Tony D
-
Posts
9963 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
74
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Tony D
-
-
Sssssssss! "He Stands Corrected"! LOL
In 1989, when I was rotating back stateside I got a smug Tech Sargeant who said almost the same thing. I was discussing a Blowoff Valve operation releasing air backpressure in the intake tract to prevent overpressurization and a turbo stall (surge) and he got this big all-knowing smile and stated "Funny, I always thought that was called a wastegate!" (you had to know the guy, it wasn't an innocent comment!)
I similarly corrected him, being it was time for my PCS, I was at my ETS, and he was basically a POS for the whole time I was stationed in Japan...Basically explained it in a FOAD way stating his thoughts were FUBAR and he didn't know HAFAHIG...
Nuff said for military acronyms!
A Wastegate controls turbine speed as a function of boost (or turbine backpressure in some cases).
A Popoff Valve is an emergency relief DOWNSTREAM of the throttling plate.
A Blowoff Valve is a relief UPSTREAM of the throttling plate.
It can be argued that the BOV can also be used as a POV, but in no cases will a POV be able to be used as a BOV.
In the above photo, it's showing and aftermarket BOV, the stock unit dumps into #4 Intake Runner and is of a non-adjustable design working on pressure differential instead of being vacuum assisted in opening. The one in the photo could also be deemed a "Compressor Bypass Valve" if plumbed correctly, whereas the stock unit in the Nissan Manifold is ONLY a BOV, and will never bypass the compressor, no matter what.
I digress...
-
I am not ready to do the swap yet' date=' but I am close. I have been reading all of the swap related posts looking for problems guys have had before and after their swap.
This bad connector problem seems to be prevelant. Even after cleaning the connectors and exersizing them in and out, they fail.
But, I am wondering, [i']is that really the issue?[/i] Could it be that the ECU, needs to be reset? Would disconnecting the Battery and reconnecting it provide a required reset? I don't know, is there an eprom or something that needs a reboot?
NO! They are "dumb" there is no "learning" like on the newer ECU's.
They are now (at the best) 23 years old. Put a tin can out in a room, and let it sit for 23 years, and see if that tin is still nice, shiny, and bright after 23 years. Think about it.
Don't make it sound like it's all that out of the ordinary for a car with 23 year old components to have issues with electrics. The thing to take away from Cygnus' Post (IMO) is that by insulating the pins properly with Dielectric Grease, and keeping OXYGEN away from the freshly cleaned plugs the RAPID REOXIDATION is forestalled for a much longer period of time.
I have gone through this myself, and learned LONG ago that Dielectric on EVERY Low-Voltage contact in the EFI system was THE way to do it.
Something about cleaning the connectors mechanically or chemically seems to leave them open for rapid reoxidation.
I have recently begun using the DEOXIT product from Radio Shack, but even after "gold coating" the pins, I STILL am using dielectric on the parts. I think the second part of the Deoxit product is simply another method for preventing reoxidation.
If you look at the newer connectors, the OEM's have taken GREAT pains to seal out moisture form the pins, and make the connector virtually airtight at the same time. Nice multi ribbed silicone barbs sheathing the pins individually, going together so tightly they "pop" when you break the suction pulling them apart. OEM's realized low voltage doesn't like corrosion (resistance), and now have figured out better connectors to keep the contact clean.
Short of replacing the connectors with modern types, the only other reasonable alternative is the dielectric sealing of the pins.
There IS a secondary failure mode whereby the wire at the end of the loom corrodes and causes problems, but that is more in the engine compartment, and not at the ECU multi-connector. That is solved with replacing the connectors and using proper pigtails or harness repair techniques.
-
Well, the point I was making is that even though the bolts "might" interfere with head mounted injector placement, EVERY head made by Nissan has those six holes!
It's nice to make something that you don't have to stock two parts for. Granted its another machining step, but for someone selling just the flanges it would be a universal part.
That, and I have three heads totally ported back in Japan during the mid/late 80's by the #1 L-Engine Builder there, and two of them are non-efi bolt patterned!
Along with that, I just picked up a former Electromotive head that is E88 casting, and that means no injector notches nor four big bolt holes.
There are a lot of carburetted engines out there that would definately benefit from an EFI upgrade, doing it with their existing $2400 ported head would be a good selling point.
Our Bonneville car uses an E88-Based Head, and a Triple Carb Manifold, you guessed it, no "four big bolts".
And yep, if you want to shoot me a quote for the flange alone, feel free, James---I think you have the flange/injector integrated setup as well, correct?
-
To be nice I'll say "no", it's comvered in the swapping post in the FAQ I believe. Use the Vapor Return Line instead, it is big enough, you just return fuel through one of the 1/4 connections on the top of the tank instead of that dinky 3/16" stock return line.
-
Justin, that is a nice flange incorporating the Fuel Injectors. Please PM or E-Mail me, I may want to buy a few from you (actually I do want to buy them, it's just a matter of when I can get them!)
Thanks!
On an aside, do ANY of you guys think of making a flange that DOES NOT use the EFI bolt pattern? Both Justin and Brian's flanges BOTH use the EFI bolt pattern----something for the older heads would make it dual purpose. ALL Nissan heads have the Six-Bolt Carburetted flange, but only EFI heads have that Four-Bolt setup. Just asking, guys, how about it?
-
Terrible Suggestion I have, but....
If you SLIGHTLY heated the bore, it probably will slide on.
Or, if you packed the snout in ice (dry ice preferably), the snout will shrink enough to stick it on there.
Tight Fits Fight Frets! (Catchy Machinist's Slogan There) With that tight of a fit, though it would seem prudent to use some Molykote or other Anti-Gall lubricant to ease removal in the future. With .001/.0015" fit, or even a bit more than that you should be able to get it off using conventional pullers if you stick it on there with light heat on the bore and Molykote on the Snout.
-
The other thing is that pete was running 16psi of boost and got his numbers, not exactly a factory boost setting. I ran stock boost levels and got a little more performance.
Then again, the last time I saw your car on a dyno, Jeff, it was making what, 278 HP and 319 Ft-Lbs @ 4875rpm?
On 8 pounds of boost.
I love mixy matchy claims. Given the above facts would it be an untruthful claim to say JeffP has close to 300HP @ 8#, on his Nissan-ECU'd (meets SCCA Rules for STOCK COMPUTER), downpipe and exhaust system equipped 83 280ZXT?
Not at all. A bit misleading, but not untruthful in the least bit.
Claims are not much unless the testing is comparative, which is what JP is poking at I guess. Amongst other things.
-
Smokey Yunick complained about the lack of deck height on the Small Block Chevy. You will notice that some of the aftermarket blocks now produced come with the taller deck height Smokey so bitterly complained about....
That aside, Isky makes a nice turbo grind and doesn't cost anything extra than their normal cam. If you call and talk with Ron there, and give him your engine specifics, they will grind just about anything you want for the standard cost of the cam---with as long as they have been working on the L-Engine Cams, usually one if their stock grinds will be suitable, they just set it up with a different lobe center, separation, or split the intake and exhaust grind (Like L4 Intake, and L9 Exhaust Lobes, as opposed to using an L4 L4 standard grind.) JeffP has had great time after getting that cam setup in his latest build, nice 7000+ rpm pulling setup.
We need to put some sacks of gravel in the back on his car to plant it more solidly for traction, when it passes through 45 to 4800rpm in third gear on boost (about 70mph), the back tires light up and start boiling gotta lift and short shift to try to get it to hook---that toasts the clutch. I told him we need to make a "New Darius Video" but we haven't gotten around to that yet. Haven't gotten the sacks of gravel, either.... LOL
I have said for years what Bob is saying: Stick with the 2.8, and just boost it! Electromotive had 720HP at 7500rpms in 1983, somewhere along the line people forgot how to do that I guess.
-
EXCELLENT IDEA!
Please post a pin-out for the appropriate harness you connected to in your application. I figured this could be easily done after seeing 1 fast Z hack the stock harness for his application.
One thing everybody is forgetting: California has a Visual Inspection Component to their emissions test. One of the primary reasons the cars our age fail (76 through 83) is a bad AFM track or sensor error.
With this adaptor, and some simple tuning, you will have a setup that the smog police will NEVER suspect, a car that responds better, and in the case of equipping the 75-80 cars with an EGO, a car with a mixture that meets the catalytic converters needs more often than not!
Imagine that, a modification that INCREASES PERFORMANCE, and actually in some cases makes the car A GREENER VEHICLE!
Best of both worlds.
I was up for a hack into the stock ECU Box just for S & G's but this little adapter would make it a piece of cake for people who had minimum downtime, or wanted to TRY SOMETHING before buying.
"Here, plug this in and take a ride"---sure you got some sensors and a TPS to play with beforehand, but I think they all will work out fine.
And that Cold Start Injector is now easily activated with a jumper from one of the available I/O's to trigger at WOT for NO2 enrichment.....
-
Gotta Agree with Stony, they are keeping it in the burnout box, not really pushing backwards! Common outside the of USA where litigation doesn't ruin a motorsports event.
Okinawa was just getting a short track when I rotated away, at that time the big spot was out front of the Naval Hospital where RS Okinawa held court and spanked on many comers. Though their Bosch Dyno-Tune sticker only proclaimed 444RWHP at the time.
Then again, that was 1985, using carbs and a stock distributor...
I'm sure things have come forward since then!
-
I'd agree with John, but instead of a silicon adapter upsizing at the T/B, try to make a tapered cone adapter so you impart less turbulence as it enters the EFI plenum through the throttle plate. Shouldn't be that hard of a fab with some of the smaller slip-rollers available now.
There are all sorts of supersonic speeds that you monitor for when designing a piping system, but in practical application the pipe friction and etc arent' as critical as many think. If you are below 300 hp, I wouldn't sweat it at all.
BTW, thanks for the recomendation of the Dyno Shop, John, those guys were great!
-
Yes, the plan is for David to drive the car during the two day event at El Mirage the first weekend in May.
I have just bought a third camera body, as well as lenses and adapter rings to I can try and shoot some decent photos of the car at-speed so you can see the slipstream and dust coming off the back of the vehicle. El Mirage taught us a lot from static photos I took in 99 with my 35mm, I'm looking forward to some better digitals with the Nikon and the 3X and 2X lenses attached.
Hopefully David will get his rookie run on Saturday, and then go for the first record on a second run that day, or most definately the second day! The rookie run is limited to below 3/4 throttle, and under 100mph, but the record we are going for is in the 140's so once the rookie run is made, he will be able to run for the record, and get his speed qualification to 149mph on his second run (this all the time acknowledging the old racre's axiom: 'If it all holds together') This will be exciting, going down in displacement really makes the speeds challenging.
The rocords sought would be (in no particular order): G/PRO, G/ALT, G/GCC etc...
Most are in the high 140's range, and several are held by a sponsored Honda... So knocking that one off will be particularly satisfying! Muahahahaha!
When photos are available, I'll try to get them up somewhere and link to them. Cardomain if nothing else.
Cheers, All!
-
That should have read "there is a manometer reading that must be reached before the carbon cannister admits fuel VAPOR"
Point being that there ARE acceptable amounts of pressure and vacuum that will be present in the gas tank.
In the EARLY cars, the crankcase was the storage for evaporative emissions, and if you have high pressure in the crankcase, it pressurises the tank---especially if the shuttle valve on the left fender well goes south...nothing like acidic crankcase vapors being pumped into the tank....
And the point behind saying that is that EVERYONE in this post has given subjective opinions on what pressure is in there.
Without actually measuring it, and quantifying it, those kind of measurements are useless!
You are taking the right step: MEASURE the pressure buildup, and compare it to what is considered normal.
if you have removed the charcoal cannister, you are going to have to vent it, causing massive HC pollution.
Emissions are not all out the tailpipe, and as a matter of fact tailpipe emissions are not really a factor in HC vehicular emissions any longer thanks to catalyzation. Now evaporative emissions the what they are going after---and it's precisely what you are discussiing bypassing by adding a checkvavle, or open atmospheric vent to the tank!
The charcoal cannister, while being 30 years old, is not a consumable part---it works, and is still in cars today! It does not affect engine performance, but GREATLY decreases emissions from the veihcles when fuel system integrity is maintained properly---there is not any real good reason to remove it.
It is easily relocated to the wheel well if you want to clean up the engine bay.
Having it there is good for us all. The days of short-sighted emissions hacking should have long been done away with. Legislators watch what people do with their cars, and legislate accordingly. All they need is some media type hyping modifications, and here comes legislation. Clean, Mean, and Green is the hotrodders credo today. Responsible ones, anyway.
If we don't police ourselves, trust me, the alternative is someone else like a dimwitted bureaucratic oversight committee legislating draconian measures and killing our hobby...
-
L20A (JDM Block) bored .020" to clean up the rust pits, crank offset ground to destroke to capacity limit of 1998cc's.
E88 Head, worked over...
Tec2 EFI with TWM 45mm ITB's.
Running engine driven fan (to be removed for competition and replaced with electric water pump drive)
Running straight pipes off headers to rear of car (for belly pan use)
Rear Wheel Horsepower Numbers, John Coffee knows the dyno, he recomended it to us (thanks, john!).
195HP at 8750rpms
Torque >125 ft-lbs to over 9300rpms (this is NOT a peak torque number, it's a MINIMUM number for the torque plateau on each end) where it starts to drop off.
We were hoping to make 66% of what the L28 engine made, (shooting for 200, 207RWHP) and we are really close to that. The electric water pump will free up some HP, especially at higher rpms, so on-course horsepower shold be at that number, and should give us the records we seek.
So that's the update!
-
You guys are reinventing the wheel, have you read the applicable FSM portions regarding the pressure limit on the fuel tank? When it's all set up like it's supposed to be, there IS a manometer reading that is applicable to the tank BEFORE the carbon cannister admits fuel, or the crankcase lets those vapors release for storage!
By relieveing this pressure, you are DECREASING the ability of your fuel pump to operate at DESIGNED FLOWRATES! The fuel system is designed to take into account the head produced at maximum pressure before venting, and maximum vacuum before letting air be readmitted to the tank.
If you alter this in any way, chances are good if you have a functional check of your evaporative emissions system for any sort of emissions compliance, you will fail.
You are making a MOUNTIAN out of a Molehill. This is a non-issue!
All EVERYONE in this post has done is give SUBJECTIVE OPINION!
Put a GAUGE on the gas tank, and MEASURE this "massive pressure" and QUANTIFY it before you start reinventing the wheel!
You guys are literally messing with fire? Wh is this such a big issue?
-
What am I missing in the translation here?
Why .6 instead of 1.0mm?
-
The hose is a 15mm CONDUCTIVE rubber hose. -8 will work fine for it if you need it, -10 would be an appropriate size (and technically correct, as well).
Tap the hole, it's easier, the thread on it is a very fine obscure metric equivalent like the banjo bolts in Weber Carbs or the water lines on the turbo.... But a nice NPT runs right down there and solves that problem. So does any of the positionable MS-Jamnutted fittings, as well!
-
Yes, it makes more sense now. From your e-mails I couldn't figure out exactly what you had. Make sure you have the pullup resistors in the circuit, especially on the dissy/cas unit! You can read that signal during cranking with a good meter set to 10VDC. If you got it going in, you will have it coming out. Then you only have to wire that output pullup to make it see the difference in voltage to trigger the HEI unit.
I got my pullups at Rat Shack. I told ya if you asked here they would get you squared away.
Hell, I'm still on Magnus' MS-n-S! I haven't sloved those gremlins, so no sense in going to "E" yet!
Man, idled it for an hour yesterday...Long as the alt doesn't flash and charge, it runs FINE!
Damnable filter circuits...
-
Watch the failure rate on NOx. That compression with standard spark advance will make loads of NOx. Make SURE your EGR system functions properly, and that you have good riser and gallery cleanlienss. Any obstructions in the EGR riser, Valve, or gallery under the intake manifold can cause a failure on NOx---the good old days of turning the spark back a few degrees to pass are gone---more than a degree off and you fail! I agree, get a pretest before you do anything else. I have a car in the back yard right now that the guy sold because it got tagged "Gross Polluter" when it failed the NOx portion of the dyno test, as well as the functional test of the gas cap (cap missing, durrrr!).
A needless tag, looks like they suckered him into the "cold cat test" where they don't adequately light the cat off before running the test. Car passed CO and HC, but failed NOx, could be an EGR riser plugged as well, but there was no need to get tagged "GP" on the test!
-
My eyes were opened this past trip to Europe where I found the Euro Turbo cars DO NOT have ECCS! They have a special pneumatic retard cannister on the stock plain-jane ZX Dizzy, and run what looks to be an N/A style ECU.
They also do not have the Air Regulation valve for idle speed, just a conventional idle speed bypass, a factory blocked EGR, with a downpipe with no casting for the heat riser nor O2 sensor!
Rated at 200hp, they also have a straight pipe with no catalyst...
Lucky bastards!
You can change the drive assembly on the bottom of the distributor to mate with the earlier simple slot drive, but you will have some timing scatter fro the increased lash there---not what I would do.
E-Bay usually has this kind of stuff in abundance.
-
Mine's exactly where Warren's is, in the space behing the T/B, right behind the throttle shaft, no airflow disturbance there.
As for mounting it before the turbo, if you are intercooled perfectly, or even decently, it "shouldn't" make that much a difference. But on a stock setup, you will have some serious density issues as the intake air on even a 60F degree day can be 20 to 40 degrees hotter, depending on speed. I'd not recomend that position to anyone.
-
The stock setup in the car is VERY good, a bit TOO good actually!
Under boost, the crankcase should be evacuated with the restriction the filter causes before the turbo, under vacuum the stock PCV can be restricted to .080 or .063" orifice to prevent too high a vacuum acting on the crankcase and sucking oil up into the inlet.
Adding a supplementary breather box is a good idea, but as long as your rings are intact, the crankcase should never be more than -4" Water Column of pressure.
That is more than enough to evacuate everything you want.
-
Cam, you can get 350 from those 440's by running a tad more fuel pressure. JeffP went to 415 on 440cc injectors and a 4 bar fuel pressure setting at idle.
But you gotta alter the fuel delivery (read "standalone")...
-
I know that Dave' date=' (1tuffZ) did the same swap and he had mentioned that the tank straps are not long enough. From the pictures you posted it looks like the round protruding area on the top of the tank may put the tank lower by about 1". Can you let us know if this will still work with the stock straps?
I have a 1975 tank that I am planning on swapping into my 72 and I want to be sure to have all of the correct parts on hand before I start.
Do you have the straps from the 75 tank too? are they longer then the 240Z straps?
Thanks.[/quote']
The tank straps ARE long enough, but you need the longer J-Bolts to use the stock straps. I haven't tried to use the stock straps with the short bolts, but I doubt it works---you might juuuuust get the threads started, but it will be tough, if that's the case, then once started they thread on easily and will be plenty long, but without tension on them starting them on the short j-bolts is a beyotch! When I saw the long J-Bolts when I snagged the later tank in the JY, I figured I'd snatch them and just cut them down if I needed to in case they were "too long". I didn't need to, thoug the extra length made starting the nuts on them easy peasy lemon squeasy.
Other than routing some of the vapor lines, and getting the nuts started, it's a bolt in that doesn't get much easier.
I swapped my sender over to the newer tank because it uses a different connector on it. Didn't want to hack anything down there---the sending unit ohm values are the same.
Laying the straps down next to each other, they looked similar---so the later cars may have longer bolts for the same reason!
L28et fuel return line
in Nissan L6 Forum
Posted
Yargh! I just realized this was a cross-posted item, it was addressed similarly in the Turbo-Supercharged Forum when originally posted.
And here I thought he was getting the cold shoulder for an easily searchable item... Will John come from the Tool Shed trolling for this one? LOL