it totally eliminates any air available to convert to O3 and give an easy arc-over path for errant high tension voltage.
-
The "Large Port" on the Weber T/B is for the PCV line in some applications. There are some throttle bodies that have the line hooked up at the T/B, and not in the intake rubber bellows lines.
I actually scored one of these in a Junkyard, and when I started rooting around in the car, found the ORIGINAL T/B, in the weber big throat box, complete with installation instructions and blank waranty registration card for the Weber Big Throat!.
Total cost: $30.
SCORE!
-
I took a 77 EFI system off a complete original car out in ElPaso Texas. I know it had a round-port manifold on it, but can for the life of me not recall the head casting number. I don't even recall if there were port liners.
There are some odd variations of N42 castings out there from overseas, not all "N42's" are the same as what we got here in the USA. They used N42's on Cedrics and Glorias for years after they were out of the production run for the USA. I have a 1977 N42 head from a Cedric in my 73. had only 44000KM on it when I got it, from the original owner with all maintenance documents available. But that head has the Rectangular Ports.....
which gives me pause to also go "hmmmmmmmmmm..."
-
I concur, looks like one of the Cat Turbos.
I wish I had a digital photo of some of the Turbos I have crawled over....
48" and 54" inlets on Sulzer Inline Ship Engines (one for every three cylinders on the 12 cylinder unit I worked on in San Pedro). Think they were ABB Brand.
Have overhauled Elliott ET-18 (18" Diameter Turbine Wheels) as well as the Cooper line of turbos in the 1800 to 3300HP range.
But I got away form that "hot side stuff" and went into simple Turbocompressors for plain jane air compression and plant utilities....
-
Volkswagen was the first to mass market with Electronic FI. The 1968 Type 3 went from Dual Carbs to EFI.
For everyone touting the EFI as "new and spectacular" you got to wonder what their historical perspective is....
Anyway, went back to the yard today with my son (snuck him in...underaged), and pulled a Hydraulic Liftered L28ET with 155.442 miles on it that hopped a curb and was impounded. Still had pressure in the fuel rail, fresh gas, and nice green antifreeze in it, as well as refrigerant under pressure in the A/C System.
So I have a spare. Was so beat by the end of the day, didn't bother to pull the differential companion flange, nor the spare 81ZXT CAS unit sitting just three cars away.
Or to pull the 81ZXT Block. Must be getting old.
-
THe other problem is it attacks carbs pretty bad. I disassemble mine every time I use it and blow it dry and spray penetrating oil everywhere.
EFI would be interesting though.
I had an old Rupp 600 Nitro Drag Racing Sled. There were several stickers on the cowl: "Carburettors Equipped For Methanol, Change Diaphragms After Every Racing Day"
It is VERY corrosive, more than a stainless filter, you would be well advised to run stainless on all your fuel lines, run a methanol resistant slushed tank, and consider a Glasfibre Reinforced Nylon 66 Fuel Rail (which helps with heat, but that's beside the pint) for your injectors.
Keep in mind that the AFR is around 7:1 as stated above, roughly twice the normal stoch for gasoline. That means injectors that are BIG. Twice what you normally would run for the same gasoline engine. And the injectors will have to be methanol compatible as well.
For the effort, you may as well run CNG using salvaged components. Octane of 120+, the ability to carry at least 5 gallons equivalent onboard a Z-Car, and a cost around $2 a gallon, unless you get a home fueling unit (about $2K) and then your fuel costs are around .40 cents a gallon.... You will need some big injectors for that as you are injecting gasseous fuel instead of liquid, but IMO the conversion is probably slightly more practical if you have a CNG station nearby (mine is 2.5 miles from my house, on the way to the nearest 1/8 mile strip! So yeah, that's why I was thinking about it so much!)
Methanol is nasty, corrosive stuff. Stainless and Plastic Fuel system components. But it will be a hoot. Ignition at colder temps shouldn't be as much an issue with EFI as carbs. My ethanol experiment wouldn't start (carburetted) at colder temps (needed a preheater), but EFI would change all that...
-
Well, while the 260ZT sits in the backyard languishing, with me too disgusted/preoccupied to work on it, I scored big on VW EFI parts today at the Junkyard.
Which should get my 66 VW Bus (or the 62) running on fuel-only MS.
Got me the OEM Air Temperature Sensor, Head Temperature Sensor, and Injector hardware (less the Dual Port Endpieces)
What I was really happy about was the old style VW Distributor. I go Perlux Across the board on the VW's, and this will happen with that one as well, but the old 68-75 Type III have a secondary set of contacts that sent a breaker signal to the ECU for injector sequencing. Hopefully it will have no inductive problems. These old VW ECUS were buggier than Beta Megasquirt! LOL
Man, working around that engine bay reminded me how far Electronics have come! The MAP sensor on the three vehicles I was raping was about the diameter of a Beer Can, and 4" long! And OH! the "Calibration for Altitude Routine"
Turning the key on and off and back on again while coasting seemed to be a pain till I saw that thing in there and remembered the "old procedure"!
And now I hear there's a dual MAP sensor board... LOL
First things first, gotta get ONE of the two projects going...sooner or later. These were about the last of the bits I needed for the conversion. I'll probably use the Nissan stuff for the rest of the conversion on the VW. I'll check the head temperature sensor against a Nissan CHT. It's taken me since I logged on Megasquirt Yahoo Forums till now to FIND a complete VW EFI engine that had these components STILL ATTACHED. Now to compare the curves and substitute adequate, available spares!
Not Z-Related, but I did pick up an Alternator from Jeff Priddy to put into the car to see if that one does any better in the "noise" area.
Grasping at straws when I have the time...
-
That seems to be the consensus between most theorists. But as we all know sometimes anomalies exist in actual practice that don't fit the textbook guidelines.
I have seen the gauge loop and setup he used (think Bernard has as well) and at least I can attest to the numbers he posted. Same gauge used on both intake and exhaust with zero loss fittings. So even if the "pressure" was wrong, the delta reading was indistinguishable. My only lament was that I didn't have access to my old master gauge set and deadweight calibrator to set a gauge up with a better resolution (1/10 lb, instead of just 1 lb resolution). I have since bought some peizo transducers for my Fluke (for work) and the enxttime we get frisky we will use those to check the pressure, electronically with a two-digit resolution to the right of the decimal. I think the differential on his old setup would be in the inches of mercury, or inches of water. I am pretty sure there is SOME restriction, just not sure how much of a differential. Less than 1# for sure!
People don't want to believe his .63 was working like that, but it was...
We haven't tested it with the GT series unit yet.
-
There are plenty of British Car Sites that will offer the same services, but why go cross-manufacturer when ZThreapy knows our setups and what works?
Why the resistance to ZT?
-
You still have to consider the pumping gains from pressurized intake charge ,which is greater than the pumping loss, since the intake pressure exceeds the exhaust pressure.[/u']
This is most definately not the case! On an undersized turbine perhaps. But for a perfect example I refer you to JeffP's last setup where his exhaust gast pressure was 23psi at the turbine inlet when his intake manifold was at 23psi!
This turbo came on violently at 3000rpms to full boost, not one of the laggy an controlable progressive gradual increasers with a 4500 boost threshold.
Everyone said his turbine was "too small" and "restrictive" but actual testing on his engine proved the theorists wrong in that case.
I would argue his setup at that point was ideal for what it was, even though he has gone to a larger A/R turbine now, with a more progressive boost building.
I guess having a 450hp differential in about 500 rpm can be a bit of a control problem in a corner!
Usually exhaust pressure is "higher" than intake pressure. On racing engines like F1 (as mentioned earlier) they could have far more intake than exhaust pressure, but then again the engine was optimized to have a VE under boost and was optimized as such. The VE of the engine without boost (like an RB26) is shot to hell when they aren't running turbo bost through their optimized ports and inlets.
-
Hey Tony, I'd like to see the picture of the OS car if you could still find it? (actually all of them, I love that kind of stuff! Anecdotes are so much fun...)
Oh, I know EXACTLY where they all are! They have been displayed on my whale tail at MSA in years past. Always gets people to go "ooooooh!"
LOL
I would have to scan the 432 and the OS Car, they are film prints.
The LY engine at least was posted on my Cardomain Page---someone linked to it either eariler in this thread, or over at ZC.C. The 'RED Engine'.....
Trying to straighten out the laptop to recover what I had on it, my I.T. department gave me three ghosted DVD's problem is I cant access them. I guess they overlooked that little bit of information, so instead of having access to my photos tonight to put them on my home hard drive, I have to wait till tomorrow to ask them "WTF?"---in any case, I'll put that on the list I suppose!
-
The loss of VE from the exhaust restriction is not due to pumping loss, but loss from leftover exhaust gasses remaining in the combustion chamber. If there 30psi in the exhaust manifold, then you get respectivly more exhaust gas in the combustion chamber. Decrease the leftover gas, you can bring more gas into the cylinder for the next charge. Exhaust gas left in the chamber is bad for making power, hence the reason small restrictive turbos don't make huge numbers. Let the exhaust breathe more with a bigger turbo, horsepower numbers increase along with VE.[/i']
Reversion is a pumping inefficiency.
But if your turbine is sized correctly, there will be no more pressure in the intake manifold than in the exhaust manifold pre-turbine. That means it's all back to pumping efficiency to determine VE.
But your last statement is exactly what was said earlier: decrease the pumping losses, and you increase VE. Putting a bigger, less restrictive turbine wheel on the exhaust decreases pumping losses. Air in and air out.
-
Oh, I just realized something. "I Liked Them All"---geez what an answer!
Kind of like a kid in a candy shop.
LOL
-
I liked the TC24B-1 mostly becasue it was in a killer 3.3+L conversion and wasn't the "slow revving" engine that most of the boards comment about.
This guy had well over 1 million yen in the stereo alone, I don't even want to fathom what he had in the car totally: TC24B-1 head, 50MM Solexes, HKS Triple Power CDI units, FRP hood, G-Nose, FRP Doors with Perplex Windows in everything but the front, FRP Hatch..... Where did it end? I have photos of this car in my old photo album form Japan Days...
It was a hoot to be sure. I don't know that I liked it "the best" simply because of the 432 That I got to drive during the same time period.
That was an original 432, with a Grand Slam GTR 2.2 Kit, and needed all of it's stock 10K RPM Tach! It was like running a Honduh, with it's mechanical injection cams and refitted Mikuini 44phh's (owner said the mechanical slide valve setup---which he had stored in old US Army Rocket Boxes---was to difficult to keep running on the street.
For the "small displacement revving rush" that car was probably the best all around fun car to drive. It revved and liked it. 4.44 Gearing and positraction, it really wasn't much different than what came from the factory. I don't know the 200CC's from the grand slam kit was worth all that much.
it was almost 20 years later when I got a drive in the 3.0L LY car. It's the one posted on my cardomain page. It was a strong runner, but not unlike the better built Non-Crossflow L28's I have been around.
The OS Engine was a "gee whiz" kind of addition, I think the breathing helped a massively stroked engine rev much more eagerly.
For a street car the 432 with the cams was simply just fun to drive and different than the others which were much more low end grunt due to the displacement difference.
I only wish the 432 was allowed for Bonneville Competition. I understand the 432 setup in proper tune was capable of over 300HP, which is stout by any measure for a 2L N/A Anything! And it would take the class record hands down. It would probably run close to the current 3l Class record holder (er, that's us, LOL!)
-
Bit misleading (and bad form) to post partial troubleshooting information you have received, especially if it's one-sided.
I'd suggest you get the FSM and do the component nad circuit tests contained therein. Start at the basics. Like I said there, if you won't follow suggestions and want to argue with what is presented, then I personally won't bother helping further. No time for that kind of round and round any longer.
I'm saying nothing more.
Good Luck.
-
Scope the Spark Output as well!
Put the thing on a SUN Scope or something and run a lead on one of the plugs to a variable gap ignition tester (like a spark plug with a threaded ground electrode, you can increase the gap without getting zapped.)
Watch the flashover peak on the scope till the thing misfires, then try increasing dwell to see if you can reinitiate spark. if it does, repeat.
You will eventually find a "diminishing returns" point. I mean, after 60KV, the spark has a tendency to jump dirty plug porcelan, through wires' insulation, from the coil to the "-" terminal on the coil.... You end up having to dielectric every high tension lead you have and continaully look for spark leakage...
But you rarely have a misfire problem that is associated with the plug gap!
Of course, if it does misfire... then you start seeing all the stuff I mentioned above...
BTW, try using a 300ZX Coil (Z31) and be amazed at how sparky they are! On mine, with the pertronix flame thrower HEI, I'm jumping almost 3" of visible blue-white spark that I can see in broad daylight! That coil is HOT! It was after I put that coil in that I found out the PCV hose on the top of the valve cover was made of conductive rubber! Coil wire was "placed in a safe area" and POP POP POP! Was wondering WTF, cranked it again and the POP POP POP was from the coil lead across air to the brand new upper PCV hose I had just installed! Every time it went "POP" when the spark landed it made a little "poof" of smoke rise from the PCV Hose. It was neat as hell, I still show people when they come over, everybody thinks it's cool to see "rubber conducts electricity"! LOL
The little poofs of smoke are mighitily impressive as well. 'Dat Sum Spark!'
Get it? he he he he he
-
Especially if you lived in Japan when the head was still in production and have driven/ridden in cars with one on it! (S20, LY, AND TC24B-1)
-
Er...
"We Digress!"
lol
-
I think the point missing is that turbochargers use energy in the exhaust gas to pressurize the intake charge, hence zero effect on pumping loss of the engine itself. Roots blowers or other belt driven is a different kettle of fish.
Actually, the argument can be made that turbos are not "free" as the exhaust restriction imposed by many costs power.
That the payback of the non-linear response of a dynamic compressor outpaces the linear requirements of a positive displacement compressor is the only reason there is a net gain.
The belt driven items have a easily calculatable loss, figuring out the loss from exhaust restriction is much more difficult.
F1 engines have (had) very low backpressure, but weren't really efficient but near design point.
-
As a system you are correct. As a system the efficiency increases.
But when you calculate the VE of the engine itself, using a proper formula and not one with a lumped-together constant making N/A assumptions, you will find the VE is unchanged.
What you have is a "total compression ratio" across the two compressors of 14:1 in my original posted example.
In reality, the individual parts are still operating individually and should be looked at as such.
Which was the point of the "Boost Compression" calculator fallacy.
Same goes for VE calculators using that kind of formula.
The VE (Pumping efficiency) of the engine doesn't change. it still has the same mechanical compression ratio.
The VE (Pumping Efficiency) of the total system of turbocompressor and engine does increase.
Which is what I'm trying to get across. Like "Boost Compression Ratio" is inaccurately applied, so is saying "VE of the Engine increases" which it does not. It's still pumping with the same efficency. That it flows more through it is a function of the supercharger raising that inlet head, it's not pumping that pressure any more efficiently than it would N/A. It's a VE increase for the system, not the engine.
IP banned from MSEFI forums
in MegaSquirt
Posted
I would give a shot posting the specific question on the old Megasquirt Yahoo Groups Site. A different class of cat prowls there, and an obscure question like EMP shielding may get taken up in the discussion there...or not.
But it doesn't get you banned from the "easy to use forum"....