bradyzq

Thanks for the info about Sidedraft Central. I joined (though I had to sell my soul to Yahoo in the process) and read the White Paper. It was very enlightening. The e-tube removal test doesn't test when the mains kick in. It shows when they NEED to kick in. Whether they actually do kick in or not is dependent on the setup, and is tested by the WOT test at low RPM you mentioned. You must have to floor (with e-tubes back in) it at about 1200RPM in at least 3rd, probably 4th. Not many Webers are set up well enough to do that with no spitting! You'd have to lug it long enough for the accelerator pump contribution to dissipate. I'm scared to think how my setup would fare in these tests.

You said "idle/progression circuit's true contribution." I said "how far you can get on idle and progression only." Pretty much the same thing. Basically, I guess I'm saying that if there was a vote to cast, I would vote for zredbaron's method.

I find this method perplexing. The emulsion tubes' job is control the onset of the mains. How can one test the onset point by removing the very part that is designed to control it? It seems to me that the test you describe simply tells you how far you can get on idle and progression only. It won't tell you when, how much, and how quickly the mains come on.

Not exactly an answer to your question, but you are pretty much at the limit of those 180cc injectors, assuming you're running 3 bar fuel pressure. Having said that, you're near the POWER limit of those injectors, which would not be an issue under 4100RPM. As a dyno owner/operator/tuner guy who uses tailpipe WBO2 probes most of the time, I can tell you it makes basically no difference where the probe is once there is significant flow out the exhaust. On most cars, even at idle, you can get correct readings. Though if you have a 5 inch exhaust tip or something of the sort, expect false lean readings until the flow is there. Since you also tried another location in the header and got the same results (BTW why didn't the dyno shop use that bung for the testing?) the only thing I can think of would be an exhaust leak at the header that introduces fresh air and therefore more oxygen. So, assuming the car is leak-free, mechanically and electrically sound (and that the Innovate WB you used in the header was correctly calibrated), then IMO there really isn't anything other than the ECU to blame! With a real 15.7:1 AFR at WOT, you're probably leaving a lot on the table. You should probably feel it's missing something. HTH.

Examples of 6 (or 5!) cylinders with ONE turbo include the following too: Nissan 300ZX Nissan Skyline Toyota Supra Audi S2/RS2/S4/S6 Volvo S80 BMW 135i Porsche 911 The BMW 135i Twin Turbo actually spools more slowly than the BMW 135i single turbo, and makes less power too. Basically, I'm saying that with turbo technology today, there is no need for twin turbos. A properly sized single has no downside.

Once again, an F54 block and an N42 head are not a stock combination. However, it may end up internally duplicating an N42 head / N42 block combo. With dished pistons (if they are the usual 10.9cc dish) you have a low compression engine which is not making good use of your cam. It should be able to take some boost, though how much is really dependent on the tune.

An F54 block with an N42 head is not a stock combination. So, basically someone put together that engine. Who know what pistons are in there, or crank or rods?

Oops, I thought you had the laptop programmable XDI2: http://www.distributorless.com/products/xdi2.php Sounds like you have the XDI. You can still swap out the MAP sensor for a TPS on the XDI and dial in some advance under cruise conditions. You just won't have the flexibility of the XDI2. You'd likely have to tweak your base advance curve upwards by a couple of degrees since the TPS will probably never read 5Volts at WOT (maybe 4.4 or so, depending) like the MAP sensor would at sea level.

I see that Electromotive does not explicitly offer a TPS load option. You can either wire in a TPS instead of the MAP sensor. It will still give a 0-5Volt signal to the ECU. That will work fine. Or, you can wire in a TPS via the External Timing Control pin (pin 13 orange) and use that. I am very interested in this side of Weber optimization. They should be able to be tuned to be VERY drivable, maybe not always with a lot of power, but at least pretty smooth everywhere.

I imagine that with an aggressive cam overlap, you don't make much vacuum under the best of circumstances, so there would be a very limited MAP range to tune in. Have you tried using TPS (Throttle Position Sensor) as your load source instead? It will certainly give you more resolution to tune on the load axis. There may still not be much gain to be had, but at least you'll have optimized the setup. It's what I plan on doing when I get a Megajolt on my Z.

Our rad hoses aren't the most complex out there. What I've done in the past is take the original hoses to your FLAPS (friendly local auto parts store) and try to find a match, focussing on the curves only. If you find one that works but is too long, just cut it to size. Of course this doesn't help you in your search for silicone replacements, but it may point you towards a more common application, which will hopefully have a silicone option. Wishful thinking, I know. But that's what I'd do.

Couple of questions: Is your alternator belt tight and not slipping? Why would you want to limit your 105 amp alternator to 80 amps with a fuse? Not that you should need that much current.... 50 amps for 2 fuel pumps MAX 25 amps each, probably more like 15 amps each 12 amps for 6 hi-Z injectors, 10 amps guesstimate for Megasquirt and coil, probably too high. total 70ish amps Do you have an electric rad fan? If so, at what temp does it come on? It's too late now, but really, the dyno is the perfect place to diagnose this type of problem. You can do pulls while measuring voltage at the battery, at the alternator, at the Megasquirt, wherever. My guess and hope for you is that the belt is too loose and/or old and glazed. Maybe the pulley is worn too and the belt bottoms out in the groove, providing less friction. I'm actually surprised this isn't seen more often. These pulleys are 40-ish years old! BTW, what's up with the drop to 28inches of vacuum as you start your run?

It should be 170-185psi. Check cam timing/timing chain slack, maybe? The numbers are pretty even, so it may just be worn out.

Being involved with Audis more than Datsuns lately, have you considered the 2.7T V6? They are great engines that can make 375HP at (all four of) the wheels with bolt-ons only. If you can find one that already has the upgraded K04 turbos on it, the only thing you would have to worry about is eliminating the DBW throttle body. Everything else is typical engine swap stuff. Anyways, just another option, and a V6 could sit further back than other options (except maybe the 13B).

Vipec / Link rock too!

What ECU do you have now? On the face of it, your question makes no sense. If you've already installed a custom ECU, as in NOT p-n-p, it means you've done some custom wiring. Which means p-n-p should be out of the question. So, there must be some missing info. Ahh, unless you mean you have a tuned stock ECU. I vote for Haltech. They actually have real tech support if you need it. In my experience, AEM has been sorely lacking in that department. As for the products themselves, Haltech's better IMO.

Rayaapp, Not sure what you're asking about anymore... Do you still want options for a crank trigger distributor setup? If so, might I suggest a Megasquirt configured for a 36-1 trigger wheel (like EDIS) and running a distributor. They can do this. Use a normal coil. No EDIS module needed. The Megasquirt can be equipped with its own internal ignitor. All you'd have to do is lock the distributor advance and do what you describe above. You can always file down (narrow) the rotor tip. You only need about 15-20 degrees of arc at the rotor tip. That will give you a 30-40 degree range of available ignition timing. 5 to 45 degrees timing should do it, right? You really shouldn't have to worry about arcing to the wrong distributor cap post, either. For example, on a rotor that is 1" from center to tip (which is pretty much exactly the case for a 240Z rotor), the width of the rotor tip could be a little less than 3/8". Oh, yeah. If you want, you can just ignore the fuel side of the Megasquirt and use it for ignition only...

As a dyno owner and ECU tuner, I just don't understand this approach. Maybe it's a case of "When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail." The solution is always "Get a good ECU and tune!" I would suggest you build the engine you want and mate it to an engine management system that's flexible enough to make it run well. Megasquirt will do this. So will any other standalone ECU that can control ignition and fuel. If it's too complicated for _you_ to implement, find a good ECU/dyno tuning shop in your area and pay them to install and tune it. IMO, mixing and matching engine parts to achieve a setup that will run OK using a 35 year old primitive fuel-only ECU and a distributor with a non-adjustable advance curve (well, aside from shifting the whole curve up or down) is most definitely NOT the smart way to proceed. Probably the most inexpensive way to do it RIGHT is to install a Megasquirt 2 with EDIS-6 ignition from most 90's Fords. With this setup, you ditch the distributor (and air flow meter) completely, and have infinite adjustability of timing and fueling. It is a setup that is well documented (and supported with neat bolt-on adapters etc) elsewhere on hybridz. The Ford parts are inexpensive at a scrapyard, and the Megasquirt isn't expensive either. Regardless of engine setup, a programmable ECU when properly tuned will give even a stock 280Z a performance boost.

For any Audi transmission fit/compatibility issues, you need to know this guy: Scott DeWitt at http://www.advancedautomotion.com It's what he does. He's got a very good reputation in the Audi community. And he's only 200 miles away from the OP in Corpus Christi. No affiliation, couldn't pick him out of a lineup, etc.

Apparently sold for $2K!

I cannot emphasize this enough. Even Motec and Pectel (two of the top players in the engine management game) do not offer direct injection solutions. Electromotive most certainly does not. Do NOT swap in this RS4 engine until you have nailed down the engine management issue. You can't just convert an FSI engine to port injection either, so keep that in mind too.

I have an urQ too. Neat cars! Are you sure he's swapping in an FSI 4.2 V8 from an RS4? The S4 of the same year was not FSI.

There are VERY few standalone ECUs that can control direct injection (FSI). I think Adaptronic is the only one that has that engine up and running unmodified. A swap like this would not be a task for the faint of heart! And if you managed to get a working stock ECU, you would still have to contend with a drive-by-wire throttle. Even though this is a great-sounding high-revving quad cam V8, I would suggest giving it a pass. If you absolutely want an Audi V8, I suggest sourcing an Audi V8 (that's the actual model of the car) from 1990-94 (I think). The vast majority of them out there seem to be 90-91s. They had 3.6L V8s, and the later ones 4.2s. Still neat motors, and they're pretty much free. You can find whole cars with bad trannies or hydraulics for under a grand. They have conventional port injection and can be run off a standalone easily, if you don't want the stock ECU.

http://www.frpautomotive.com/index.html

Sorry, but speaking of misinformation, there is some in your post: If you're going 20mph at 5000RPM, you're going 24mph at 6000RPM in the same gear, wheelspin notwithstanding. No two ways about it. Same here, 15mph @5000 = 18mph@6000. Actual numbers for a 4.11:1 diff and a T5 or Z 4-speed are about double these numbers. What you've just described here is the car with the 4.11:1 diff accelerating MUCH harder than the car with the 3.36:1 diff. If it goes from 5k to 6k in less than half the time with a diff ratio less than 25% higher, it's accelerating, or "acquiring speed," harder, way harder. Assuming straightline acceleration, I don't want to spend MORE time doing anything. Which car would you rather have, the one that spends 9 seconds in boost on a 10second 1/4 mile pass, or the one that spends 13 seconds in boost on a 14 second pass? The difference in torque (which is effectively acceleration) between 3.36:1 diff and a 4.11:1 diff is 22%, as in you get 22% more torque to the ground in any given gear with the 4.11:1 diff. If you can break a car with the 3.36:1 diff loose, well, of course, with 22% more available torque, you'll do the same with the 4.11:1 equipped car too. I'm simply saying that depending on the turbo/overall setup/intended use, one shouldn't dismiss the 4.11:1 diff outright.