
tannji
Members-
Posts
515 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Everything posted by tannji
-
Sure..... for $26000.00 BEFORE installation. That car could easily end up being a $100,000.00 investment before ever seeing a mile of the road. I can think of other things to spend that kind of money on. Not to mention that the $13,000.00 Busa was already two engines mated, so that would end up being 4 engines. With that kind of budget, just go for a 4-rotor and be done already, lol.
-
Might want to go through your PC bios and verify your serial ports are not disabled or improperly setup.
-
I have agree with the consensus here.... your budget and the requirements you list are not feasible. I think Gollum is on the right track with his 1UZ and 3UZ recommedation, where you have to go V8. If you really want to go smaller, go with the little brother of the 1UZ... the 2.7 liter 3RZ-fe. Very strong stock internals, can be built to rev VERY well, and there are existing examples from the 600HP range all the way up to 1500HP. Compromise is that you have to turbo, and it wont be exactly cheap, either.
-
you are not buying a compressor, you are buying a list of places that might have a deal on a compressor.
-
What makes a turbo work (for those who are interested)
tannji replied to zguy36's topic in Turbo / Supercharger
Zguy36.... you reiterated the point I have been making for a long time. I referred to it again by saying a pressure drop is a pressure drop, regardless of the temp. Obviously, there is more energy to be scavenged if you drop pressure at a higher starting temp, but the engine is always going to insure that there is enough pressure to justify the remote turbo. As you point out (and to be fair, STS has been pointing out all along) there is still heat, just not as much as a conventional mount. I believe STS says that the temps average out in the 1200 degree range, compared to a conventional 1700 or so degrees, and that is still plenty hot enough to have an appreciable affect on what is going on. I am familar with why the heat is important in the front mount, but I would love to see a comparitive analysis done based on the fact that both systems on the same power plant will have exactly the same number of molecules hitting the turbine blades. I am wondering what the comparison would show as far as final performance numbers, understanding that it can never be really be an apples to apples setup. I personally am inclined to believe that the frontmount will have a measurable but small advantage in both lag and final HP.... but I really think that it would be smaller than conventional thought would suppose. The only thing resembling empirical data I have is the first impressions of knowledgeable people after driving an STS equipped car for the first time.... they are always impressed, and one of the first things they comment on is the lack of lag, at least as compared to what they were expecting. Everything I have seen or heard leads me to draw a comparison to computer performance. Like car buffs, cumputer buffs (gamers and overclockers) are looking for that last ounce of performance, and arguements rage over methods and efficiencies. When all is said and done, the difference between two similar machines tweaked according to competing "masters" will be something that an unknowing user will never see, feel, or appreciate. (and in reality, much like cars, a better gamer will still win on a "slower" machine) To the average user, fast is fast... and ignoring the smarty-pants that insist on proving STS at the track, STS is still marketed to the average user. -
wow, I like that... but damn, is space at a premium in that car or what?!!?
-
What makes a turbo work (for those who are interested)
tannji replied to zguy36's topic in Turbo / Supercharger
Funny you should mention the Vette, here is an impressive STS Vette: http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=415194 Here is a 1/4 track vid: http://www.learntodragrace.com/mike933.wmv Not exactly what you are talking about budget-wise, but pretty damn impressive. I particularly like the Wheelie = ) -
I also recommend Fluke... with Radioshack being an acceptable option. I was a saleman at Radioshack for a few years, and was pretty realistic about the merits of what we sold. I based an awful lot of my personal opinion upon what knowledgeable people told me after buying and using something.... and I had very few complaints about the mid to high priced DMM's I sold... other than Fluke having slightly better ergonomics, in general.
-
What makes a turbo work (for those who are interested)
tannji replied to zguy36's topic in Turbo / Supercharger
Your quite right, but I was responding to his final statement, more so than the post in particular, and I didnt take what he said as an attack in the slightest, and didnt intend my post to be antagonistic. He said: "I am starting to lose focus on what people are confused about, so please ask me some more questions so I can clarify." I didnt have any questions, but clarified the situation, as I dont think most people who simply like STS are really questioning anything he addressed, so much as others who dont like STS presume. In all reality, most of the people I have talked to or observed in other forums are not confused in the slightest. Many of them have owned, designed, or built nice conventional examples of turboed and SCed cars prior to trying STS... and had some legitimate reasons for liking what STS achieved, with regards to their unique needs or requirements. In all actuality, I think that perhaps the worst press STS will ever get will be from people with no prior experience having STS installed for them, and in their ignorance and delight, embarking on a career of suggesting STS for every situation, which would of course be unfortunate and improper. Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning because I used the term "Devil's Advocate" (either arguing for the sake of arguing, or arguing with the intent of clarifying and purifying a point or position) and thought I was trying to be one in response to Zguy36... I actually meant what I said to him, it was a quality post, and appreciated, but didnt address what I take to be the underlying reason for the the acrimony over STS. -
What makes a turbo work (for those who are interested)
tannji replied to zguy36's topic in Turbo / Supercharger
That was a wonderful depiction and description. It wont solve anything, because it is over some peoples heads, and won't get the attention of some. It also doesnt address those who want to prove that STS remote mount turbos are craptacular, or those who think for certain people in certain situations, the STS system does it's job. The major dispute is over some people trying to hammer home the point that you cant have a turbo system at maximum efficiency (or real world practical approximation of it, at any rate) if the system is remote mount. Some of these people are offended by STS in its entirety, and are under the impression that anyone who uses it or brings it up is advocating it as the answer to every turbo application, as well as being the best possible implementation of cutting edge turbo tech. Some of us just think remote mount is interesting, all the more so because it not only does things so well that it shouldnt, but also because it is fun watching people run through the cyclic litany of whats wrong, and what will go wrong, and why it is inferior. They start out with it's location and the danger of a hot turbo near the gas tank, being exposed to water puddles, taking impacts from speed barriers, and as the intake is attached to the turbo, the danger of particulate and aqueous contamination of the intake. To anyone that has read much of the user feedback on the STS systems, these points turned out to be non-issues for the most part, or had solutions available from STS. So, for those who insist on perpetuating some kind of rivalry between the two methods, the only real option remaining was to take the tack that if STS is selling these systems, they must be held to the same measuringstick as a front mount. Furthermore, many insist on attacking STS for marketing these systems as somehow being more efficient, or at least an appropriate option for the hard-core racing enthusiast. The ONLY statements I have seen that could support this view are some made by people that took their STS-equipped cars to the track and humbled a few non-believers. STS never made any claims that I ever came across. That is the basic dispute, in a nutshell. Being a sucker for both underdogs and opportunities to be a Devil's Advocate, I get involved when I see certain claims or accusations made. To my knowledge, NO ONE who is technically familiar with turbocharging in general and STS in particular is under the impression that the remote mount will ever be more efficient. I would love to see any such claims copied and posted here, as long as they were not obvious ignorant fan-boy rants. Unfortunately, this falls into the same category as flames on FWD VS RWD. Those who hate FWD (to the point of obsession) will never completely appreciate a fast Civic or Sentra. An 8-second Civic is still FWD garbage.... = ) and a 9 or 10-second STS vehicle is still a remote mount that doesnt bow to the Gods: Entropy and Enthalpy. Personally, I respect them both... but there is a mere human-like hero on the scene now called displacement....(Heracles?) and that apparently drives a turbo decently as well. Efficiently... no. But hey... a pressure drop is a pressure drop, and if there is no major negative to using the system, I have no beef with it, and enjoy the consternation it continues to cause. -
I am one of the people comtemplating the 240SX IRS swap... but had not considered the down-side, other than the difficulty of properly doing the swap itself. If the 240SX set-up is not much of an improvement, what is? I am not up to date on this, but someone mentioned the Mazda MX5/Miata double wishbone suspension, which I think is front and rear... I know that some people put some decent horsepower into those cars. Is it on basically stock suspension? What are the limitations? It's is beginning to sound like in order to do this properly, you would have to tube the front clip and start from scratch, which is probably a bit more than I ever want to do. = ) The only thing I have ever read specifically on the MX5 ride handling was in a comparison between the Miata and it's new competitor, the Solstice. If I recall correctly, the writer seemed to think that both cars were basically competent, if not much more, as far as suspension and ride were concerned.
-
Get someone to burn you a copy of their Win98, and install it with your activation number. go to newegg and look for Socket A mother boards and processors for inexpensive, or Socket 939 for modern, I would go with Asus or DFI, MSI in a pinch. If you go Socket A, the Athlon 2600 and 3200 are sood values, and the Athlon 3500 is in a good place (price and performance) for Socket 939. Your memory is either PC100 or PC133. Do to the performance needs of modern Sims, (if you have any) I would drop that old ram, and get DDR 400 or higher, and go with the Socket 939 AMD processor, and a compatible motherboard. Socket A: AMD Athlon 2600 CPU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103417 MSI NF2 Motherboard http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813130512 DDR RAM 512 MB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820156006 Case Raidmax black ATX http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811156018 Power supply for Socket A http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817159008 Socket 939 Socket 939 3500 CPU http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103514 Socket 939 Asus NF4 motherboard (Micro ATX) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813131570 DDR RAM 512 MB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820156006 Case Raidmax black ATX http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811156018 Power supply for Socket 939 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817101508 Note that the socket A NF2 motherboard will have an onboard soundcard that I would use in place of your PCI sound card, unless the card is Creative Audigy 2 or Audigy 2ZS. The socket 939 NF4 motherboard has good sound also, but there it is a toss-up, use onboard for simplicity, or Audigy 2 for better immersion. Both motherboards have onboard network cards that will outperform your PCI cards, unless they are unusually expensive NICs meant for servers. Good luck and let us know if you have any questions = )
-
Who is "You Guys"? = ) I am not confused, but then, I didnt make blanket statements/condemnations, either. My point all along was that no one claimed anything about the STS efficiency, and that everyone who is fixated on heat is forgetting that the engine is going to be chugging away, blowing mass amounts of exhaust, no matter how we argue the heat side of the equation. Exhaust has to go somewhere, or you get shut down by backpressure. STS gives that exhaust, no matter its temp, something productive to do before it culminates its cycle as pollution.
-
Oooo... I know the answer...! I even know part of why, lol. I'll let someone else venture first tho. My main problem with the people that hate STS so much is the fact that they seem to think that heat is the only thing going on, and we must therefore treat heat as the Holy Grail, as the turbo wont work properly if it is dealing with exhaust gasses that are several hundred degrees cooler. Even when you get them to admit, as Gollum finally did, that STS makes no claims to being a better or more efficient system, they lay the claim on the users, but I havent actually seen a discussion anywhere, let alone here, that claimed STS was better than anything else specifically. In my opinion, the "heat" of the arguement comes from people attacking STS systems, and getting too generalized in their criticism, and then taking offense when someone defends the system. I find it most amusing that the people who have the fastest STS-powered cars quite frequently happen to be people who got tired of all the criticism and definitive statements by people (who almost without exception have never driven or owned a STS system) and decided to take their own money and effort and see where it would take them. 11 and 12 second trucks and 9 and 10 second F-bodies based on non-radical STS setups says this: your front mount is more efficient, and your internet postings are more strident.... and STS owners dont care.
-
If you are getting tired, take a rest. The turbo would spin if we manually rotated the engine with no spark whatsoever. The Turbo is spinning whether or not you are taking advantage of some of the heat by-product or not. A system that sizes the nozzle to use the volumetric increase in exhaust gasses is scavenging extra power, and is more efficient than one that does not, in the same situation. The change of volume from heat is not what spins the turbo.... but it does with the proper outlet spin the turbo better. Just as a remote mount, with the proper outlet, spins the turbo better than it would with a larger outlet. Its two different systems, in different locations, with different variables... and intended for different applications. STS makes an otherwise stock car go faster, as does a front mount. STS does it a little easier for some people. If you have a front mount, you try to manage the heat by-product efficiently. If you rear mount, you try to manage a denser charge efficiently. Who cares which is more efficient? Ya, in some ways the front mount is more efficient. Who cares? For some people the rear mount is more practical. Religeous and Political discussions are banned here now, and this is why. People insist on comparing apples and oranges.... My apple and I dont care if your orange has more vitamin C.... I like apples, and they both qualify as a healthy snack. Heat is a byproduct..... and ya, it IS consequential.... but a turbo that is rear mounted compensates for lost heat and volume by efficiently using whats left to it: a cooler dense exhaust. If the STS system were worthy of the @#$%-storm over how inefficient it was.... it wouldnt be selling and performing very well.... and there would be countless posts from disgruntled users, many of whom are previous owners of either front mount turbos or super chargers. They are happy with their change.... and they dont typically run around trying to tell everyone they have a superior product, but they will generally tell you how happy they are with its performance, and thats all that really matters.
-
I read the other thread as well.... moving your static system example here was a good idea. What I dont like about that example is that it implies that that heat is the most necessary component, when it is a by-product of combustion that turbo system engineers have very cleverly compensated for, and even turned into a mostly positive factor. What is important is velocity... no matter how you look at any of the popular equations. (which are almost universally intended for describing static systems, not dynamic.) The change in size between inlet and outlet nozzle create more velocity, and if the extra volume from heat becomes too great, you have to use a larger outlet, to avoid back-pressure. STS systems use that same adjustment in reverse, going to a smaller outlet to increase velocity, without much concern over excessive back-pressure, because they have a cooler, denser charge. You get pressure in either system, because the engine is pumping volume. Either system has it's pros and cons. Conventional Turbo kits will usually be slightly more expensive and complicated. (mechanicals and plumbing) They are hotter, and while that can be used productively, it is also a concern that has to be planned around, at some expense. STS system kits are slightly cheaper on average, much easier to install on average, are much easier on the degradeable materials under your hood, and much easier to revert from. Either system, in an all-out race car where you are trying to max your performance, becomes expensive and requires similar funding and tuning. Both systems have disadvantages that have to be compensated for. Bottom line, they are intended (by Squires) for different customers than conventional systems. I have read about them as much as anyone else here is likely to have done, and never come across a claim (by Squires) that they were more efficient. I have seen one statement that could be mis-construed as such a claim, and that was that their turbo handled the cooler, denser exhaust more efficiently, but they also noted that their turbo would not be appropriate in a conventional location. Both systems work.... I just cant figure out what the fixation on STS being inferior is all about. There are well engineered cars out there runing 9 and 10 second passes on STS systems. There are fanboys that think because it is new and easy to install, it must be better. There are other fanboys that have to bash, because it is unconventional. The bashers miss two important facts; It works well, and it was not intended, nor does Squires market it as either more efficient, or better suited for competitive race setups than a conventional mount. Your final point was: "Sure thier system creates power and it's very reliable, but I'd never use it in any serious engine simpley because the same parts can make more power with more heat." First, I imagine your definition of a "Serious Engine" is similar to mine, and that is not who Squires is targeting. Second, we are not talking the same parts here. The turbo certainly is designed with a different outlet, and the average STS user probably doesnt have a IC. FWD is not better than RWD, Diesel is not better than gasoline, and more precisely, Apples are not better than Oranges, if that's not too fine of a point.
-
That garage rocks... similar to one I am looking at now. (attached to a house we are also looking at, can you tell which one matters to me? = ) This garage is set up 2x2, with a 2 garage doors out front, and a single offset door out the back. Even better, it is attached to the house by a 10'x14' breezeway.... so I think sound will be a very minor issue. Downside is that the lot is 3/4 acre, and the folks liked lawns and landscaping. I am convincing the family that we need a concrete utility pad for basketball and such, with some trails around it for bikes. Figure that will eliminate at least a 3rd of the mowing, and I am not out of ideas for the rest.... = ) I think I would actually put in a curtain wall or something similar to separate parking from workshop, and allow heating and AC to be a little more reasonable.
-
Ya, as I said, I was assuming re-using all the practical stuff, except for power supply, but for someone who isnt going all out for components and overclocking, a decent but cheap case will come with an acceptable PS. I have used the 6200 card in a rig I built on the cheap for a friend.... wont do that again... yanked it and put in a 6600GT. That puts the HP and my suggestion in the same ballpark, price-wise. (Other than some very good parts in my list) The point of not getting another AGP board is, your already buying a board, for basically the same price might as well not lock youself into tech that is already on the fading edge of current manufacturing. AGP will run the same speed as PCI Express... but only assuming similar cards... which are getting harder to find, and I think both Nvidia and ATI have produced their final "New" AGP products, which while good, are already providing limited performance on the newer DX9 games. I tend to build what I can afford (think about your budgets for car modding and read into that what you like, lol) and then upgrade the darn box till it wont upgrade anymore. My current rig is Socket A, and it gets old building machines for people that are several generations better than my own... = )
-
Ya, was there last week helping a relative look for an affordable PC/Laptop. Great for a student or basic home PC, useless if you like to play games that are DX8 or better. The OP is apparently at least a casual gamer, and I covered that need earlier in the post. Quoting myself: ""As others pointed out, there are computers available for $300 or so. Everyone of these computers will be as powerful if not considerably more powerful than your maximum upgrade to the current motherboard. I think it was mentioned that you game to some extent... so that becomes a concern as well, because in either case you have graphics issues. Your older motherboard is at the very end of its life, as far as supporting modern hard-core games goes, and most of the $300 new machines cant even be upgraded to a discrete video card that will support most games. (you have to have an available AGP or PCIE slot, which very few of the cheap computers have, most go for integrated graphics, which is the equivalent of a 12 volt, electric turbo.)""
-
This is just me speaking, on my own personal preferences. If you are under a tight budget, test the motherboard to make certain it wasn't taken out by the processor. (It happens fairly frequently) AGP is on it's way out, although not yet gone... Nvidia just released the 6800GS. That being said, with your motherboard, there is a good chance it is old enough to be incompatible with current AGP8X vid cards. If the motherboard is good, the latest Socket A processors are mostly under $100. Top of the line AGP Vid card is right about $200. Installing with current hard drive is very doable.... and not too difficult... but definitely not a high percentage way to go. Take any number of the prior suggestions, as long as they involve an additional harddrive to install to. Counter-point: No matter how tight of a budget you are under.... updating your current equipment is coming very close to throwing your money away. As others pointed out, there are computers available for $300 or so. Everyone of these computers will be as powerful if not considerably more powerful than your maximum upgrade to the current motherboard. I think it was mentioned that you game to some extent... so that becomes a concern as well, because in either case you have graphics issues. Your older motherboard is at the very end of its life, as far as supporting modern hard-core games goes, and most of the $300 new machines cant even be upgraded to a discrete video card that will support most games. (you have to have an available AGP or PCIE slot, which very few of the cheap computers have, most go for integrated graphics, which is the equivalent of a 12 volt, electric turbo.) So, what to do? If money is really tight, test your motherboard and do the minimum to get it running again, while saving for a proper replacement PC. Assuming only the CPU went south, you can replace it for under $100. The replacement PC could be a pre-assembled job, as long as its from a reputable company, and as long as it it supports either AGP, or much more preferably, PCIE graphics. That will probably run you a little more than the $300 minimum we have discussed, but will allow for upgrading on the timetable your wallet demands. The other route would be to buy components for a scratch build, using core components from your existing PC. CD-rom, hard drive, floppy drive, monitor, keyboard, mouse. Memory stick, vid card, processor, power supply and such are probably not viable to carry over. Minumum new parts: Case $50 CPU $166 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103535 Memory 512MB DDR $38 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145026 Mother board $63 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813128286 Vid card $129 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150098 Total: $446 plus shipping, figure $50 $500 gets you a nice pc that will do everything you want NOW, and be upgradeable for a few years as well. Well, forgot operating system, another $140 if you do not have some flavor of XP laying around. Sorry for the novel, hope this either helps or adds some perspective to your situation.... = )
-
I have to admit that I am of two minds about your new Assets.... your car has long been one of my favs on this sight, along with the BlueOval and others... I STILL find myself pausing to admire your sig when you post. So, I have to mourn the passing of the pre-surgical girl a bit. That being said, like most "Enhanced Assets", the new look will certainly drop some jaws. I cant wait till you have it "finished".... as the "WIA@I" syndrome seems strong with you, and I have always been of the opinion that that rear (YZ) "needs something"..... it is a great starting point, but needs finishing touches to make it not only unique, but complete. Hope you can see your way thru what I just wrote to the sincere compliments I intended.... = ) I admired the old girl and cant wait to see the new one doing her thing. tannji
-
Definitely!! The mounts are great, congratz! But as I am not looking at LS1 anymore, please consider sharing some of your WRX rack notes, would be greatly appreciated... = ) tannji
-
Someone jump on this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1996-1UZ-FE-Toyota-Lexus-V8_W0QQitemZ8008597906QQcategoryZ33615QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
-
ouch.... seen from the front, it looks like a RX8 wannabe.... which I wouldnt. Too bad, that model deserves far better design than this.
-
I Im upset and Im sure you guys will understand!!
tannji replied to a topic in Gen I & II Chevy V8 Tech Board
Sorry to hear about your loss Traub.... I am in the QC also, and this place is getting worse all the time for petty (and not so petty) theft. Our Garage was broken into this spring, fortunately we only lost a bike that was a 2 week old B-day gift.... all tools and the Z were untouched. Hopefully you get fully compensated and back on track with the project.... heck, I know almost no one here, I would love to kill a beer and turn a wrench with ya, been a long time since I was around a project that was nearing completion. Not to sidetrack the "just deserts" nature of the thread, but what is your project? Other than 1979 and newer, I have seen exactly 3 Z's in the QC in the past 4 years, other than my 240Z.... Cant tell ya how happy I am to know I am not alone here, lol. tannji